College Of Veterinarians of Ontario

This institution does not protect the public from veterinarians who perform well below practice standards. Even when the complaints committee determines that important standards have been breached by veterinarians and even when animals are harmed or die due to the actions of such veterinarians, offending vets seldom receive anything more than mildly worded written “advice”. Almost entirely lacking in transparency, the CVO does not post information about negligent, substandard veterinarians on the public register, unless the veterinarians have been disciplined. Few are disciplined. As a result, members of the public lack critical information they could use to protect themselves and their animal friends. Be sure to ask any vet you see about the risks, dangers, and alternatives to a procedure that he or she wants to perform on your pet. Resist any tendency to decide based on “trust”. You are wise not to trust. Vets are required to inform you about the risks, dangers, and alternatives; they are legally required to have you provide written informed consent. However if they do not inform you, and even if the written informed consent is lacking in your pet’s file (because one was never signed), there will be no consequence for the vet. Likewise, if your pet is to be anesthetized, he or she is to be monitored and critical values related to heart rate, oxygenation, and blood pressure are to be recorded every every 5-10 minutes in an anesthesia monitoring record. Such a record is required of vets. Again, however, if no record is made and therefore nowhere to be found in your pet’s medical file (and your companion animal dies), the veterinarian will more than likely receive nothing but “advice”—even when the complaints committee has noted the absence of the form. Sadly, the public is entirely on its own when it comes to vets who have been found performing below standard. It has no way of knowing about dangerous vets because of the lack of transparency of this organization. My opinion, having lost a pet to a negligent vet, evidently guilty of misconduct (even abnormal blood test results were not communicated—though CVO policy is ostensibly that a vet is to communicate and provide an explanation for such results) is that the CVO is a sham regulatory body. Its actions indicate that it is far more invested in protecting members who should not be shielded than it is in doing the right thing: holding substandard vets accountable for the sake of defenceless animals and the public. The CVO needs to grasp that the public demands more: transparency and accountability. Concerned pet owners, if they have the means, are advised to seek legal recourse in order to achieve some measure of accountability. The CVO is not there to serve the public. It creates standards and policies but quite evidently has little interest in enforcing them. Last word: appalling.
7 years ago (22-03-2018)

You know what you did. Any readers curious, look up Mahavir Singh Rekhi
7 years ago (29-04-2018)

A crime against animals is a crime against mankind and society, and is evidence of no regard for any living being, but even more abhorrable because these little animals were more helpless. It is my view that the CVO needs to raise the bar by instilling tougher penalties and holding despicable veterinarians such as Dr. R more accountable. This veterinarian is a disgrace to the profession and I wish him exiled to No-Man's Land. I no longer feel safe leaving my pet alone with any veterinarian.
7 years ago (02-02-2018)

CVO is protecting veterinarians that abuse animals just like skyway animal hospital
7 years ago (02-05-2018)

1. The College of Vets doesn't investigate because they don't know HOW to investigate. 2. Would you strip someones license-- a fellow licensed colleague when they pay you $2K+ a year to be licensed to your association. NOT. 0/5
7 years ago (05-03-2018)