ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10227
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Jason Epps
Registrant
REASONS FOR DECISION
Heard: April 4, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Jennifer Scott (panel chair)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Brian Highgate (public)
Dawn Oehring (massage therapist)
Carolyn Watt (public)
Appearances:
Anastasia-Maria Hountalas, for the College
Mark Huckabone, for the registrant
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal ordered, under s. 45(3) 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.
The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
INTRODUCTION
1The registrant, Jason Epps, admitted professional misconduct when he massaged some of the Client’s sensitive areas without written and/or verbal consent, when he failed to immediately stop massaging a sensitive area when the Client asked him to, and when he failed to secure the draping.
2The parties jointly submitted the penalty for this misconduct should be: (i) a suspension of six months, (ii) completion of the PROBE ethics course, (iii) a review of the College’s standards of practice, and (iv) a reprimand. They proposed costs of $5,852.
3A joint submission must be accepted unless it is contrary to the public interest. The parties’ joint submission is not contrary to the public interest, and we made the order requested. These are our reasons.
Findings of Misconduct
4Mr. Epps provided massage therapy treatment to the Client at a clinic in October 2021. During the treatment session, he massaged the Client’s gluteal muscles without obtaining written consent as required, massaged the Client’s upper inner thighs and pelvic area without obtaining written or verbal consent as required, massaged the Client’s pelvic area roughly and did not immediately stop when she asked him to, and asked the Client to hang one leg off the massage table while treating the portion of her thigh that meets the pelvic area without properly securing the draping.
5Mr. Epps agrees that he contravened a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College or failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, as set out in the standards for Consent, Draping, and Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse. These standards taken together required Mr. Epps to obtain informed consent before treatment, written consent for the treatment of sensitive areas, and to secure proper draping at all times.
6He agrees further that he engaged in conduct that would be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Mr. Epps showed a persistent disregard for the Client when he failed to obtain informed consent, when he failed to obtain written consent for the treatment of sensitive areas and when he failed to listen and respect the Client’s boundaries when she told him to stop massaging her pelvic area. This conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Penalty and Costs
7The parties made the following joint submission on penalty:
a. Suspension of six months;
b. Reprimand;
c. Completion of the PROBE ethics course and a review of the College’s standards of practice on Client-centred Care, Communication, Consent, Draping and Physical Privacy, Prevention of Sexual Abuse and Professional Boundaries.
8They submitted further that the Registrant pay costs of $5,852.
9Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty is not in the public interest because it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is contrary to the public interest in some other way: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 32.
10A joint submission is not in the public interest when it is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case, that reasonable and informed persons aware of those circumstances believe the proper functioning of the professional discipline system has broken down: Anthony-Cook at para. 34. This is a very high test.
11In determining whether the proposed penalty is contrary to the public interest, we have considered the seriousness of Mr. Epps’s misconduct, his discipline history and the caselaw on penalties in similar cases, because these are the factors that are relevant to this question.
12Mr. Epps’s misconduct is serious. Treatment of sensitive areas, which include the gluteal muscles, anterior pelvic/groin area and upper inner thighs, requires prior written consent before the treatment begins. Mr. Epps failed to obtain written consent for the treatment of sensitive areas and failed to obtain verbal consent for some of the areas (upper inner thighs and pelvic area). He continued to massage the Client’s pelvic area after the Client asked him to stop and failed to ensure secure draping when massaging her upper thigh close to her pelvic area. Consent and proper draping are critical to safeguarding appropriate boundaries between a massage therapist and a client and are enshrined in the College’s standards.
13Mr. Epps has no disciplinary history.
14The caselaw relied upon by the parties supports their proposed penalty. The two cases that are the most relevant are Ontario (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario) v. Addley, 2022 ONCMTO 6 and Ontario (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario) v. Finn, 2023 ONCMTO 3.
15In Addley, the registrant received a one-month suspension and reprimand for the failure to obtain written consent to treat one sensitive area. In Finn, the registrant received a suspension of six months and reprimand for massaging a client’s sensitive areas without written consent, making inappropriate comments, and hugging and kissing the client. While the case before us does not include inappropriate comments and touching, it does include the treatment of multiple sensitive areas without written and in some instances, verbal consent. The parties’ proposed penalty is within the range of penalties provided in the caselaw.
16The joint submission protects the public interest. The suspension and reprimand send a strong message to Mr. Epps and to other members of the profession that the failure to obtain written and verbal consent for the treatment of sensitive areas is serious and will not be tolerated. The PROBE ethics course and Mr. Epps’s review of the College’s standards of practice will limit the possibility of a further contravention of the standards by Mr. Epps. The penalty protects the public and demonstrates the College’s professional discipline system is working. It is accepted for these reasons.
17Although not part of the penalty, the parties agreed on costs to be paid by Mr. Epps. The costs proposed are reasonable and in accordance with Tariff A in the Rules of Procedure.
Order
18We made the following order on penalty and costs on April 4, 2025:
a. The Registrant is required to appear before a panel of the OMTDT 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 suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of six months, to commence on the date of the order;
c. The Registrar is directed to impose the following specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, all of which are to be completed at the Registrant’s own expense:
i. The Registrant shall unconditionally pass the PROBE ethics course prior to his return to practice; and
ii. The Registrant shall review the College’s standards of practice on Client-centred Care, Communication, Consent, Draping and Physical Privacy, Prevention of Sexual Abuse and Professional Boundaries, and confirm completion of same in writing to the Registrar prior to his return to practice.
d. The Registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852 within 30 days of the date of the order.