In the case of College (Veterinarians of Ontario) v Ackerman, 2025 ONCVO 10, the Discipline Committee of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario has found Dr. Kent Ackerman guilty of professional misconduct in connection with a speech he delivered at an anti-vaccination rally in Toronto in September 2020.
The hearing took place by videoconference over two days in January 2025. Dr. Ackerman did not attend in person and was represented by a non-lawyer agent. On the first day, the panel adjourned early out of concern that his absence might have been involuntary. When he did not appear on the second day, his agent sought an adjournment until at least May 2025, citing possible personal and civil legal matters. The panel dismissed the request, noting the hearing dates had been set on a peremptory basis following an earlier adjournment in August 2024.
Evidence before the panel consisted of a video recording of Dr. Ackerman’s rally speech and a transcript of the event. Both were entered without objection. The College alleged that during the rally, Dr. Ackerman allowed himself to be introduced as the head of a $24 million hospital and as an epidemiologist, neither of which was true. The panel found he made no attempt to correct these statements and further referred to himself as an “epidemiologist veterinarian,” a title the panel determined was also inaccurate.
In its decision, the panel concluded that Dr. Ackerman misrepresented his credentials, provided human medical advice outside his scope of practice, and made claims about COVID-19 vaccines, herd immunity, and public health measures that could not be supported as professional opinion. Among other remarks, he told the crowd that “there’s nothing that should convince you” to get vaccinated for “something this isn’t real” and claimed that a high percentage of animal vaccines were harmful.
The panel determined that these actions constituted a failure to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, making unsupported claims about treatment, and engaging in conduct considered disgraceful, dishonourable, unprofessional, and unbecoming of a veterinarian. It stated that misrepresenting veterinary skills or credentials while providing human health advice, particularly on a contentious subject such as COVID-19, is unacceptable and undermines public trust.
While acknowledging that regulated professionals are entitled to hold personal beliefs, the panel found that using the title “Dr.” and appearing in medical attire to deliver human health commentary under false credentials created a risk of misleading the public and potentially causing harm. The decision concluded that this case met the threshold where limiting a member’s expression was reasonable in the public interest.
The matter has been adjourned to a separate hearing to determine the appropriate penalty.
Read more cases about proceedings in regulated professions here.