College Connection | Summer 2026
Ownership changes are necessary in the medical record
College Connection | Summer 2026
LEARNING IN PRACTICE
Ownership changes are necessary in the medical record
Case Summary
Two individuals, at some point, shared ownership of a dog during their relationship. One owner took the dog to their regular veterinarian where the dog was euthanized due to a chronic uncontrolled medical condition. The other individual was concerned she wasn’ t contacted for consent and was no longer listed as an owner on the record.
Case Outcomes
The Complaints Committee panel found the allegations did not warrant a referral to the Discipline Committee and decided not to take any action for the veterinarian who performed the euthanasia. However, the panel advised the veterinarian who removed the second owner from the record about their professional responsibility to confirm any changes in ownership are documented in the medical record.
Case Considerations
In considering the complaint, the panel reviewed the medical records, written submissions, and statements provided by all parties. As is standard for all investigations, the panel considered any previous proceedings.
The individual who hadn’ t been contacted was concerned the euthanasia was performed without her authorization, in violation of ownership rights and professional standards.
At one point, the two individuals were in a relationship. However, when that ended, the primary owner asked that the other individual was only contacted if specific permission was granted.
The veterinarian indicated the individual had previously been verbally abusive and difficult to clinic staff. The medical record noted clinic staff were not to communicate with the individual, without the consent of the primary owner. Further, the veterinarian indicated the individual did not have authority to grant permission for any procedures for the dog.
The panel reviewed medical records and noted the primary owner was listed as owner / co-owner for six years on the records from the clinic, referral hospitals, and diagnostic laboratories. The records also contained references to both individuals as co-owners. The primary owner had been identified as the sole owner for about a year prior to the dog’ s euthanasia. There was nothing in the record documenting discussions about ownership or an ownership dispute.
The available information suggested the dog’ s ownership changed over time. The panel acknowledged it may have been challenging to ensure the ownership status was accurately reflected in the medical records.
However, due to the importance of documenting ownership, any such issues must be diligently resolved to provide legal and ethical patientcentred care. The panel was concerned the veterinarian did not appear to meet her professional obligation on patient ownership in ensuring clear documentation about ownership in the patient record.
The Professional Practice Standard on Medical Records expects an accurate and complete profile for an animal. As well, the Guide states each owner’ s contact information should be updated regularly. Further, removal of one owner requires the consent of all listed owners.
The Policy Statement, Managing Questions of Ownership and Ownership Disputes in Companion Animals, notes the expectation of a veterinarian to aid in the positive identification of companion animals when ownership may be in question. And the medical records should detail the resolution.
The panel provided advice to the veterinarian to prevent similar concerns in the future. The panel determined the veterinarian who performed the euthanasia acted on the information available at the time and appropriately obtained consent from the owner listed on the file.
Veterinarians have a responsibility to provide safe, quality care. The College assists veterinarians in doing so when matters are reviewed by the Complaints Committee. The public has a right to ask questions about the care that was provided to their animal( s) and this process provides veterinarians with feedback on whether they have met the standards of practice or whether there are improvements needed to mitigate risks in practice. The Committee provides advice or may request a veterinarian enter into an undertaking when remediation would reduce risks and support a veterinarian in meeting the standard of practice. Only the most serious cases, where there is bad intent, incompetence, reckless behaviour, or a history of failure to remediate at-risk behaviour are referred to the Discipline Committee for a discipline hearing to determine if an act of professional misconduct or serious neglect may have occurred. This example is taken from a case that was reviewed by the Complaints Committee and is offered as a self-reflection tool to support veterinarians in understanding how to meet the standards of practice.
Public confidence in veterinary regulation cvo. org 7