Alberta’s highest court has upheld professional misconduct sanctions against an Edmonton veterinarian with a decade-long history of medical malpractice infractions.
The decision from the Alberta Court of Appeal stems from disciplinary measures faced by Dr. Ignacio Tan III for sedating a cat without required supervision and later avoiding the grieving owners when they had been misled about the cremation of the animal’s remains.
In a ruling released May 25, the Court of Appeal of Alberta upheld sanctions issued two years ago by the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association (ABVMA), although it granted Tan some relief on legal costs he’d been ordered to pay.
The appeal court decision stems from May 2024 when Tan was found guilty by the association of four counts of unprofessional conduct related to a case that dates back to June 2020.
According to court documents, a family brought in their cat on June 17, 2020, to Mercy Animal Hospital, where Tan worked in north Edmonton.
Tan sedated the cat and performed a surgery for a blocked urethra. The cat was sent home but died two days later.
The owners had asked the clinic to have their pet’s remains cremated individually. But, according to the appeal court ruling, the clinic instead gave them a container of mixed, communal ashes, falsely claiming they belonged to the family cat.
The owners were able to confirm their suspicions with the crematorium, but struggled to get answers from the clinic. The owners told investigators they could only reach Tan when they called using a fake name, the court documents said. Tan had directed his staff to screen their calls.
ABVMA sanctioned Tan for performing surgery on the cat without a designated anesthetist present, a violation of practice standards. His decision to administer powerful sedatives without adequate assistance “displayed a lack of knowledge or judgment in the practice of veterinary medicine,” the regulator ruled.
Tan received a written reprimand, a 60-day suspension and was ordered to undergo additional training.
A litigious history
Tan, who is not currently permitted to practice in Alberta, has an extensive history of fighting disciplinary actions levied by the association, filing multiple legal and regulatory appeals related to a string of professional misconduct hearings.
In a series of statements to CBC News this week, Tan denied any misconduct or malpractice and said he plans to appeal the “flawed” appeal court decision to Canada’s Supreme Court.
He said that he has been subject to a targeted, punitive campaign by the regulator for his “outspoken advocacy” for affordable veterinary care. He also said he has written to Premier Danielle Smith’s office requesting an independent investigation into his allegations.
“Given the profound and ongoing sense of injustice I experience, I am currently exploring all available legal avenues for redress,” Tan wrote.
“It is my firm conviction that the merits of my case warrant a thorough re-examination at the highest judicial level.”
In his statement, Tan said he did nothing wrong in his treatment of the cremated cat.
Clearing the blockage was a minor procedure and any potential patient safety risks were easily mitigated because the sedatives are easily reversed, he said.
He said a clinic worker lied to the clients about what cremation service they could afford, and then attempted to “cover her track of dishonesty.”
A manager with Mercy Animal Hospital says Tan is no longer associated with the clinic.
Other appeals
While it’s rare for sanctions imposed on veterinarians to be tested in the courts, Tan has been at the centre of many such cases.
During his time in practice, Tan faced a string of complaints from the various clinics across the city where he worked, triggering investigations by the ABVMA.
Repeatedly, when found guilty of misconduct at the hearing tribunal, Tan would launch an internal internal appeal with the regulator before taking his fight to the Alberta Court of Appeal.
An ABVMA investigation from 2016 found Tan guilty of 19 counts of professional misconduct for his care of multiple animals, including three dogs and a kitten.
The regulator found that Tan failed to maintain surgical standards and anesthetic protocols, had done surgeries he was not competent to perform and had repeatedly walked out on active surgeries.
In his treatment of one dog, he kept the animal under general anesthetic without intubation for hours, putting his breathing at risk, and incorrectly repaired a fractured bone, meaning its leg had to be amputated.
The regulator found that he compromised patient safety by operating in an unsterile treatment room, using household tools or unsterilized equipment. In one case, he applied bone graft paste after it had fallen on the floor.
Multiple staff members at a south Edmonton clinic where Tan was practising at the time told the hearing tribunal that Tan’s patients had an uncommonly high complication and infection rate.
In that case, Tan was also sanctioned for workplace misconduct, related to blaming and belittling his veterinary staff.
He was issued a 30-day suspension, $29,000 in fines, a formal reprimand, mandatory training, and ordered to abide by restrictions barring him from performing orthopedic surgeries until further training was completed.
Tan also fought those sanctions in the Alberta Court of Appeal. The court dismissed his appeal last spring, ruling that his “professional misconduct reflected a marked departure from the expected standard of care and resulted in harm to patients.”
Unnecessary surgery
In another incident in 2021, Tan was found guilty of professional misconduct for the unnecessary surgery he performed on a dog named Lula, who was brought into his clinic in 2017 suffering from facial swelling.
The regulator ruled that Tan was aware of previous lab work indicating that a tooth abscess was the likely culprit. But Tan bypassed doing any X-rays and performed surgery to remove a lump from the dog’s face — an unnecessary and invasive procedure.
Tan received a formal reprimand, was also subject to mandatory practice inspections for two years and ordered to undergo continuing education. He launched an internal appeal but lost.
The Committee of Council, the ABVA’s independent appeals committee, in turn directed that he pay 80 per cent of the costs associated with the appeal, which had climbed to about $23,000.
Tan responded by bringing the case to the Alberta Court of Appeal. This time, his costs were reduced but his appeal was otherwise dismissed. He then attempted to have the case heard by the Supreme Court but the top court turned it down in March 2023.
The Alberta government is proposing changes to the Animal Protection Act for the first time in two decades. New legislation proposes stiffer fines for those found guilty of neglecting or abusing animals. As Travis McEwan reports, the bill is being applauded by some animal welfare advocates.
In a separate case stemming from 2020, Tan was also sanctioned for violating prior regulatory restrictions placed on his practice. He was found to have employed an unlicensed veterinarian to practice medicine over several months in 2020 and 2021 and supervised a limited-practice veterinarian when he was barred from doing so.
He was issued a six-month suspension in that case, fined $20,000, and issued a five-year ban on supervising veterinary students or technologists.
Again, a Court of Appeal judge reduced his fines but upheld his punishment, noting that Tan had displayed a pattern of serial professional misconduct and blatant disregard for the regulator.
Duty to protect, progressive discipline
An expert in Canadian animal law says Tan’s disciplinary history demonstrates the need for escalating sanctions for veterinarians who are repeatedly found guilty of misconduct.
However, the complaints director for the regulator said Tan’s extensive record is an “outlier,” not a sign of regulatory weakness.
Victoria Shroff, K.C., one of Canada’s longest-serving animal law lawyers, said Tan’s prolonged record raises questions about how pet owners can seek accountability from the self-regulated industry.
When you see a string of complaints, you have to scrutinize that person more carefully.– Victoria Shroff
Regulatory bodies across Canada are facing massive backlogs due to a spike in veterinary care complaints, driven by evolving views that see pets as beloved family members, not just legal property, she said.
An increasing number of owners will turn to the civil courts as they seek accountability, she said.
“This case should serve as a reminder to regulators of their duty,” Shroff said. “It’s not to protect the members, it is to protect the public.”
Schroff said when a veterinarian shows a continuous pattern of misconduct, the regulator must impose stricter, more misconduct complaints for each infraction.
“When you see a string of complaints, you have to scrutinize that person more carefully,” she said. “And you have to ask the question, did we miss something?”
Tan told CBC News he is no longer actively practicing due to the “considerable personal and professional challenges and stress that have arisen” following the misconduct investigations.
‘A real outlier’
According to court records, Tan had begun practicing in Alberta in 2009 and was the founder of the now-defunct Prime Vet Corporation, a company involved in managing multiple clinics in Edmonton.
His name now appears on the ABVMA’s list of suspended members. His registration was cancelled, effective Jan. 1, 2025, for non-payment of dues.
Tan can not be automatically reinstated but would have to apply to practice again.
Phil Buote, complaints director with the ABVMA, said the process would trigger an intense review of Tan’s disciplinary history. The association requires members to prove they are of “good moral character.”
Buote said he has faced questions about the need for harsher discipline but said a cancellation is the most severe penalty and must be approached with careful consideration.
If the association were to revoke a licence without satisfying a very high legal threshold, the courts can overturn the decision entirely, he said.
Buote declined to comment on Tan’s allegations against the ABVMA but said the regulator remains confident in its rulings against him.
“This is a real outlier, and so I would be cautious about making any determinations that something systemic needs to change to address a case like this.
“This is a significant departure from what we normally see.”
