The Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario has ordered a four-and-a-half-month suspension for a veterinarian found to have engaged in professional misconduct1. In a decision dated February 25, 2025, the panel ordered that Dr. Vipulkumar Patel be reprimanded, that his licence be suspended, and that he pay costs to the College totaling $122,948.10. The penalty follows an earlier decision from November 11, 2024, where the same panel found Dr. Patel had engaged in the non-consensual touching of a client.
The findings of misconduct stem from an incident that occurred on August 6, 2020. On that day, a client, identified by the initials D.K., attended Dr. Patel’s clinic with her cat, Sammy. The panel, in its 2024 decision on the merits of the case, found that during this professional interaction, Dr. Patel’s conduct constituted professional misconduct. The panel found that Dr. Patel hugged D.K. for a period longer than she had consented to. It also found that Dr. Patel proceeded to ask D.K. if he could kiss her. Furthermore, the panel found that Dr. Patel touched D.K. two additional times on her back without her consent. These findings led the panel to conclude that Dr. Patel had engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of paragraphs 2, 44, and 45 of subsection 17(1) of O. Regulation 1093 under the Veterinarians Act.
Following the November 2024 liability decision, the matter proceeded to a hearing on February 11, 2025, to determine the appropriate penalty and to address the issue of costs. Both the College of Veterinarians and counsel for Dr. Patel presented submissions for the panel to consider. The panel also received a victim impact statement from the client, D.K.
The College of Veterinarians of Ontario proposed a penalty that included a formal reprimand and a suspension of Dr. Patel’s license to practice for six months. The College argued this suspension should last for that duration, or for a longer time, until Dr. Patel successfully completed several required remedial actions at his own expense. These remedial actions included unconditionally passing the PROBE ethics course, a program designed to address professional ethics and boundaries. The College also sought to have Dr. Patel review the College’s Code of Ethics, its Guide to the Code of Ethics, and an Ethical Decision Making Video, and to confirm his completion of this review to the College Registrar. Furthermore, the College proposed that following his suspension, Dr. Patel be required to undergo practice monitoring for one year, at his own expense. This monitoring would involve a College-approved monitor attending his practice once per month to review his practice, examine records, and speak confidentially with his staff and clients. Dr. Patel would be required to implement any recommendations made by the monitor. The College submitted that this penalty was in the public interest and met the primary principles of sanctioning, including denunciation, specific and general deterrence, and remediation.
Dr. Patel’s legal counsel, Ernest Guiste, argued against the penalty proposed by the College, submitting that a lengthy suspension was not appropriate. The decision noted that counsel made clear Dr. Patel did not agree with the panel’s findings of misconduct. His counsel argued that the findings demonstrated veterinarians are “sitting ducks” and have no effective way to defend themselves against allegations of sexual impropriety. Dr. Patel’s position was that if the panel was inclined to order a suspension, it should be for a much shorter period, specifically no more than two to four weeks. In support of this, his counsel pointed out that Dr. Patel has no relevant complaints or discipline history. It was argued that a six-month suspension would “kill his practice.” To substantiate this claim, Dr. Patel provided affidavit evidence to the panel outlining the significant financial impact such a suspension would have on his practice and his family.
The panel also considered the victim impact statement prepared by D.K. In her statement, D.K. explained that she has experienced ongoing anxiety and panic attacks as a direct result of Dr. Patel’s conduct during the August 2020 appointment. She wrote that since the incident, she has been “left questioning the motives of men in professional settings.” Her mistrust, she stated, had escalated to the point where she has refused care and has refused to be in a room with a male veterinarian or doctor unless another person is present with her.
After weighing the submissions, the panel issued its order on penalty. The panel ordered that Dr. Patel must appear before it to receive a formal reprimand. It further ordered that Dr. Patel’s license to practice veterinary medicine be suspended for a period of four and one-half months. This suspension, similar to the College’s proposal, will last for that duration or for a longer time until Dr. Patel successfully completes the remedial conditions. The panel imposed the conditions that Dr. Patel must, at his own expense, unconditionally pass the PROBE ethics course and review the specified College ethics materials before his suspension can be lifted. The panel also ordered the one-year period of practice monitoring, as proposed by the College, to commence following the completion of his suspension, all at Dr. Patel’s expense.
In its reasons for the penalty, the panel stated it had considered all submissions, D.K.’s impact statement, and the principles of sanctioning. The panel characterized its findings against Dr. Patel as “serious,” stating that “inappropriate and sexual touching of a client, who was in a particularly vulnerable state, must attract a serious penalty.” The penalty, the panel wrote, must address denunciation, deterrence, and the public interest. The panel acknowledged mitigating factors, specifically that Dr. Patel has no relevant complaints or discipline history. It also noted, though not as a formal mitigating factor, that Dr. Patel has since installed cameras in his clinic and expressed a willingness to help the College promote the use of cameras in treatment rooms.
However, the panel also considered several aggravating factors. These included the nature of the misconduct itself, the fact that the non-consensual touching occurred during a difficult visit for D.K., who was upset about the condition of her cat, and the “significant” impact the misconduct had on her. The panel wrote that Dr. Patel “used his position of power as a professional to take advantage of a vulnerable, unsuspecting client, who had come to his clinic in a particularly vulnerable and upset state.” The panel added, “Dr. Patel should have provided her comfort, not fear.” While the panel noted the touching was non-consensual, it also specified it was “not overly repetitive and did not involve D.K.’s breasts or genital area.” Nonetheless, the panel concluded the conduct was “still damaging.” The panel concluded that a suspension of one month or less, as argued by Dr. Patel, would not have been appropriate, and that four and a half months was a reasonable period to send a clear message and allow him to complete the remedial conditions.
The hearing also addressed the issue of costs. The College of Veterinarians sought a costs order in the amount of $122,948.10. This figure represented two-thirds of the College’s actual costs and expenses incurred during the investigation and hearing, including Dr. Patel’s motions. The College argued costs were appropriate due to the serious findings of misconduct and the fact the College was “completely successful” in proving the allegations. The College also pointed out that Dr. Patel had brought three motions, which were almost entirely unsuccessful. The College provided affidavit evidence detailing its expenses, which included legal fees, panel fees, and costs for independent legal counsel and a court reporter.
Dr. Patel argued that the College’s claim for costs was “excessive” and that he was not in a financial position to pay that amount. He provided limited financial information, including Notices of Assessment from 2021 to 2023 and information on his rent and his son’s tuition expenses. He argued that an order between $25,000 and $30,000 would be more appropriate and requested a substantial amount of time to pay.
The panel ultimately found that it was an appropriate case to order costs against Dr. Patel. It cited section 30(6.1) of the Veterinarians Act, which permits such an order. The panel noted that while Dr. Patel had the right to defend himself, the hearing took multiple days, “in large part due to the manner in which Dr. Patel testified, and his counsel examined the College’s witnesses.” The panel found that “Dr. Patel was argumentative at times and refused to concede even the most innocuous facts,” which contributed to the length and expense of the hearing. The panel also found the financial information Dr. Patel provided regarding his ability to pay was “of limited assistance” as it did not include information about personal assets, liabilities, or other family income. The panel therefore ordered Dr. Patel to pay the full amount of $122,948.10.
The panel did, however, grant Dr. Patel time to pay. The order stipulates that the costs must be paid over an 18-month period. Dr. Patel is required to make monthly payments of $6,830.45. These payments are to begin on the first day of the month that follows the completion of his suspension period. The order includes a condition that if Dr. Patel fails to make a monthly payment on time, the full remaining amount will become due and owing immediately.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
