In the latest chapter of a saga that has lasted more than four years, British Columbia’s Supreme Court has ruled in favour of the B.C. Veterinarian Medical Association (BCVMA) and ordered three lawsuits brought by Lower Mainland veterinarians to be dropped.

All of the veterinarians are Indo-Canadians who were trained in India and all are convinced that they have been discriminated against by the BCVMA. In a raft of lawsuits stemming back to 2004, they allege they have faced racial hatred, conspiracy and defamation.

The sheer number of related charges which were brought against the BCVMA involving overlapping accusations prompted the courts to bundle them into five court cases, three of which were dropped on the request of the vets. It is unclear whether the other two will go to trial but for now they are scheduled for Nov 24, 2008.

In his ruling released last week, Justice Barry Davies ordered the vets to cover the BCVMA’s legal costs at an increased rate, which is one-and-a-half times the amount of costs normally ordered by the Supreme Court.

He reasoned that the 17 plaintiffs (in total among the three cases) failed to follow the court’s directions, did not provide the necessary paperwork and impeded the "discovery process" by deliberately reporting the BCVMA’s prejudice to the media.

It is unclear why the vets decided to drop their three cases. Several messages were left on the cell phone of Dr. Hakar Bhullar, who is a leading protagonist in the court cases and a spokesman for the group of Indo-Canadian vets who feel they’re being targeted (Vets for Justice), but he did not call back before press time.

From his North Vancouver office, BCVMA president Dr. Dave Kirby told the Asian Pacific Post that the association was relieved that their astronomical legal costs would be covered by the plaintiffs.

"This has been a nightmare and a sad chapter for the BCVMA," he said. "We are satisfied with the judge’s decision, and are relieved that these particular matters have finally been resolved."

The cases thrown out:

Based on a transcript from a secret recording taken on Sept 6, 2005 between BCVMA officer (as well as the former president) Dr. Robert Ashburner and his new client Heather Pendragon, the plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Ashburner made racist and derogatory comments about Indo-Canadians. In his defense, Dr. Ashbuner told the court that Pendragon was sent by Bhullar in a subterfuge to induce racist remarks.

As with Dr. Ashburner, complaints arose against Dr. Dilbagh Rana after Pendragon visited his office (on the same day she spoke with Dr.Ashburner). The plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Rana committed a similar offense by speaking negatively of certain Indo-Canadian veterinarian practices.

Same 15 plaintiffs as in the other cases, plus Dr. Naresh Kumar Joshi and Dr. Sarjit Grewal. The plaintiffs allege that the BCVMA and its registrar, Valerie Osborne, targeted Indo-Canadian vets and violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in pursuing disciplinary complaints made against the plaintiffs (see sidebar).

At the same time as the allegations of racism are being duked out in court, they are also being thrashed out in a small room on Robson Street in do wntown Vancouver before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, a provincial quasi-judicial body.

In what is expected to be the longest case in Tribunal history, the BCVMA is fighting allegations that it conspired to limit operations of the low-cost clinics run by Indo-Canadian vets by imposing unreasonable English language proficiency requirements that were purposely aimed at preventing Indo-Canadian, foreign-trained vets from working in B.C.

In 2004, the BCVMA adopted English testing services offered by the Educational Testing Services (ETS) to be administered to foreign-born applicants. Prior to that, it was the practice of the BCVMA to rely on the Registrar, who is typically unqualified in linguistics, to individually assess the English proficiency of all applicants.

Under the new system, applicants must score a 55 out of a possible 60. B.C. Veterinarians for Justice has been promoting the idea that by creating this standard, the BCVMA is asking the applicants to get the equivalent of a 95 per cent pass mark.

But this is misleading, said Dr. Kirby, who explained that the series of tests is designed for non-native English speakers and therefore a score of 60 on the exam does not represent perfect proficiency. It is the highest score given to a person for whom the exam is designed. At the root of the allegations made by the B.C. Vets for Justice is the idea that powerful and big-time vets who charge sky-high fees for their services feel threatened by the low-cost clinics, which are typically run by Indo-Canadians.

In past interviews, Dr. Bhullar said that at Atlas Animal Hospital, a clinic he has run since 1995, he charges $45 for spaying a cat, while the BCVMA’s recommended fee is about $140. He charges $22 to vaccinate a cat, while the recommended fee is $85.

By raising the English language proficiency standards, the vets allege the BCVMA is able to stem the influx of foreign veterinary graduates and therefore reduce competition from lower cost clinics.

But since the English standard was adopted in 2004, 56 out of 59 applicants have passed the exam. None of the vets associated with the current proceedings have failed as they all earned their licenses before the new standard, which is not retroactive, was adopted.

Economics and racism aside, it is almost impossible to explain just how complicated these allegations have become. Hidden-camera recordings catching vets saying derogatory remarks, spying, sabotage and deceit have all become common themes in this four-year battle waged by competing veterinarians. Sorting through the pages of court files, it quickly becomes clear that there are a multitude of motives at work — ones buried so deep beneath the claims of racism and unfair competitive practices that it will take months if not years before the public will learn of what is really fueling the onslaught of civil court battles.

In a separate case but one involving many of the same players, Dr. Bhupinder Johar of Haney Animal Hospital in Maple Ridge, is suing his former employee Angela Rithaler, BCVMA Registrar Valerie Osborne and BCMVA investigator Adrian King-Harris and the association itself for stealing medical files and violating confidentiality.

Originally, the BCVMA had received a long list of complaints from two of Dr. Johar’s employees, including Rithaler, who had worked there for a year in 2004. Pages of complaints obtained by the Asian Pacific Post point to case after case of animal abuse or neglect, witnessed by the two employees.

In the list, Rithaler also alleges that Dr. Johar sexually harassed her, asking for hugs and kisses and complimenting her on her "athletic body."

She also claims he offered her $10,000 to marry his wife’s brother in India so he could come to Canada.

Dr. Johar denies the allegations and alleges Rithaler was spying on him for the BCVMA. Not able to find the medical records in question, he alleges that Rithaler stole them and illegally showed them to Osborne and King-Harris.

He maintains that he is being targeted by Dr. Michael Orser of Alouette Animal Hospital in an organized attempt to damage his reputation and limit the operations of his business. At this time, it is unclear what the relationship is between the two doctors.

The trial is to begin in January 2009.