Brief Summary

The member attended the client’s property to perform dentistry on a horse and detected complicated issues requiring extra dental work and sedation. The member did not contact the client before proceeding with treatment. While the horse was sedated, the member kicked and repeatedly punched and hit the horse. The member advised the client the horse had required extra sedation due to aggressive and frustrating behaviour, suggesting this could be due to insufficient exercise, or activity in the barn. The member did not discuss the horse’s dental issues with the client and failed to recommend future treatment or record a plan for future treatment.

The client subsequently viewed video recordings which showed the member kicking and repeatedly punching and hitting the horse. The client posted one video on social media, without identifying the member. The member posted a message on his clinic’s Facebook page where he discussed the video, his conduct, and some of the issues that arose during treatment. 

Other incidents were shared indicating different times when the member punched a horse on the side of the head, punched another horse between the eyes, and hit a horse in the head with a metal drill and floating tools, while also punching, shoving, hitting, and yelling at the horse.

Allegations of Professional Misconduct

• kicked and repeatedly punched and hit a horse
• failed to advise the client of what occurred during treatment, including his conduct, or inform the client of the horse’s dental issues and condition
• breached his confidentiality obligations by disclosing confidential information on social media
• hit, punched, and otherwise assaulted and/or abused three other horses
• failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession
• revealed information concerning a client, an animal or any professional service performed for an animal, to any person other than the client or another member treating the animal except in accordance with the regulations
• failed to make or retain the records required by the regulation
• an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine, that having regard to the circumstances, would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional
• conduct unbecoming a veterinarian

Decision

The member was found guilty of professional misconduct. 

Penalty

• Reprimand
• Six months suspension
• Completion of remediation which includes courses in anger and stress management, equine restraint and behaviour, including chemical restraint for dental procedures; and client confidentiality/professional social media usage in line with College expectations
• Post-suspension practice monitoring monthly for one year
• The member must pay costs to the College of $103,698.38.

Panel's Reasoning

The panel received evidence from nine witnesses, including two experts and the member, and also received several documents and security camera video footage.

An expert witness indicated the member’s conduct  fell below the standard of care and failed to maintain the minimum practice standard for humane handling and restraint of an animal. The expert found the member’s records were thorough and complete, except they did not include a plan for future encounters, and the dental record wasn’t shared with the client. Further, the expert found the information the member shared on social media breached the standard to maintain confidentiality.

In reviewing the cases involving the other horses, the expert found punching and hitting a horse in the head fell below the standard of practice.

On the allegation the member kicked and punched the horse, the panel found the allegation was proven. The panel recognized the member’s conduct may have been influenced by stress. However, veterinarians must uphold the standards of the profession, regardless of personal circumstances. Additionally, the panel found the member did not speak to the client about the horse’s dental issues and condition.

Further, the panel found the member breached his confidentiality obligations by disclosing confidential information on social media. The panel recognized the member was in a challenging position in responding to information the client had shared publicly, which led to an attack on him and his staff through social media. Veterinarians are held to a high standard of professionalism, including the duty to maintain client confidentiality.

With regard to the allegations concerning the other horses, the panel did not find these allegations were substantiated.

The panel concluded the member engaged in professional misconduct in failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, revealing confidential information, an act that would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, and conduct unbecoming a veterinarian. The panel found the member did not engage in professional misconduct in relation to records.

The panel found the member’s conduct would reasonably be regarded as dishonourable and unprofessional.  He repeatedly engaged in improper physical contact with the horse as an outlet for his frustration. The public entrusts veterinarians with proper care of their animals. The member’s behaviour in striking the horse violated that expectation and was morally reprehensible. 

The panel also noted the member’s behaviour had an adverse impact on the client, who was motivated to bring the member’s misconduct as a veterinarian to the public’s attention.  In the panel’s view, the member’s conduct in this case tarnished the reputation of the profession.

Decision

Since 2024, decisions have been posted on the CanLII website, the Canadian Legal Information Institute. A complete copy of this decision is available on CanLII.