A Brampton veterinarian has been officially reprimanded and penalized by the College of Veterinarians of Ontario after he failed to maintain proper medical records in two separate cases involving litters of puppies, one of which died and another which was returned ill to a breeder1. The Discipline Committee of the College found that Dr. Tejwant Chahal, who practised at Chahal Veterinary Services, committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession and failing to make or retain the records required by the regulation. The decision was released on March 19, 2025, following a videoconference hearing held on March 7, 2025. The disciplinary panel consisted of Dr. Michael Zigler as Chairperson, Dr. Sarah Thompson, and Ms. Cathy Hecimovich, a public member.
The hearing addressed two separate sets of allegations against Dr. Chahal, files C21-83 and C21-108. At the beginning of the proceeding, counsel for the College brought a motion to have both matters heard together, explaining that the allegations were similar in nature, both relating to Dr. Chahal’s record keeping and failure to maintain professional standards. Dr. Chahal consented to the request, and the Panel granted the order, allowing both matters to be adjudicated simultaneously. Dr. Chahal, through an Agreed Statement of Facts, admitted to the central facts and the findings of professional misconduct, leading to a joint submission on the appropriate penalty.
The first set of allegations, C21-83, involved a golden retriever puppy named Fenner. On January 29, 2021, a new owner, identified as JJ, purchased Fenner from a breeder. The puppy had allegedly been vaccinated by Dr. Chahal during a visit to the breeder’s location on January 18, 2021. However, the puppy subsequently became ill, developing parvovirus enteritis, and died after a 12 day hospitalization at the Kawartha veterinary emergency clinic. When the College investigated the complaint, it found that Dr. Chahal’s medical records from his visit to the breeder consisted of a single examination sheet used for all the puppies he vaccinated in that one visit. The College stated that the records did not contain any specific details of the individual puppies, with the result that it was impossible to determine if one of those puppies was indeed Fenner and whether Fenner had actually been vaccinated.
The College’s investigation detailed numerous and significant deficiencies in the records related to Fenner’s litter. There was a lack of individual patient information that would make it possible to distinguish each animal in the litter from one another. The records also lacked any individual physical exam findings, assessments, or notes on treatments provided to specific puppies. It was noted that Dr. Chahal had kept the same record for separate litters, further confusing the documentation. The records did not definitively identify any animals that may have been sick at the time of the examination. Furthermore, the address of the breeder or owner was incomplete. The puppies were not weighed individually; instead, the record noted only a range of weights for the group. No assessments were recorded for the individual animals, and critical information, such as vaccine serial numbers and other relevant details, was absent from the file.
The second set of allegations, C21-108, involved a different breeder and two other puppies, one named Milo. On March 29, 2021, a new owner identified as Ms. M purchased two puppies. It was later discovered that Milo had an umbilical hernia. Due to illness, both puppies were returned to the breeder within 24 to 48 hours of their purchase. Medical records provided by Dr. Chahal purported to show that he had examined six puppies from Milo’s litter earlier that same day, March 29, 2021. However, similar to the first complaint, the puppies were not distinguished from one another in the records. The investigation found that Milo’s umbilical hernia, or any other health concerns, had not been noted in the file. The College alleged that Dr. Chahal either failed to examine the puppies adequately or at all, or he failed to adequately record the results of any examinations he did perform.
The specific deficiencies listed in the second complaint mirrored those in the first. The medical records consisted of a single examination sheet used for all six puppies examined that day, with no notes to differentiate them. While information such as date of birth, breed, and color or markings were listed, they were the same for all puppies and did not serve as individual identifiers. The weight recorded was merely an estimate encompassing all puppies, not a weight noted for each individual animal. The file contained no notes demonstrating that each puppy was examined, nor did it contain notes about any abnormalities, such as the umbilical hernia, found on any puppy. Once again, vaccine information, including serial numbers and vaccination sites, was not recorded in the examination sheet. The owner’s address was incomplete, and any assessments that were written on the page were noted as not being legible.
In the Agreed Statement of Facts filed with the Panel, Dr. Chahal admitted to these facts. He formally admitted that this conduct constituted professional misconduct by failing to maintain the standard of practice and failing to make or retain the records required by regulation. The original Notices of Hearing had also included allegations of disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional conduct, as well as conduct unbecoming a veterinarian. However, the College sought to withdraw these additional allegations. The Panel allowed for their withdrawal and made no findings in relation to them. The Panel conducted a plea inquiry and confirmed that Dr. Chahal’s admissions were voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. The Panel accepted the plea and formally found that Dr. Chahal engaged in professional misconduct, noting that his records were deficient and did not meet the standards required by the regulations.
Following the finding of misconduct, the parties presented a joint submission on penalty and costs, which the Panel ultimately accepted as reasonable and in the public interest. The penalty ordered by the Panel included several components. First, Dr. Chahal received a recorded public reprimand, which was delivered orally at the conclusion of the hearing. Second, a number of terms and conditions were placed on his license to practise, focusing on education and remedial review. Within 30 days of the order, Dr. Chahal must review the College’s three-part learning module on medical records, titled “Foundations for Medical Record Keeping: Companion Animal,” and confirm his completion in writing to the College.
After completing the module, Dr. Chahal must, within 60 days, submit eight of his medical records to the College for a peer review. These records must be selected to specifically address the failings identified in the complaints, such as the recording of individual patient information to distinguish animals in a litter, as well as individual physical exam findings, assessments, and treatments. The submitted records must be representative of both individual patients and litters, and at least two of the records must be for a patient Dr. Chahal has treated on more than one occasion. All records submitted must include entries made after his completion of the required medical record module.
A peer reviewer appointed by the Registrar will assess these eight records. If the Registrar deems the records are not satisfactory, Dr. Chahal will be required to submit another eight records within 90 days of receiving the peer reviewer’s report. If this second set of records is also deemed unsatisfactory, he must submit a final set of eight records within another 90 days. Dr. Chahal is required to pay for all costs associated with the learning module and the subsequent peer reviews of his records, with all invoices to be paid within 30 days of receipt. Finally, Dr. Chahal was ordered to pay the College’s costs, which were fixed in the amount of $5,000, payable within one month of the order.
In its reasons for accepting the joint submission, the Panel stated that the penalty and costs were appropriate and met the goals of public protection and rehabilitation. The Panel also reviewed several mitigating factors, including the fact that this was Dr. Tejwant Chahal’s first referral to the Discipline Committee in his 20 years of practice in Ontario. The Panel also noted that Dr. Chahal was co-operative throughout the process and was sincere. The oral reprimand delivered to Dr. Chahal at the hearing underscored the seriousness of the findings. The Panel expressed its concern that the records were “significantly deficient,” which made it “difficult to assess what, if any, examinations or services were provided to Fenner and Milo.” The reprimand stated that “Good record keeping is a fundamental requirement for members of this College and is an essential component of the standards of practice of the profession.” The Panel concluded by expressing its hope not to see Dr. Chahal before a discipline panel again, with the warning that “if you do, the outcome is likely to be more punitive.”
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
