The Court of Appeal of Alberta has upheld four professional-misconduct findings against veterinarian Dr. Ignacio Tan III and the associated sanctions, including a 60-day suspension, while returning two costs awards to the regulator for reconsideration. The May 25, 2026 judgment in Dr Ignacio Tan III v Alberta Veterinary Medical Association, 2026 ABCA 176 separates the disciplinary outcome from the financial consequences of the proceedings.
The appeal concerned failures involving staff oversight, communication with clients, monitoring during a procedure and medical records. The court found no basis to overturn those findings. Costs required a different result because the legal framework used by the disciplinary decision-makers had since been revised.
Complaint followed treatment and cremation concerns
Tan was the responsible registered veterinarian at Mercy Animal Hospital when clients brought in their cat for treatment. He sedated the animal, performed a procedure and sent it home. The cat returned two days later and died. The clients requested individual cremation, but communal cremation occurred instead.
An employee gave the clients communal cremains while representing them as their cat’s remains. The clients discovered the discrepancy through the crematorium and complained after failing to obtain a satisfactory explanation from Tan. The court’s account does not attribute the employee’s substitution to Tan personally or find that he caused the animal’s death.
A hearing tribunal found four instances of unprofessional conduct in May 2024. Besides the suspension, its July sanction decision imposed a written reprimand, 25 hours of anesthesiology education and a communications course. It also ordered Tan to pay half the investigation and hearing costs, capped at $42,500, and directed publication with names.
The association’s Committee of Council upheld the findings and sanctions in November 2024. In January 2025, it also ordered Tan to pay the full actual costs of the internal appeal. Tan challenged the council’s decisions in the Court of Appeal, attacking the findings, sanctions and costs.
Separate duties to supervise and communicate
Tan argued that the first misconduct allegation could not succeed because only one of its three supporting particulars had been proved. The court rejected that approach. A disciplinary notice must adequately inform a professional of the case to meet, but this notice did not require every listed particular to be established before misconduct could be found.
The upheld finding was that Tan knew about the serious cremains allegations but limited his response to directing a non-veterinarian employee to investigate. He did not supervise or guide that work, review its accuracy or ensure that the clients received accurate information. The court found no reviewable error in sustaining that misconduct finding.
The communication finding involved a different responsibility. The tribunal found that the clients repeatedly tried to speak with Tan and reached him only after using a different name. There was evidence he directed staff to screen calls to avoid them, and he did not properly respond until after the complaint.
The court rejected the argument that the two findings improperly duplicated one another. Overseeing staff’s response to the incident was distinct from communicating personally with clients who were seeking his explanation. The legal protection against duplicative findings did not require the second allegation to be stayed in these circumstances.
Monitoring and records findings also survive
There was no designated anesthetist during the procedure. The applicable practice standard required a separate qualified professional to monitor general anesthesia or prolonged or deep sedation. An exceptional departure required documented, written informed consent acknowledging the absence of that professional and the increased risk.
Tan disputed the interpretation of deep sedation and the finding that the drugs administered produced it. The tribunal had considered the relevant definitions and found deep sedation without exceptional circumstances. The council noted that he presented no evidence supporting his contrary contention. The Court of Appeal found no reviewable error.
On records, the tribunal recognized that not every imperfection warrants discipline. It nevertheless found significant deficiencies, gaps and confusing information that together substantially departed from expected standards. The court held that ample evidence supported that conclusion.
Tan also argued that the sanction analysis was flawed and that the council had not meaningfully reviewed it. The court held that the familiar, non-exhaustive disciplinary sanction factors remained useful and that he had not established that the sanctions were unreasonable. The suspension and educational requirements therefore survived.
Costs return to the regulator
The costs awards had applied the framework from Jinnah v Alberta Dental Association and College. A five-judge panel later revised that framework in Charkhandeh v College of Dental Surgeons of Alberta. The parties acknowledged that development at the appeal hearing.
Following the approach taken in another Tan appeal involving the same costs issue, the court returned both the hearing-tribunal costs and internal-appeal costs to the council. It noted that the council could refer the matter back to the tribunal if further evidence was needed.
The court did not cancel all costs permanently or fix a replacement amount. It allowed only that part of the appeal and otherwise dismissed it. The judgment establishes reconsideration of costs, not a new damages award to Tan, and does not establish whether the sanctions have since been served or what costs were ultimately assessed.
