The College of Veterinarians of British Columbia’s 2025 AGM was held on November 30, 2025. We thank registrants for their thoughtful questions. Please note that where two or more similar or related questions were asked, they were grouped into themes to avoid repetition.
Several questions require further research or analysis by the College in order to provide accurate and fulsome responses. Responses will be added to this page as they are prepared.
When was the last time the registration fees increased before the increase that was enacted on October 1, 2025?
2011
Why was the College recently within months of insolvency?
The short answer is that in the 14 years since 2011, inflation alone accounted for a more than 37% increase in the cost of goods and services and therefore the cost of operating the College (see the Bank of Canada inflation calculator). Even if the demands on the College had not increased in that period, which they did, inflationary pressures would have caused the College, like any other organization with expenses, to become financially unviable.
More information is available here.
How come the College is spending so much more money now compared to before?
It is not. In fact, the College has reduced its per-registrant spend by 40% since 2011 and the College’s expenses in absolute terms have in effect risen by only 7% since 2011. A detailed breakdown of those figures is available here.
These are results achieved during a period (2011 to 2025) when the number of registrants regulated by the College more than doubled, complaints brought about registrants also more than doubled, and the College was required to implement significant modernization measures to comply with legal requirements around labour mobility, international credential recognition, accessibility, and procedural fairness, and to meet the expectations of registrants and the public in areas such as online access and resources.
A comparison to other professional regulators is helpful. A detailed analysis is available here. In summary, compared to three other professional regulators in British Columbia and the two most comparable veterinary regulators in Canada, the College:
Why has the College not worked to reduce the number of complaints it receives? Can the College implement a fee or other method to discourage individuals from filing complaints? How come Council has not directed the Investigation Committee (IC) to investigate fewer complaints? How come Council has not directed the Discipline Committee (DC) to hold fewer hearings? How come the College investigates so many of the complaints it receives even though about 80% are ultimately dismissed? How come the College continues to investigate or hold discipline hearings in matters where the complainant no longer wishes to participate?
Accordingly, the notion of taking measures for the purpose of reducing the number of complaints brought to the College, including by erecting barriers or disincentives to bringing complaints, is directly contrary to a core legislated duty of the College.
Moreover, Harry Cayton in his 2022 report, in which he described the College’s complaints process as requiring “a serious and energetic programme of improvement… so that the College can deliver on its mandate of public protection…,” identified a lack of public accessibility to the complaints process as an area in which the College does not meet the expected standards. Recommendations for improvement in that area factor amongst the 24 recommendations set out in the report. Council accepted the recommendations and the College has been directed by the Minister of Agriculture and Food to give effect to all of the recommendations by August 2026. As at this writing, the College has implemented over 70% of the recommendations.
The investigation committee may dismiss all or part of a complaint without an investigation if the investigation committee reasonably believes that any of the following apply:
(a) the complaint is trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith;
(b) the complaint concerns a matter over which the college does not have jurisdiction;
(c) the complaint gives rise to an abuse of process;
(d) the complaint is filed for an improper purpose or motive;
(e) there is no reasonable prospect the complaint will be substantiated;
(f) the substance of the complaint has been appropriately dealt with in another proceeding.
Summary dismissal is not a concept unique to the Veterinarians Act or to the College; it is a legal concept that also applies to the courts and other administrative decision-making bodies. There is a robust jurisprudence around the exercise of summary dismissal that applies to the IC’s decision-making under section 51. Whether summary dismissal is appropriate must be considered on a case-by-case basis with a robust legal and factual analysis. The bar for summary dismissal is high. The IC receives legal advice to assist it in making decisions that are supported by the law. Failure of the IC to render summary dismissal decisions that are supported by the law exposes the College to greater risk of those decisions being judicially reviewed by the Supreme Court of British Columbia at significant cost to the College.
In his 2022 Report, Harry Cayton succinctly describes the proper dynamic as follows (section 2.9):
Regulators are not charged with arbitrating or resolving disagreements or disputes between members of the public and professionals. Rather, they are charged with considering whether a concern raised with them indicates a possible breach of standards and therefore leads to remedial or disciplinary action against the professional. The College is investigating the registrant’s behaviour in relation to its Standards in the public interest; it is not investigating the complaint.
How does the College compare to other veterinary regulators in terms of complaints received?
Relative to both number of registrants and provincial population, the College receives the most complaints about registrants compared to all other veterinary regulators in Canada. Proportionately, three times as many as the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (the “CVO”) and more than seven times as many as the Alberta Veterinary Medical Association. For further context, in 2024, the CVO with 5,720 registrants received 176 complaints, while the College with 2,594 registrants received 237.
What has the College done about the allegations of racial discrimination levelled against it?
Background: Brar Decision and the BCVMA
In 2015, the BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “HRT”) rendered a decision regarding complaints made in 2004-2007 that found that the BC Veterinary Medical Association (the “BCVMA”), the College’s predecessor organization, had “discriminated against a group of Indo-Canadian veterinarians because of their race” (Brar and others v. B.C. Veterinary Medical Association and Osborne, 2015 BCHRT 151 (CanLII).
The BCVMA was a dual-purpose association, meaning that it was tasked with simultaneously regulating veterinarians and advocating on behalf of veterinarians. The complaint before the HRT was the impetus for the government to dissolve the BCVMA and enact the College as a sole-purpose regulator, meaning that its legislated purpose was narrowed to exclusively regulate veterinarians to “protect the public interest” (Veterinarians Act, section 3(1)).
Non-Discrimination Policy
Almost immediately following the 2015 Brar decision regarding the actions of the BCVMA, which was rendered five years after the College was enacted, the College implemented in January 2016 a Non-Discrimination Policy. The Policy creates a process for addressing discrimination complaints.
Since the implementation of the Policy in 2016, four complaints have been brought under the Policy by registrants. With respect to each of those four complaints, Council retained an independent external investigator from firms experienced in conducting investigations into allegations of discrimination: Southern Butler Price LLP and Harper Grey LLP. Investigation reports were delivered in June 2023, November 2023, May 2024, and July 2024. Each of the independent investigation reports returned a finding that the complaint was not substantiated; i.e., the College was not found to have discriminated against the complainant.
The original reports disclose significant confidential information, including about the complainants and other registrants who were interviewed in the course of the investigations, and cannot be made public. However, to assist in addressing the calls for the College to transparently communicate what meaningful steps it has taken to respond to the allegations of discrimination at the College, the College has retained the original investigators to prepare anonymized executive summaries of their investigations and findings. As at the time of this posting, those summaries are expected to be completed within several weeks and will be published on the College’s website at that time. This posting will be updated with links to the summaries.
Johar HRT Proceeding
In 2017, four registrants filed a complaint at the HRT alleging discrimination based on race, colour, and place of origin (Johar and others v. College of Veterinarians of British Columbia (No. 3), case number 17251). The complaint comprised 12 separate allegations of discrimination.
In October 2019 the College filed an application to dismiss the complaint on a summary basis. The HRT rendered its decision in December 2024 (Johar and others v. College of Veterinarians of British Columbia (No. 3), 2024 BCHRT 342 (CanLII)). The HRT dismissed half – 6 out of 12 – of the allegations in the complaint. Only the remaining six allegations are scheduled to be heard at a hearing beginning in March 2026, resulting in a significant reduction in hearing costs.
Harry Cayton
In his 2022 report, Harry Cayton found the following (at footnote 3):
While the 2015 HRT decision is important context for the College’s current problems, it is important to be clear that we did not see any evidence of discrimination in the College’s complaints process. Rather, our concerns arise with respect to the College’s performance as measured against the Standards of Good Regulation.
Cost
The cost incurred since 2021 to respond to allegations of racism against the College total about $1.2M. This figure does not include the College’s internal or overhead costs. For context, the College’s annual revenue during those years averaged $3.5M.
It bears emphasizing that since the College was enacted in 2010, across all of the avenues and remedies available to a registrant who believes that the College has discriminated against them – complaint at the BC Human Rights Tribunal; complaint to the BC Ombudsperson; complaint under the College’s Non-Discrimination Policy; application for judicial review at the Supreme Court of British Columbia – no allegation of discrimination against the College has been substantiated.
It is the College’s obligation to respond to and diligently participate in every complaint or action brought against it. The College remains committed to continuing to discharge its regulatory responsibilities in a manner free of discrimination.
Government Relations
The College is meeting with the Attorney General of British Columbia in December 2025 to discuss the allegations of systemic racism levelled against the College, the College’s response as detailed above, and the financially untenable reality of responding indefinitely to allegations against the College that to date have been entirely unsubstantiated.
Harry Cayton’s June 2025 Memorandum is available here.
Harry Cayton described the Veterinarians Act as “not fit for purpose”. What is the College doing about that?
Pursuant to the Canadian Constitution, professional regulation is in the exclusive jurisdiction of the provincial legislatures. Accordingly, the legislation enacting and governing the College is in the sole purview of the government of British Columbia. The Minister responsible for the Veterinarians Act is the Minister of Agriculture and Food.
The College has been advising the provincial government of the unfit nature of the Veterinarians Act since at least early 2024. In addition to regular meetings with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the College has provided the following materials:
The College has been in ongoing discussions about the effects of the Veterinarians Act with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Post-Secondary Education and Future Skills, and will meet with the Attorney General in December 2025. Ultimately, however, the role of the College is limited to advising the government.
Were registrants notified of Harry Cayton’s June 2025 Memorandum?
Yes – on July 28, 2025 registrants received an eblast containing a link to the 2025 Registrant Vote on Revised Fees and Assessments page on the College’s website, which features a discussion of the Memorandum and provides a link to it.
Does the College plan to improve communication with registrants?
Yes. The College is committed to improving communication with registrants. The College’s financial crisis over the past several years required the College to prioritize its very limited resources toward the performance of its core legislated regulatory responsibilities. Robust communication with registrants was one of the important activities of the College that very regrettably suffered. As the College regains stable financial grounds, it will be able to again prioritize developing and implementing an appropriate and effective communication strategy that is consistent with good practices in professional regulation. Registrants can expect details of that strategy early in the new year.
Why doesn’t the College communicate privately with associations like the South Asian Veterinary Association and the Society of BC Veterinarians?
Like all professional regulators, the College owes a duty of fairness to all of the College’s registrants. Registrants of the College, whether or not they elect to also be members of a special interest association, are all owed the same access to information from the regulator.
The College gladly recognizes that special interest associations can provide valuable information and perspectives that may otherwise not be available to the College. The College welcomes and carefully considers communication from all interested parties. However, information or resources relevant to registrants will not be provided to only a subset of registrants at the exclusion of others – that is fundamentally unjust and contrary to the duty owed by the regulator to registrants.
While the College is committed to significantly improving its overall communication strategy as described above, all registrants can continue to expect to be equally informed and resourced by the College.
Why won’t the College share registrant contact information with professional associations and other special interest organizations?
The College is permitted to collect and use private registrant information, including personal contact information, for only the purposes directly related to the College’s responsibilities and authority. This is a legal obligation that the College takes very seriously.
The College seems to be way more focused on the public’s interests than on the registrants’ interests. Registrants are not being well served. Does the College have plans to rectify that imbalance?
Short answer: no. The College was enacted by the government to be a sole-purpose regulator, meaning that its legislated purpose is exclusively to “protect the public interest” (Veterinarians Act, section 3(1)). In other words, the only reason the College exists is to serve the public interest.
However, as Harry Cayton remarked in his 2025 Memorandum, given the history of the College, it is understandable that some registrants may be unclear on the intended relationship between the College and registrants. The College’s predecessor organization, the BC Veterinary Medical Association (the “BCVMA”), was a dual-purpose association, meaning that it was tasked with simultaneously regulating veterinarians and advocating on behalf of veterinarians. This is the model that many registrants knew earlier in their careers and a model that still exists in some provinces, including Alberta.
The BC Human Rights Tribunal (the “HRT”) found that the BCVMA had “discriminated against a group of Indo-Canadian veterinarians because of their race”. The complaint before the HRT was the impetus for the government to dissolve the BCVMA in 2010 and enact the College as a sole-purpose regulator. Thus, the government made a deliberate decision to move away from the dual-purpose model to that of a public-interest regulator.
Accordingly, the College must continue to give full effect to its legislated duty to serve the public interest. To the extent that there are concerns that the College exists as a public-interest regulator, they are properly directed to the provincial government, which enacted the College.
Who holds the College accountable? How come the College has not responded to the Society of BC Veterinarians’ calls for the College to justify its wasteful spending and complaints procedures despite three or four letters to Council members in September and October?
The College is subject to numerous accountability mechanisms. First and foremost, as a creature of legislation, it is accountable to the provincial government. The Legislature enacted the College and it can change it or dissolve it. The Minister of Agriculture and Food is the Minister responsible for the Veterinarians Act and thus the College. The Veterinarians Act contemplates that the Minister may make, amend, or repeal the College’s Bylaws (section 28). In summary, with respect to the overall purpose, objects, and operations of the College, the College is accountable only to the provincial government.
The College has additional accountabilities in respect of the regulatory decisions it makes (e.g., registration, discipline). To the extent that a regulatory decision affects an individual, such as a registrant or member of the public, it is accountable to the courts, the BC Human Rights Tribunal, and the BC Ombudsperson.
Lastly, like any organization, the College is legally accountable to the extent that any part of its operations engages the law; e.g., employment, contract, insurance, etc.
The College is not accountable to advocacy or other special interest organizations. As indicated in the “College Communication” section, the College will gratefully receive and carefully consider all information and perspectives. It will endeavour to give effect to feedback that advances the College’s public interest mandate. With respect to concerns specifically about the College’s spending and complaints procedures, please see, respectively, the sections “Financial management: fees, insolvency, and costs” and “Complaints, investigations, and discipline”.
While all registrants eligible to vote at meetings of registrants are entitled to attend the AGM, there is nothing in the Veterinarians Act or the Bylaws that precludes any class of persons from being invited by Council to attend the AGM. Pursuant to the Bylaws, Council calls the AGM and sets the agenda. At the 2025 AGM, non-DVMs in attendance included public members of Council, including the treasurer; a partner from MNP (the College’s independent auditor); College staff; committee members; and inspectors.
