Charles Gollob

The College alleged that the registrant committed professional misconduct by failing to comply with the Quality Assurance Program and failing to respond to College inquiries.

The registrant did not attend the hearing and was deemed to have admitted the allegations.

The Tribunal found the misconduct established, noting a persistent pattern of non-compliance.

The Tribunal ordered a five-month suspension, terms and conditions on the registrant's certificate of registration, a reprimand, and costs of $5,110.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged that the registrant facilitated cheating on a licensing multiple-choice examination conducted through her spouse's private exam-preparation business and later obstructed the ensuing investigation by deleting electronic files and discouraging a student from cooperating.

The Tribunal held that the evidence proved the registrant performed bookkeeping and limited administrative assistance for the business, but did not prove she participated in teaching the examination-preparation course or knew of any solicitation and redistribution of actual examination questions.

The Tribunal also found the circumstantial evidence regarding deletion of cloud-based files was equally consistent with the spouse having performed the deletions, and it rejected the only direct inculpatory evidence because the student witness was not sufficiently credible or reliable.

The request for an adverse inference from the failure to call the spouse was declined.

No finding of professional misconduct was made.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found admitted sexual, physical and verbal abuse of two female massage therapy clients, together with failures to obtain informed written consent, maintain proper draping, and keep required records.

The Tribunal held that jurisdiction continued over the former registrant under the Health Professions Procedural Code despite resignation and prior revocation in another matter.

It ordered mandatory revocation and reprimand, reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding, security for future therapy funding, and tariff costs.

The Tribunal also clarified that, absent rebutting evidence, there is a presumption that clients sexually abused by a registered health professional may require therapy or counselling, so case-specific evidence of future need is not required before ordering security.

The discipline tribunal accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, immediate revocation, and costs after the registrant admitted practising massage therapy and issuing receipts while suspended.

The tribunal applied the Anthony-Cook public interest test for joint submissions and held the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The misconduct was found to be deliberate, repeated, long-standing, and financially motivated, occurring over multiple suspension periods and against a background of prior discipline and persistent regulatory non-compliance.

The tribunal concluded the registrant was ungovernable and that revocation was necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession's discipline system.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the tribunal found that the registrant sexually abused a client during a massage therapy appointment by engaging in touching and behaviour of a sexual nature that was not clinically appropriate and occurred without consent.

The tribunal also found contraventions of published standards respecting professional boundaries, sexual abuse prevention, consent, and client health records, as well as physical abuse, record-keeping failures, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct under the governing regulation and Code.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest standard for joint submissions, the tribunal accepted the proposed penalty.

Mandatory revocation and reprimand were ordered, together with reimbursement of therapy funding and costs.