Ashley Van Zelst

On a penalty and costs hearing following findings of professional misconduct arising from treatment of a sensitive area without the required consent and explanation, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand, a seven-month suspension, and remedial educational terms.

The panel treated prior discipline history involving boundaries and non-compliance with an earlier order as aggravating.

A majority also ordered tariff-based costs without reduction, holding that the unproven billing allegation did not consume sufficiently significant hearing time to justify a divided-success adjustment.

A dissenting panel member would have reduced costs by 25% to reflect partial failure on one allegation.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found that the registrant sexually abused and physically abused a client during a massage therapy session, contravened the College’s sexual-abuse prevention standard, and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

The findings were based on a signed statement of uncontested facts in which the registrant pleaded no contest to the allegations.

Applying the public-interest test for joint submissions, the Tribunal accepted the parties’ joint penalty submission.

It ordered a reprimand, mandatory revocation, reimbursement for therapy or counselling funding provided under s. 85.7 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, security of $6,000, and costs of $5,852.

The registrant admitted professional misconduct arising from several years of improper insurance billing, falsified treatment notes and receipts, and failures to keep required records.

The Tribunal applied the joint-submission standard and accepted a jointly proposed penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.

In doing so, it emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, and compared the proposed disposition to prior discipline decisions involving false receipts and deficient record keeping.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, specified educational and compliance conditions, and costs.