DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS OF ONTARIO

Indexed as:

College of Veterinarians of Ontario v Brar 2026 ONCVO 05

Decision date:

2026-05-25

BETWEEN:

THE COLLEGE OF VETERINARIANS OF ONTARIO

• and -

DR. PUSHPROOP BRAR

PANEL:

Dr. Paula Menzies

Chair, Professional Member

Dr. Clayton MacKay

Professional Member

Mr. John de Bruyn

Public Member

Appearances:

Emily Graham, Counsel for the College

Ashley Maciuk, Counsel for the Member

Luisa Ritacca, Independent Legal Counsel to the Panel

Heard:

May 11, 2026

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION

1This hearing proceeded before a panel of the Discipline Committee (the “Panel”) on May 11, 2026, at the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (the “College”). The hearing was conducted by way of video conference.

2At the outset of the hearing, the Panel was advised that the parties had reached an agreement as to liability and penalty and costs.

The Allegations

3The Panel received a Notice of Hearing (Exhibit #1), dated March 7, 2025, setting out allegations against the Member.

4The background factual allegations and allegations of professional misconduct against the Member as stated in the Statement of Allegations appended to the Notice of Hearing are as follows:

Statement of Allegations

The Registrant

1. Dr. Pushproop Brar (“Dr. Brar”) is a veterinarian licensed to practise veterinary medicine in Ontario. At the material time, Dr. Brar practiced at the Broadway Animal Hospital in Orangeville, Ontario (“the Hospital”).

Viewing pornography in the workplace

2. On approximately February 18, 2023, on one or more occasions during the workday and while one or more other staff members were present at the Hospital, Dr. Brar viewed pornography on a desktop computer in his office at the Hospital.

Professional Misconduct Alleged

3. The above conduct constitutes professional misconduct pursuant to Clause 30(3)(d) of the Veterinarians Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.3, and as defined in one or more of the following paragraphs of section 17(1) of R.R.O. 1990, Regulation 1093 made under the Veterinarians Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. V.3:

a. Paragraph 44 (an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine that, having regard to the circumstances, would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional); and/or

b. Paragraph 45 (conduct unbecoming a veterinarian).

Member’s Plea

5The Member pleaded guilty to the allegations set out in the Notice of Hearing.

6The Panel conducted a plea inquiry to confirm that the Member’s plea was voluntary, informed and unequivocal. The Panel was satisfied by the Member’s responses to the inquiry and as such accepted the Member’s plea.

The Evidence

7The evidence was tendered by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts (Exhibit #2). The Agreed Statement of Facts read as follows:

Agreed Facts

1. Dr. Pushproop Brar “Dr. Brar”) was, at all material times, a veterinarian licensed to practise veterinary medicine in the Province of Ontario. He has been a member of the College of Veterinarians of Ontario ("the College") since 2009.

Summary of the Facts

2. On Saturday, February 18, 2023, Dr. Brar was practicing at an animal hospital in Ontario. It was a workday at the hospital. Animals were being treated in the hospital that day, including undergoing surgery. Other staff members were also present in the hospital that day.

3. On two occasions on February 18, 2023, once in the morning and once at the end of the day, a veterinary assistant employed in Dr. Brar's practice approached Dr. Brar's office to speak to him. Based on Dr. Brar's behaviour on both occasions, namely his trying to stop her from opening the door to his office and opening his office door such that it was only slightly ajar, the assistant formed the belief that Dr. Brar had been viewing pornography in his office.

4. A subsequent review of the Internet browser history on the desktop computer in Dr. Brar's office revealed that on February 18, 2023, Dr. Brar accessed multiple pornographic websites from that computer between approximately 11:14 am and 11:22 am, and again at 6:01 pm. Dr. Brar did so using a Google account registered in his name.

Admissions of Professional Misconduct

5. Dr. Brar thereby engaged in professional misconduct within the meaning of:

a. paragraph 44 (an act or omission relevant to the practice of veterinary medicine, that having regard to the circumstances, would be regarded by members as unprofessional); and

b. paragraph 45 (conduct unbecoming a veterinarian) of subsection 17(1) of O. Reg. 1093 under the Veterinarians Act.

Acknowledgements

6. The parties agree that these facts are accurate.

7. Dr. Brar understands the nature of the allegations that have been made against him and understands that by voluntarily admitting these allegations, he waives his rights to require the College to otherwise prove the case against him with respect to those allegations.

8. Dr. Brar understands that the Discipline Committee can accept that the facts herein constitute professional misconduct as set out in paragraph 5 above.

9. Dr. Brar acknowledges that he has received independent legal advice.

10. Dr. Brar understands that any agreement between him and the College does not bind the Discipline Committee.

Decision and Reasons of the Panel

8Upon review of the Agreed Statement of Facts and in light of the Member’s admissions, the Panel finds that the Member engaged in professional misconduct as alleged.

9In particular, the Panel accepts the admissions in paragraph 5 of the Agreed Statement of Facts and finds that Dr. Brar engaged in conduct that was unprofessional and conduct unbecoming a veterinarian, contrary to paragraphs 44 and 45 of subsection 17(1) of Ontario Regulation 1093.

Penalty and Costs Submissions

10The parties filed an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty (Exhibit #3).

1. On July 27, 2023, Dr. Pushproop Brar ("Dr. Brar") voluntarily completed the Virtual Intensive Outpatient program at Addiction Rehabilitation Toronto ("ART"), an addiction rehabilitation program for pornography addiction.

2. On January 26, 2024, Dr. Brar underwent a multi-disciplinary assessment at Homewood Health. In terms of treatment recommendations, the Homewood assessment recommended:

a. continued participation in individual psychotherapy, with a focus on stress management, emotional regulation, as well as establishing healthy boundaries with others and interpersonal effectiveness; and

b. participation in a professional ethics/conduct course or related coaching. This may importantly aid with building greater insight into appropriate professional behavior, as well as appreciation of how one's behavior, particularly in a professional setting, may impact others including clients, staff/colleagues, and the public.

3. In April 2024, Dr. Brar voluntarily completed the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals. He received a conditional pass.

4. In May 2024, Dr. Brar voluntarily completed the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program offered by the Centre for Personalized Education for Professionals. He received an unconditional pass.

5. Dr. Brar undertook the remedial courses in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 above during the course of the College's investigation, and before the Discipline Committee was directed to determine allegations of professional misconduct on the part Dr. Brar.

11The parties also provided the Panel with a joint submission on penalty and costs (Exhibit #4), which proposed the following order:

1. A recorded public reprimand;

2. A 1.5 month suspension of Dr. Brar's licence, commencing on the date of the Discipline Committee's Order;

3. The imposition of following conditions and limitations on Dr. Brar's licence:

a. For a period of one (1) year following the Order of the Discipline Committee:

Notice by Dr. Brar to Clinic Owners/ Employers

(i) Dr. Brar shall provide to all clinic owners, employers, or colleagues with similar responsibilities to that of a clinic owner or employer at each of his Practice Locations, the Order of the Discipline Committee within 15 days of its release, as well as the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee, within 15 days of their release; and

(ii) If Dr. Brar commences work at a new Practice Location after the date of the Order of the Discipline Committee, he shall provide the clinic owner, employer, or colleague with similar responsibilities to that of a clinic owner or employer, the Order of the Discipline Committee within 15 days of its release, as well as the Decision and Reasons of the Discipline Committee, within 15 days of their release;

(iii) Dr. Brar shall inform the College of each and every location at which he practises, in any jurisdiction (his "Practice Location(s)") within 15 days of the Order, and at least 5 days before resuming practice after his suspension;

(iv) Dr. Brar shall inform the College of any and all new Practice Locations within 15 days of commencing practice at that location;

Therapy

(v) Dr. Brar shall engage in therapy with a College-approved mentaI health professional. Dr. Brar shall meet with the mental health professional as often as recommended by the mental health professional;

(vi) The mental health professional shall provide written reports to the College every six (6) months;

b. Dr. Brar shall provide his irrevocable consent to the College to make appropriate enquiries of any person or institution that may have relevant information in order for the College to monitor his compliance with the terms of this Order; and

4. Dr. Brar shall pay costs to the College in the amount of $5,000.00, within 30 days of the date of the Discipline Committee's Order.

5. Dr. Brar acknowledges that:

a. this Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs addresses the findings made in respect of matter Rl23-10;

b. this matter will be publicized in the usual manner and the publication will include, among other things, his name;

c. this Joint Submission on Penalty and Costs is not binding upon the Discipline Committee; and

d. he has received independent legal advice or had the opportunity to obtain such advice.

12The College argued that the proposed order was in keeping with the public interest and met the primary principles of penalty – being specific and general deterrence and remediation.

13Further, the College submitted that Dr. Brar has already undertaken a number of remedial actions and his willingness to be bound by the additional terms set out in the Joint Submission provides further assurance that he will not engage in misconduct of this manner again.

Reasons for Penalty and Costs Decision

14The Panel considered the joint submission in light of the public interest test set out in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43, and applied in the professional discipline context in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303. The Panel’s task is not to determine the penalty it would have imposed in the absence of agreement, but rather to decide whether the proposed disposition would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or otherwise be contrary to the public interest. Having applied that test, the Panel is satisfied that the proposed order would not bring this process into disrepute and is in keeping with the public interest.

15The admitted misconduct was serious: it occurred twice during a workday while other staff members were present and had attempted to engage him in workplace issues, while animals were being treated in the hospital, including surgery cases, and the browser history showed that Dr. Brar accessed multiple pornographic websites from his office computer using a Google account registered in his name. At the same time, the Panel accepts that Dr. Brar has undertaken meaningful remediation by completing the ART program, undergoing the Homewood assessment, and completing the PROBE Ethics & Boundaries Program, and by agreeing to ongoing therapy, reporting, employer notification, and practice-location reporting.

16The proposed disposition is therefore directed to specific and general deterrence, remediation, and public protection. It is also consistent with the range reflected in comparable discipline decisions involving workplace pornography or analogous misconduct, including College of Nurses of Ontario v. Skepple 2006 CanLII 81757 and College of Nurses of Ontario v. Birchall, 2006 CanLII 81758 in which 30-day suspensions and monitoring terms were imposed, and College of Teachers v. Vandermeer, 2014 ONOCT 108 in which a two-month suspension was ordered.

17Accordingly, the Panel accepts the joint submission on penalty and costs. The Panel orders a recorded public reprimand; a 1.5 month suspension of Dr. Brar’s licence, commencing on the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order; for one year, the notice, reporting, and practice-location terms set out above; ongoing therapy with a College-approved mental health professional together with six-month reporting to the College; Dr. Brar’s irrevocable consent to the College making appropriate enquiries for monitoring purposes; and costs of $5,000.00 payable within 30 days of the date of the Discipline Committee’s Order.

18At the conclusion of the hearing, the Panel delivered its reprimand, which is set out below.

I, Dr. Paula Menzies, sign this decision as chairperson of the Panel and on behalf of the Panel members listed below.

Date:

May 25, 2026

Signed:

Dr. Paula Menzies, Chair

Dr. Clayton MacKay

Mr. John de Bruyn

REPRIMAND

Dr. Pushproop Brar v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario

Dr. Brar as you know, this Discipline panel has ordered you be given an oral reprimand as part of the sanction imposed upon you. The reprimand should impress upon you the seriousness of your misconduct.

The fact that you have received this reprimand will be part of the public portion of the Register and, as such, part of your record with the College.

You will be given an opportunity to make a statement at the end of the reprimand if you wish.

The panel has found that you have engaged in professional misconduct, in that you accessed multiple pornographic websites from your desktop computer while at work. Your conduct was unprofessional and conduct unbecoming of this College.

Of particular concern to us is the fact that the professional misconduct in which you engaged occurred at your workplace on a work computer, during working hours with colleagues present.

Your conduct has brought discredit to the profession and undermines public confidence. The Panel is confident that the penalty and in particular the remediation assigned will minimize the risk that you will not appear before a Discipline Panel again. However, if you do appear before another Panel in the future, we expect the penalty imposed will be more severe than this one.

As I advised earlier, you will now be given an opportunity to make a comment if you wish to do so. This is not an opportunity for you to debate the merits or the correctness of the decisions we have made.