The Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario has ordered a six-month suspension for Dr. Ashok Dua after finding him guilty of professional misconduct related to his treatment of a nine-year-old Great Dane named Titan1. The decision, released on June 2, 2025, also imposes significant remedial education and orders Dr. Dua to pay more than $150,000 in costs. The penalty phase of the hearing was conducted by videoconference on April 22, 2025, following an earlier decision on the misconduct findings.
The panel had previously found Dr. Dua committed professional misconduct in a decision dated November 25, 2024. The findings related to the care Dr. Dua provided to Titan over an eleven-day period from December 26, 2018, until January 5, 2019, the day the dog passed away. The committee determined that Dr. Dua had failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession. He was also found to have treated an animal that was already receiving veterinary services from another member without notifying that member or obtaining the relevant historical information as soon as was practicable. Furthermore, the panel found Dr. Dua failed to advise the client that such uncoordinated veterinary services could place the animal at risk. These actions, the panel concluded, constituted an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine that would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable, or unprofessional.
The penalty hearing on April 22, 2025, began with a procedural motion. Dr. Dua’s counsel sought to file new evidence, specifically an affidavit from Dr. Dua and a proposed undertaking from a separate Complaints Committee matter. The College of Veterinarians of Ontario objected, arguing that Dr. Dua had not complied with the Discipline Committee’s Rules of Procedure. The rules require that any evidence in affidavit form must be served on all other parties at least ten days before the hearing. The College informed the panel that Dr. Dua’s counsel had only provided the affidavit the day before the penalty hearing.
Dr. Dua’s counsel argued the evidence was relevant and explained that it could not have been provided earlier because he was busy. He suggested that the College counsel could be given an adjournment to review the evidence if needed. The panel expressed concern over the non-compliance with the rules but also weighed the potential prejudice to Dr. Dua if the evidence was excluded due to his counsel’s actions. The panel considered the nature of the evidence, which included financial information and information from the Complaints Committee that the College was already aware of. It ultimately decided there would be no prejudice to the College if the evidence was admitted and allowed it to be filed, without commenting at that time on the weight it would be given.
The College then presented its submissions on penalty. It requested a multi-part order designed to address deterrence and remediation. The College asked for a public and recorded reprimand and a suspension of Dr. Dua’s license to practise veterinary medicine for a period of six months. The suspension would continue until he successfully completed a series of conditions and limitations. These conditions included a one-day assessment by a College-selected assessor to evaluate Dr. Dua’s baseline knowledge regarding the issues raised in the case, with the College paying for this initial assessment. Following that, Dr. Dua would be required to complete a one-day mentorship with a veterinarian chosen by the College to review the case specifics, with Dr. Dua bearing the cost.
The College also sought to have Dr. Dua complete, with an unconditional pass, two online learning modules: “Foundations for Medical Record Keeping: Companion Animal” and “Informed Client Consent,” with Dr. Dua paying for both. After these steps, he would need to complete a one-day follow-up assessment with the original assessor to evaluate his knowledge after the mentorship and courses. The College would pay for this follow-up assessment. Finally, upon his return to practice, Dr. Dua would be subject to four peer record reviews, each consisting of up to ten patient medical records, over a period of twenty-four months, with the costs paid by Dr. Dua. The College argued that the reprimand and suspension were necessary for both specific and general deterrence, signaling to Dr. Dua and the profession that such misconduct warrants serious penalties. It also noted Dr. Dua’s prior complaints and discipline history as an aggravating factor.
Dr. Dua’s counsel argued against the College’s proposed penalty, calling it “excessive and punitive.” He submitted that a suspension was not warranted. Counsel referred to the proposed undertaking from the Complaints Committee that had been filed as late evidence, arguing that the Complaints Committee had not thought discipline was necessary when it offered the undertaking. Dr. Dua’s position was that had he been “less principled” and simply agreed to the undertaking, the matter would never have been referred to the Discipline Committee. He contended that he was willing to remediate as per that proposed undertaking and should not face a suspension.
The panel, chaired by public member Rena Spevack, ultimately ordered penalties largely consistent with the College’s submissions. Dr. Dua is required to attend a public and recorded reprimand within three months. His license to practise veterinary medicine will be suspended for six months, effective thirty days from the date of the order. The suspension will be extended if he fails to complete the full list of remedial conditions requested by the College. The panel ordered the completion of the initial assessment, the one-day mentorship, the two online learning modules, the follow-up assessment, and the twenty-four months of peer record reviews upon his return to practice.
In its reasons for the penalty, the panel firmly rejected Dr. Dua’s argument regarding the proposed undertaking from the Complaints Committee. It stated that the panel is not bound by any undertaking that may have been offered before the matter was referred to discipline. The panel noted that Dr. Dua had the choice to accept that undertaking and elected not to, leading to the referral. The panel’s decision, it clarified, was based on the findings of misconduct, the available penalties, and established principles. The panel identified Dr. Dua’s prior discipline history as a “significant aggravating factor.” It stated that a suspension was “both necessary and appropriate” due to the serious nature of the misconduct, which directly impacted patient quality of care. The panel reasoned that the suspension serves as a specific deterrent for Dr. Dua and a general deterrent for the profession, while also giving Dr. Dua time to complete the required remediation and reassuring the public.
The hearing then moved to the issue of costs. The College sought an order for $152,896.33, which it stated represented approximately two-thirds of the actual costs incurred during the investigation and hearing. The College argued this amount was justified due to the serious findings, the successful outcome of its case, and the conduct of Dr. Dua’s defence, which included unsuccessful motions that prolonged the hearing.
Dr. Dua argued against the cost order, submitting that it was “grossly disproportionate” to the misconduct. He referred to his affidavit, which demonstrated that he had “virtually no income” and that his inability to pay was significant. His counsel also cited a 2022 Alberta Court of Appeal case, Jinnah v Alberta Dental Association and College, to support the position that the costs of prosecuting members should be borne by the profession as a whole, not the individual member. If costs were to be ordered, Dr. Dua requested a minimum of ten years to pay.
The panel found that it was an appropriate case to order costs against Dr. Dua. It noted that while the College was not successful on every single allegation, it did prove the majority of them and was “completely successful” on the contested motions. The panel addressed the length of the hearing, which took ten days, stating it was “due primarily to the Member and his counsel.” The panel observed that “significant amounts of hearing time were spent on cross-examinations by the Member’s counsel which were frankly ineffective at unsettling any of the examined party’s testimony.” It clarified that while Dr. Dua was not being punished for his defence, the lengthening impact of his counsel’s conduct on the hearing and its subsequent costs could not be ignored.
The panel rejected the Jinnah case from Alberta, stating it was not binding in Ontario and was not consistent with Ontario case law. It also stated this was “certainly not a case where the proceedings were unwarranted.” Regarding Dr. Dua’s evidence of his inability to pay, the panel found it was “of limited assistance,” noting that “without more information about his financial circumstances, including personal assets and liabilities and other avenues of family income, the information provided is of limited assistance.” The panel therefore ordered Dr. Dua to pay the full amount sought by the College, $152,896.33, payable over twenty-four monthly instalments. The panel added a condition that if Dr. Dua defaults on any payments, the entire remaining outstanding amount will immediately become due and payable.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.
