The de novo establishment of reference intervals (RIs) for all variables is beyond the capabilities of many small laboratories. Thus, recent international recommendations propose procedures to adopt RIs established by "donor" laboratories after validation in "receiving" laboratories. The objective of the current study was to use recently published RIs of canine hemostasis tests as possible donor values and evaluate the validation procedure with randomized sets of values obtained in another study of canine RI determination of prothrombin time (PT), activated partial thromboplastin time (APTT), fibrinogen, and antithrombin (AT). The preanalytical, analytical, and demographic conditions of the donor and receiving laboratories were first compared. To represent new reference individuals, 25 validation sample sets of 20 results of the receiving laboratory were randomly selected for each variable and compared with the RI of the donor laboratory. Validation was rejected in all cases for APTT and AT. Donor RI could be validated in 14 of 25 cases for fibrinogen and in 4 of 25 cases for PT. When preanalytical and analytical differences existed between donor and receiving laboratories, validation procedures consistently rejected preexisting RI. When the differences are smaller, the variability of the results obtained in the validation sample sets tested may be responsible for validations or rejections, which can lead to further misinterpretations of results from patients. Validation of a preexisting reference interval is certainly an interesting option for small laboratories, but progressive determination of the laboratory's own reference interval is probably a better long-term solution.