Appeals court upholds unprofessional conduct finding against Edmonton vet

Court of Appeal at the Edmonton Law Courts building, in Edmonton on June 28, 2019. (Jason Franson / The Canadian Press)

The Alberta Court of Appeal has upheld decisions against Dr. Ignacio Tan III by the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA).

Tan was found guilty of unprofessional conduct by an AVMA tribunal.

In a separate decision the AVMA imposed sanctions against him and ordered him to pay certain costs pertaining to the hearing.

Tan appealed both decisions.

Background

A family brought their cat to Tan in June 2020 while he was a registered veterinarian at the Mercy Animal Hospital in Edmonton.

According to court documents, Tan sedated the cat, performed a procedure, and discharged the cat the same day.

Two days later the cat was readmitted to the clinic, where it died.

The owners requested the cat be individually cremated, but instead it was cremated communally.

When the owners went to pick up the cat’s remains, they were presented with a container of communally cremated ashes and told it was the remains of their cat.

Upon checking with the crematorium, the owners learned the cat had been communally cremated.

After being unable to get a satisfactory answer from Tan about why the cat had not been individually cremated the owners filed a complaint with AVMA.

Hearing and sanctions

On May 1, 2024, an AVMA tribunal found Tan guilty of four counts of unprofessional conduct, including:

• failing to have a dedicated anesthetist present during the cat’s procedure;
• failing to create or maintain appropriate medical records in regards to the cat;
• failing to provide accurate information about their cat’s remains; and
• failing to communicate with clients to address their concerns.

On July 11, 2024, the following sanctions were issued:

• a written reprimand;
• a 60-day suspension;
• an order to complete 25 hours of continuing education relating to anesthesiology;
• an order to complete a course on communication in veterinary medicine; and
• an order to pay 50 per cent of the costs of the investigation and hearing up to $42,500.

Appeal

In his appeal, Tan argued that the sedation performed on the cat was not deep sedation and thus did not require the presence of a dedicated anesthetist.

The appeals court upheld AVMA’s decision that Tan’s use of dexmedetomidine, ketamine and butorphanol was deep sedation, and should have been performed by a dedicated anesthetist.

The court also upheld AVMA’s finding that there were “significant deficiencies, gaps, and confusing information,” in the cat’s file.

“In the circumstances, there was a substantial departure from the expected standards of practice that amounted to unprofessional conduct,” the written decision says.

The appeals related to the lack of communication and failure to provide accurate information were also dismissed.

“There was evidence the appellant directed his staff to screen calls so he could avoid the clients,” the written decision says.

“The hearing tribunal found this constituted unprofessional conduct. The council upheld these findings and rejected the argument that this allegation had to be stayed.”

The court found that Tan had the right to appeal the costs, and that issue was remitted to AVMA for reconsideration.

In 2023 Tan admitted to 18 allegations of unprofessional conduct and was sanctioned by AVMA in connection to the death of a dog.

He was fined $5,000 and ordered to pay costs in the amount of $8,000.

The AVMA found Tan “guilty of unprofessional conduct in the areas of medical management, informed consent, communication with clients, hospitalization, responsible veterinarian duties, failure to refer, and medical records.”

Tan was also found guilty by AVMA in four other cases in 2023 and was slated to appear in front of the association in several other cases, including the one pertaining to the cat.