Can veterinarians have an animal put down without the owner's permission?

August 8, 2007 9:18 AM

In Ontario, can an animal be euthanised without the owner's consent?

I was recently told by a veterinarian that the Ontario Veterinarians Act allows three veterinarians to make a decision that an animal ought to be euthanised even if they don’t have the consent of the owner. I've scoured the Act, but can't find anything close to this in it. Is it true? If not, who must consent for an animal to be put down? Sources would be appreciated, if available.

posted by pantheON to law & government (5 comments total)

Perhps they are thinking of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act? It says here that an animal may be euthanised without an owner's consent if a veterinarian deems it necessary; but note that it is a subsection of a larger part of the Act which places it in the context of being removed from inhumane conditions or mistreatment.

I don't know this for sure, but I think companion animals are still largely regarded as property under the law, so if your vet just up and killed your cat one day it might be governed under destruction of property statutes.
posted by AV at 9:33 AM on August 8, 2007

My interpretation of the SCPCA Act is the same as AV's -- if the veterinarian believes that the animal can no longer continue to live without suffering, they can put it down without the consent of the owner.
posted by modernnomad at 10:30 AM on August 8, 2007

The courts can also order the destruction of pitbulls without the consent of the owner in a variety of circumstances -- link.
posted by modernnomad at 10:36 AM on August 8, 2007

Hm. If we're talking about a dangerous animal, the court might order the animal destroyed. That wouldn't require anyone else's consent (if the judge wanted someone else's opinion first, they wouldn't be making an order yet).

In other circumstances, I wonder if perhaps there's some sort of rule in the laws discussed here that's not as specific as you've heard (e.g. not specifically about euthanasia nor specifying three vets) that says that there are circumstances in which what the vet can/should take action contrary to the owner's instructions (e.g. if the owner's instructions would constitute cruelty). In that case, the rule about three vets might have evolved as a bit of CYA to protect the vet making such a decision.
posted by winston at 12:35 PM on August 8, 2007

It seems to me, now that I think about it, that I would expect that the Veterinarians' Act would delegate the making of such regulations to the College of Veterinarians.
posted by winston at 12:43 PM on August 8, 2007