Feedback deadline is: 4:00 PM on October 26, 2026
Summary
The Ontario government’s Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024 (VPA) is expected to come into force in the near future and will give pharmacy professionals the authority to continue:
- Compounding veterinary prescriptions for animals
- Dispensing veterinary prescriptions for animals
- Selling veterinary medicines for animals
Without a regulatory exemption in the VPA, only veterinary professionals would be legally permitted to perform these activities. Pharmacy professionals have a long history of providing animal owners across Ontario with access to pharmacy services and the medications their animals need.
To support the exemption and to clearly outline expectations for providing pharmacy services to animals, the College has prepared a draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy that is now part of a public consultation. We are seeking feedback on whether the policy expectations are clear, reasonable, and achievable, and to identify information that may be missing that could result in risks to animals or pharmacy practice.
How You Can Provide Your Input
Members of the public, pharmacy and veterinarian professionals, and interested organizations or system partners are encouraged to participate by 4 p.m. on October 26, 2026, using one of the following methods:
- Complete an online survey
- View a PDF version of the survey questions
- Feedback submitted through the survey will be anonymized and aggregated
- Add your feedback in the online form below
- Feedback submitted through the online form will be published on this webpage within 1-3 business days in accordance with our posting guidelines
- Send us an email at [email protected]
- Feedback submitted by email will be added to this webpage within 1-3 business days in accordance with our posting guidelines
The College reserves the right to refuse or remove comments that do not meet the posting guidelines. All feedback submitted as part of the consultation, whether published or not, will be reviewed and considered in the analysis provided to the Board.
Requests for accessible formats can be made by emailing [email protected] or via our toll-free number 1-800-220-1921.
Next Steps
Following the consultation, the draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy may be revised based on the feedback received. The Board will then be asked to consider and approve the draft policy at a future meeting.
Supporting Documents
- Draft Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy
- Draft Supplemental Guidance to the Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals policy
- Summary of policy development
- Board Briefing Note: Providing Pharmacy Services to Animal Patients (June 15, 2026, meeting)
Read The Feedback
This response was submitted by Summit Veterinary Pharmacy Ltd. Read the full submission here.
Can we add some clarifications on what can be sold to owners without a prescription? (If any) .For example the flea and tick medications like Nexgard Also, does the prescription has to have a animal weight? Thank you
This response was submitted by a Pharmacist. Read the full submission here.
Pharmacists are Health care professionals trusted by the public and other members of the health care team to provide medication supply and distribution services combined with knowledge of those medications. Adding Pharmacists to the animal medications supply chain would benefit the public through greater choice, convenience and competitive pricing. I would urge veterinarians to embrace this partnership to benefit their profession. The College should work to enable Pharmacists to choose to expand their practice in this direction if they so choose.
I had my own Pharmacy Business and next door was animal hospital used to fill all prescriptions for their clints and on estimated price by the hospital and this is against law and deprive pharmacist from their work . Please find solution for this. Thank you
Comment made: “Whenever patients ask me about meds for their pet, I say ask the vet! Just like how patients are constantly coming in for what they think is “pink eye”, I tell them see an optometrist, I am not skilled or trained in assessing eyes and neither do I have the tools.” This suggests that we’re getting into a “scope of practice” discussion here, about assessing the animals. No. Pharmacists do interact with veterinarians from time to time (or more often if it’s their speciality). In the course of that, a prescription may result — FROM THE VETERINARIAN. S/he has done the assessment of their patient. Period. Not the pharmacist. The owner has the right to request a prescription from the veterinarian (always has). That can be taken to a pharmacist for filling. And that is done if the pharmacist is competent (by the legal meaning of the word) to fill that prescription; if not, the OCP has seen fit to state we don’t need further courses to fill such prescriptions, because it is already in our scope of practice, and filling of that prescription is what we do in our controlled acts acumen. This policy is a supplement to the existing laws of this country, as well as to the new Veterinary Professionals Act which is not yet in force. And that Act is permitted to exempt certain professions from what it says in the act about who may dispense, compound, etc. for animals. To me, pharmacists already have this authority under the DPRA and federal Food and Drug Regulations; an exemption for this should not be required as it appears to be infringing on another profession’s fundamental practice privileges. If anything in the proposed policy (or its guide) appears to be contrary to those practice rights, now is the time to challenge the wording of the proposed policy. Because, the federal laws define “drug” and “prescription” and those include “for humans, animals, and fowl.” It’s already authorized to fill those prescriptions. Assessing a specific patient, however, would be outside the scope and that was a concern of the CVO (now CVPO) when it came to us allowing adaptation of prescriptions; they don’t want that to happen and as such, interacted with our college starting in 2017 with a view to new legislation. This should have been set to rest long ago.
Like many other proposals by OCP I think this should only be allowed for those who are qualified and trained! I did not receive any education on animal physiology or therapeutics, there is a reason vets go to school for years to learn this stuff. Whenever patients ask me about meds for their pet, I say ask the vet! Just like how patients are constantly coming in for what they think is “pink eye”, I tell them see an optometrist, I am not skilled or trained in assessing eyes and neither do I have the tools. OCP, we need to focus on some more worthwhile suggestions that focus on patient safety, such as the health and wellness of pharmacists and their team! SO many pharmacies are filled with toxic people and pharmacists are constantly MENTALLY SUFFERING under toxic environments, and this can lead to patient harm.
I highly support OCP to implement the new policy: Providing Pharmacy Services for Animals. I myself has a cat as my emotional support by providing unique psychological, physiological, and practical lifestyle benefits. While they do not replace professional mental health treatments, their quiet and affectionate companionship offers highly effective therapy for individuals managing anxiety, depression, PTSD, and chronic stress. Animals/cats should be taken care of because they are completely dependent on humans for their physical survival, medical health, and emotional well-being. Meeting their needs ensures they live a long, pain-free life while preventing behavioral and public health issues. Some of the help pharmacy professionals can provide for animals/cats are vaccinations since cats are masters at hiding pain and illness as a survival instinct; without preventative care, cats can suffer from painful flea infestations, ear mites, and internal worms. Some of these parasites can also infect human; and cats show signs of oral disease by age three. Left untreated, severe dental disease causes intense chronic pain, tooth loss, and can lead to life-threatening heart and kidney infections.
There is a lot of confusion already evident here from comments that appear to suggest this will be MANDATORY practice for all pharmacists. Not so. The Veterinarians Act is being replaced by the Veterinary Professionals Act, 2024. There are regulations associated with that new Act, which are being put forward for comment. In talks since 2017, the CVO and OCP (through councils) decided to create an information dissertation for pharmacists, since pharmacists are mentioned in the VPA as exempted from some restrictions, subject to regulations. Please stop thinking this is being added on to our duties; it is optional and will only apply if one chooses to go into the realm of veterinary practice. Our own college has already indicated, more than once (if you read Board minutes, etc.) that pharmacists who undertake such actions do so only by knowing the practice acumen; if they don’t, then they have to know to not get involved. This is no different than a pharmacist who elects to be primarily involved in oncology patient care (being near such a centre). We have been seen by our college to have the professionalism to know when to say, “No, I don’t have that set of skills” (or take the requisite self-training courses to become competent). To the veterinarian comment (Sept 16) I must state that they are incorrect in saying the cannot dispense drugs for human use. The controlled act of dispensing and compounding under the RHPA identifies the Ontario professions that are permit their registrants to do these acts. In fact, the veterinary agencies have compiled a “decision cascade” that condones dispensing a HUMAN APPROVED DRUG for ANIMAL USE. So they are permitted to dispensed human drugs for their patients. CAHI (Canadian Animal Health Institute) has, for decades, tried to protect their self-interests (they are made up of veterinary drug companies) by forcing out (as one example) compounding, promoting misinformation to their members that such is riskier than using a commercial veterinary product — then, allowing them to use human products ahead of Good Compounding Practice standards that always prefer starting materials to be from a single API that meets professional standards. Health Canada approved those human drugs for that species…not others. So there is just as much risk/liability using a human drug in animals, as there is no evidence for its safety and efficacy in those “off label” species. There are, in fact, pharmacies and pharmacists who have significant training in veterinary pharmacy. Even our provincial (DPRA) and federal statutes define “drug” as being for use in “humans, animals, or fowl” and of course, pharmacists are regulated under those statutes, which means dispensing legal prescriptions is within their authority (just as “dispensing” is done by veterinarians). This consultation is about a policy of the OCP and should not get into “vets not liking pharmacists dispensing the VET’s legal prescription” in the course of patient care. That loses focus on the fact that everything starts with the veterinarian issuing a prescription, and if that involves a compounded preparation to effect care for the patient, then there is interaction between the veterinarian and the pharmacist to decide on a unique formulation for that patient, which the veterinarian ends up agreeing to (or not) and if in agreement, issues a prescription that permits its dispensing by a competent pharmacist in that field of practice. If “bad apples” exist (as they do for all professions) and get involved in dispensing a prescription that they should have known was not within their knowledge realm, and something adverse happens, then there is a regulatory process for complaints, etc. to be pursued. But let’s not paint an entire profession (either side) with the same brush. Just as use of a compounded drug is seen by veterinary regulators as ELDU, so is the use of human drugs in any species other than humans. Ultimately, the veterinarian is responsible for their choice of treatment in a patient. The pharmacist is ALWAYS responsible for the dispensing of the prescribed drug accurately, AS PRESCRIBED.
I am a veterinarian. I am encouraged to see that some pharmacists are NOT interested in carrying and dispensing veterinary products. Animals are NOT small people. I cannot dispense drugs for human use, so why is a pharmacist dispensing drugs for animal use?? If you want to keep good quality veterinary medicine in your communities, don’t undercut by selling meds cheaper at human pharmacies. The veterinarian will be the one to deal with any adverse events like drug reactions and to advise on dose changes, etc. when needed, not the pharmacist. I sent a prescription to a human pharmacy last week for a cat–simply because it was urgent–and the owner went home with the human drug information–completely not applicable to the cat at all. Please leave veterinary dispensing to veterinarians. Please.
Hi, I would like to get more information regarding animal allergies and the ingredients that should be avoided for specific animals, including which ingredients may be unsafe or contraindicated for certain species. It would also be helpful to have guidance on commonly used OTC medications for animals, including: * Which OTC medications are considered safe for specific animal species * Recommended dosing and frequency * Age/weight considerations * Important contraindications, interactions, and potential side effects * Ingredients or formulations that should be avoided * Any specific brand or product recommendations that are appropriate for animals This information would help us provide safer and more appropriate guidance when customers have questions about OTC products for their pets.
Before OCP add more responsibilities on pharmacists, please understand that we pharmacists have to do everything during the pharmacies’ working hours and if these hours are not extended or registered technicians are not provided then patient care is going to be compromised. We already have lots of minor ailments to be treated by the pharmacists and we may treat a few more minor ailments in future, but without having any knowledge, to dispense vet medicines, it’s not safe for either the pharmacists or for the animals. I am highly positive that if we have to dispense vet products, no one pharmacy owners or no one companies will provide proper training or online reference to the pharmacists.
Minor ailments, suboxone injections, flu shots, covid shots and now vet services! I am a PHARMACIST. I am NOT a vet, I am NOT a nurse, I am NOT a doctor!!!! Please stop adding more work with no compensation yet again. ONce again, OCP is prioritizing convenience over accuracy and appropriateness. Of course the public things its wonderful, they don’t have to wait to make sure they get the right medication. Animals are not simply small humans. We are not taught animal medication in pharmacy school. I had a pharmacist colleague who gave a dry eye drop to owners of a parrot and it died (by the way the pharmacist lost their license). I dispense vet meds right now with zero checking of dose or counseling unless I use AI. Hope I don’t kill your pet. For once, can we let the vets do their job and I do mine?
Getting my dogs meds filled at my pharmacy was wonderful. Saved me time and money!
This is a welcome change from the college of Pharmacists. I do agree that there needs to be some sort of policy that guides the dispensing of prescriptions to animals. Most pharmacies do not have the required knowledge to dispense such prescriptions however and a training process would be required. One can expect the cost of veterinary prescriptions to increase as the number of available pharmacy operators offering such service services decrease similar to when compounding changes were introduced.
As a RPhT who also had a animal with several chronic and serious health conditions, being able to have my pets medications filled in a community compounding pharmacy versus purchasing from my vet saved me thousands of dollars, if not close to $10K+. I know how much this cost savings helped me to be able to afford quality and lifesaving care for my pet prior to his passing and I think giving this option to pet parents and expanding a pharmacies ability to sell veterinary specific medications will help with providing more accessible care for pets. I believe it will also help with availability issues, for example, my vet could not get one of my pets medications, that I usually get from the vet as it is an animal specific medication, as it was on backorder. As they knew I worked in the pharmacy field, he offered to write me a prescription to get filled at the pharmacy I got all of my pets other medications done but since it is a vet only medication they could not. My vet was very shocked by this so I feel they would be supportive of this From a workload perspective, I can also see this adding more stress to community pharmacies that are already overworked and understaffed, which would also lead to more errors. I also think having a designated “vet-med only” section for medications that are old prescribed to pets (ex. Tylosin tablets) to help with patient safety to avoid accidental mix-up of medications.