Review clears dog research at London, Ont. hospital, but critics say issue is ethical

St. Joeseph’s released its third-party review of animal testing following last summer’s dog research controversy. CTV’s Reta Ismail reports.

A series of independent reviews into controversial dog experiments at St. Joseph’s Health Care London have found no violations of animal care standards, but animal rights advocates say the reviews fail to address broader ethical concerns.

A special assessment into dog-based cardiac research at St. Joseph’s Health Care London cleared the program of animal welfare breaches.

“The review found that our animal research is compliant with all ethical, professional, and regulatory standards,” said Roy Butler, president and CEO of St. Joseph’s Health Care London. “It also looked at whether the research we were doing on dogs was scientifically justified and valid. And the answer to that was yes.”

The reports, made public Thursday, include an independent review of animal research at the hospital’s Lawson Research Institute, a review by Western University’s Animal Care Committee, a special assessment by the Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC), and an inspection report from the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agribusiness.

The third-party report follows earlier reviews conducted last fall by Western University’s Animal Care Committee and the Canadian Council on Animal Care.

Investigators reviewed records, conducted site visits, and interviewed staff. They concluded the dogs had appropriate bedding, enrichment toys and socialization programs.

While the report cleared the research team of wrongdoing, it identified communication gaps between Lawson Research Institute and Western University, particularly around public transparency.

“The review also had a couple of recommendations for us,” Butler said. “One was to say, although you weren’t doing it secretively, could you have been more transparent about the work they were doing to the general public? And the recommendation was, yes, we could be more transparent about that work going forward.”

The reports

• Canadian Council on Animal Care Special Assessment Report
• Western Animal Care Committee Report
• Lawson Research Institute Third-Party Review

The research program has since been halted and the remaining dogs have been transferred for adoption.

Animal rights organization Animal Justice says the reviews focused on whether rules were followed, not whether the experiments should have taken place.

“Nobody has ever alleged that this case was problematic because they didn’t follow the rules,” said Camille Labchuk, executive director of Animal Justice. “Animal Justice didn’t even file a legal complaint with authorities because we didn’t believe any laws were broken. The issue that I think the rest of the public in Ontario came to agree with us on was that these experiments never should have been conducted in the first place.”

Arthur Brown, head of Western’s Animal Care Committee, said he understands public outrage over the use of dogs in research but stressed the work’s importance.

“I can’t imagine a person who wouldn’t feel bad for the dogs,” Brown said. “But at the same point, you have to also recognize that stopping the research also has the ethical consequence of perhaps slowing down the research and thereby increasing human suffering.”

Brown said the research was clinically relevant and contributed to advances in cardiac imaging used worldwide.

“The dogs were necessary because their anatomy mirrors the human to the best extent, and other animal models just don’t do it,” he said.

Animal Justice also criticized the oversight structure, calling the Canadian Council on Animal Care a non-profit body without legal enforcement power. The group said the reviews were conducted only after public scrutiny forced the program to shut down.

“Anyone who did a third-party review was coming in sometime after the fact, after the hospital had every opportunity to make changes,” Labchuk said. “In the case of the third-party review, they didn’t visit the hospital until December 2025, which is after almost all of the dogs were gone.”

Brown rejected concerns about reviewer independence.

“The argument that these people doing the reviews already have a hand in it. I don’t think that was true for many of the people doing the review,” he said. “Some of them were public…past inspectors with the Humane Society. The fact that some are involved is necessary because you need people that understand the work and know what an animal and a study looks like.”

Proposed provincial legislation is now being discussed that would ban certain experiments on dogs and cats.

St. Joseph’s says it is working to improve transparency moving forward. The two recommendations outlined in the review must be addressed by February of next year.