I never thought I would be writing this.
After losing Chloe, I eventually decided that if another dog came into my life, I would try to adopt through a rescue.
I filled out applications.
I answered questions.
I spoke with foster families.
At one point, I found what felt like an almost perfect little dog.
Osiris was a five-pound Chihuahua mix being fostered in Ottawa.
He was affectionate, house-trained, playful, low-energy and looking for an adult home.
I was willing to make the long drive from Oshawa to Ottawa and pay the adoption fee.
His foster mother and I had a wonderful conversation. She gave me information about him that I genuinely appreciated.
Then my application was declined.
And that rejection sent me down a rabbit hole I never expected to enter.
The record stated 2017
The rescue contacted Chloe’s most recent veterinary clinic.
According to the information available there, Chloe had not received a rabies vaccination since 2017.
There was just one problem.
I knew that wasn’t true.
Dr. James Holmes had personally telephoned me in 2021 to tell me Chloe was due for her rabies vaccination.
I took Chloe to his Whitby clinic on March 12, 2021.
I was there.
Dr. Holmes administered the vaccination while his assistant held Chloe; I stepped out of the room because I faint at the sight of needles.
I even still had the credit-card statement showing my payment to Anderson Veterinary Clinic that day.
What I didn’t have was a vaccination certificate.
And apparently, neither did Chloe’s later veterinary records.
That missing record helped cost me the opportunity to adopt Osiris.
But it also caused me to start asking questions.
Then I looked up my former veterinarian
What I discovered shocked me.
The College of Veterinarians of Ontario has a public disciplinary record for former veterinarian James Holmes.
In December 2014, conditions were placed on his licence requiring two random medical-record reviews.
According to the College, both reviews found that he failed to maintain proper records and that those failures were likely to negatively affect patient care.
Years later, in 2020, his licence was suspended for two months.
The College’s record says he nevertheless practised veterinary medicine during that suspension and permitted staff to dispense prescription and controlled drugs while his clinic was not accredited.
Holmes eventually irrevocably resigned his veterinary licence effective April 1, 2021.
I had no idea any of this had happened.
None.
And that is the part I cannot get past.
I was already his client
I brought Chloe home in September 2013.
So, when the College acted against Holmes in December 2014, I already had dogs under his care.
Had I known what the College had found about his medical record-keeping, I would have removed my dogs from his practice… Immediately!
I would never knowingly have entrusted Chloe to a veterinarian… or continue entrusting Nugget… to a veterinarian whose regulator had already determined that his record-keeping failures could negatively affect patient care.
But I didn’t know.
The information was technically public.
It was online.
And apparently, that was considered sufficient.
How was I supposed to know I should look?
That is the question I eventually put to the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.
To its credit, the College responded.
My correspondence even resulted in the College correcting wording in its published Holmes disciplinary summary that could have created an incorrect impression about the effective date of his resignation.
I appreciate that.
But I learned something else.
Disciplinary findings are published on the College’s website and Public Register.
The College says it has a legal responsibility to disclose disciplinary outcomes publicly.
That sounds transparent.
But think about what it requires of the pet owner.
When was the last time you searched the disciplinary history of your veterinarian?
Last month?
Last year?
Ever?
Most of us don’t.
We find a veterinarian we trust and continue going there.
Why would it occur to us to periodically search a regulator’s website to find out whether something serious has happened since our last appointment?
We already solved this problem for restaurants
Here in Durham Region, restaurants are inspected by public health.
And we don’t expect customers to search a government database before ordering lunch.
The result is placed where people can see it.
Green: Pass.
Yellow: Conditional Pass.
Red: Closed.
Inspection information is also available online, but the important part is that the disclosure comes to the customer rather than requiring the customer to know that they should go looking for it.
So, here’s my question:
Why shouldn’t serious disciplinary action against a veterinarian work the same way?
Put it on the door
I’m not suggesting that every complaint against a veterinarian should result in a scarlet letter hanging from the clinic window.
Ahhh.Complaints can be unfounded.
Minor issues happen.
And veterinarians deserve fairness too.
But once a regulator has made a public disciplinary finding, imposed a suspension, placed significant conditions on a licence or identified deficiencies serious enough to potentially affect patient care, I believe existing clients deserve more than an entry in an online database they may never think to search.
Require a notice at the practice.
Something simple:
Public disciplinary information concerning a veterinarian practising at this location is available from the College of Veterinarians of Ontario.
Add a QR code.
Add the regulator’s website.
If there is an active suspension or significant licence restriction, say so.
Don’t make the animal’s owner discover it accidentally years later.
And I wouldn’t stop with veterinarians
The same question deserves to be asked about human medicine.
Ontario’s College of Physicians and Surgeons already maintains a public Physician Register containing licence restrictions, suspensions, revocations and certain disciplinary information.
Again, however, the patient generally has to know enough to go looking for it.
Perhaps we need to reconsider that.
If a physician or specialist has been subject to serious public disciplinary action, why shouldn’t existing patients be made aware of it in a clear and practical way?
We already accept visible disclosure when someone prepares our dinner.
Surely transparency matters at least as much when someone is treating our bodies… or treating an animal who cannot speak for itself.
Public information shouldn’t require detective work
I am not looking for compensation from anyone.
That has never been my objective.
I cannot change what happened with Chloe’s records.
I cannot undo the fact that information I knew to be incorrect was later used when deciding whether I was suitable to adopt another dog.
But perhaps something useful can come from it.
Public information isn’t truly useful if the people who need it don’t know they should be looking for it.
If a regulator has determined that a veterinarian’s conduct is serious enough to warrant public disciplinary action, the people already trusting that veterinarian with their animals should not have to stumble across that information years later.
Put it where they can see it.
Put it on the door.
Image Credit: Created with ChatGPT 5.5 Thinking. Images are illustrative only.
