ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10781
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Zdenko Vranic
Registrant
PENALTY REASONS
Heard: March 20, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Brian Highgate (public)
Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)
Jalpa Patel (public)
Appearances:
Enniael Stair, for the College
Carina Lentsch, for the registrant
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal ordered, under ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, that no one may publish or broadcast the name of the complainant and/or any information that would disclose the identity of the complainant referred to during the hearing or in any documents filed at the hearing. There may be significant fines for breaching this order.
Following the hearing of this matter but prior to the release of these reasons, the Discipline Committee was renamed the Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal (OMTDT). The OMTDT is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
INTRODUCTION
1In our decision of January 8, 2025, we found that the registrant contravened a published standard of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (the College) and did not keep records as required when he failed to retain a client’s health record for the minimum mandated period of 10 years.
2At the hearing on penalty and costs, the parties provided us with a Joint Submission. We accepted the joint submission and ordered that the registrant appear before the panel immediately following the hearing to be reprimanded. We also directed him to complete a record-keeping e-workshop if he returns to practice. We made no order on costs.
BACKGROUND
3As described in our earlier decision, the College referred misconduct allegations against the registrant to a hearing. The allegations arose from a complaint made by a client about the registrant’s conduct during massage therapy treatments provided about six years before the complaint. When the registrant became aware of the complaint, he searched for but was unable to find the client’s health record.
4The College alleged that the registrant’s conduct toward the client amounted to sexual and physical abuse and breaches of various standards of practice. It also alleged misconduct arising out of the failure to locate the record. At the hearing, the registrant admitted that his failure to retain the record was misconduct under paragraphs 6 and 26 of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991 (version in force January 25, 2013 – June 4, 2024). He contested the other allegations.
5The panel heard evidence from the client and registrant during a three-day hearing. We dismissed the allegations of sexual and physical abuse and breaches of standards of practice in relation to the registrant’s conduct toward the client. We found that the registrant committed misconduct when he failed to retain the client’s health record and directed a hearing on penalty and costs.
JOINT SUBMISSION
6At the time of the hearing, the registrant was no longer practising as a massage therapist, having resigned his certificate of registration for personal and health-related reasons. The parties jointly submitted that the appropriate penalty should be a direction that the registrant appear before the panel for a reprimand. Further, they agreed that the Registrar should impose a term, condition or limitation on the registrant’s certificate of registration consisting of a requirement that he successfully complete the College’s record-keeping e-workshop if he reapplies for registration and returns to the practice of massage therapy, within four months of the date on which he is issued a current general certificate of registration.
7The College did not ask for an order that the registrant pay any portion of its costs. At the hearing it explained that, in the unique circumstances, this is not an appropriate case for costs. In its submission, the panel made no finding on the most serious allegations of misconduct, which took up most of the hearing time, and the registrant admitted to the record-keeping deficiency from the outset.
FINDING ON PENALTY AND COSTS
8We are satisfied that the proposed penalty satisfies the principles of sanctioning, including public protection, general and specific deterrence and remediation and is not contrary to the public interest.
9The registrant’s behaviour was a breach of his professional obligations. However, his loss of the client’s record was inadvertent and we did not find that it demonstrated a serious or persistent disregard for those obligations. The registrant has taken responsibility for his actions by admitting the allegation. Further, the cases the parties provided us show that the penalty proposed here is not outside of a reasonable range of penalties for similar misconduct.
10We accept the parties’ submission that a reprimand is appropriate in the circumstances. It achieves the public protection goal of penalty orders and enhances confidence in the profession and the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest. It will be published on the public register and in this manner will act as a general deterrent, signalling that this kind of conduct will have consequences. A reprimand will also allow the panel to speak directly to the registrant to express its disapproval of his conduct and remind him of his professional responsibilities. The requirement to complete the College’s record-keeping e-workshop if the registrant decides to re-enter the profession will also serve the goal of public protection.
11Under section 53.1 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, the panel has a discretion to order a registrant who has committed an act of misconduct to pay all or part of the College’s costs. Having regard to the College’s position, our decision to make no finding on most of the allegations, the time spent in the hearing on those allegations relative to the one forming the basis of our finding of misconduct, and the registrant’s admission, we see no reason to exercise our discretion to award costs.
ORDER
12The panel made the following order:
a) The registrant is required to appear before a panel of the [Tribunal] immediately following the hearing of this matter to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College.
b) The Registrar is directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration:
i. Successful completion of the College’s record-keeping e-workshop, to be completed at his own expense if the registrant reapplies for registration with the College and returns to the practice of massage therapy, within four months of the date on which he is issued a current general certificate of registration.