College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Joshua Hogan, 2025 ONMTDT 17

ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: June 30, 2025

Tribunal File No.: PC-10027

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Joshua Hogan

Registrant

REASONS FOR DECISION

Heard: May 7, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Jay Sengupta (panel chair)

Lauren Carnegie (massage therapist)

Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)

Matthew Gordon (public)

Howard Shears (public)

Appearances:

Ahmad Mozaffari, for the College

Joshua Hogan, self-represented

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

Pursuant to Rule 2.2.2 of the HPDT Rules of Procedure and ss. 45-47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, no one shall publish or broadcast the names of clients or any information that could identify clients or disclose clients’ personal health information or health records referred to at a hearing or in any documents filed with the Tribunal. There may be significant fines for breaching this restriction.

The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.

Introduction

1The registrant, Joshua Hogan, admitted professional misconduct by entering into sexual relationships with three clients, failing to report criminal charges, failing to follow COVID-19 protocols during the pandemic, breaching client confidentiality, failing to maintain appropriate records, treating family members and failing to maintain professional boundaries.

2The parties made a joint submission regarding penalty and costs. They sought the immediate revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration, a reprimand, reimbursement to the College for funding provided to his former clients to the maximum amounts allowable, posting security to guarantee the reimbursement and costs in accordance with the tariff in the Rules of Procedure.

3A joint submission must be accepted unless it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. As this joint submission is not contrary to the public interest, we made the order requested.

4The reasons for our decision are set out below.

Findings of Misconduct

5For the reasons that follow, we find that the College has established that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(b.1) and s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18.

6Specifically, in respect of s. 51(1)(c), we find that the registrant has breached the following paragraphs of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991:

• paragraph 6 (contravening published standards of the College);

• paragraph 26 (failing to keep records);

• paragraph 41 (contravening the Act, regulations or Code); and

• paragraph 44 (disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct).

7The registrant admitted that he was in concurrent treatment and sexual relationships that spanned from a few months to a few years, and that included sexual intercourse, with Clients A, B and C. He also admitted and acknowledged the negative impact of his conduct on Clients A and B.

8The registrant admitted that he failed to report criminal charges or their outcome to the College in contravention of his reporting obligations. Although the registrant was found not guilty following a trial, this did not vitiate his reporting obligations to the regulator. The Code (s. 85.6.4) requires that a registrant file a written report with the Registrar as soon as reasonably practicable, and the registrant admitted he did not do so.

9The registrant admitted that he provided massage therapy during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic closure of non-essential businesses, and in contravention of the College’s Practice Guidance that registered massage therapists suspend practice, as the College did not view massage therapy as falling under the definition of emergency care.

10The registrant admitted multiple breaches of client confidentiality, when he shared the identities of his clients with other clients as well as with an acquaintance, in contravention of the College’s Privacy and Confidentiality Standard, the purpose of which is to ensure that a client’s personal health information, privacy and confidentiality are securely protected.

11The registrant admitted that he failed to maintain client records or to issue receipts to clients he treated outside of his clinic. In failing to maintain clinical records for these clients, the registrant failed to keep records as required and contravened the Standard of Practice: Client Health Record. In failing to issue receipts to these clients, the registrant contravened the Standard of Practice: Fees and Billing, which requires registrants to keep a financial record for each client, including receipts.

12The registrant admitted that he engaged in unprofessional communications with clients, including asking Client D to meet him in a social capacity outside of his clinic. This conduct contravened the Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse Standard, which requires that RMTs maintain professional behaviour toward clients and refrain from behaviours that increase the risk of boundary violations.

13Finally, the registrant admitted that he provided treatment to family members in circumstances that were not exceptional. The Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse Standard states, at page 5, that “to ensure professional boundaries are appropriately maintained…registrants must…only in exceptional circumstances treat family members.” The parties agreed that exceptional circumstances, as defined in the Standard, were not present.

14In light of the registrant’s admissions, we find that he has engaged in professional misconduct as alleged by the College.

Penalty and Costs

15The parties jointly sought the following:

• An immediate revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration;

• A reprimand;

• Reimbursement to the College for funding provided to Clients A, B and C for therapy and counselling to the maximums allowed under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code;

• Posting security to guarantee payments in respect of Clients A and B in the amount of $5,000 (payable in installments); and

• Costs in the amount of $5,852 (payable in installments).

16While the Tribunal has the discretion to accept or reject a joint submission made by the parties, we must exercise restraint and should not reject a joint submission unless it meets the “undeniably high threshold” that the proposed penalty “would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system” (see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at paras 34 and 42; Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 27 and 28).

17We find that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

18The misconduct is undoubtedly serious. The registrant engaged in concurrent treatment and sexual relationships with three clients that included sexual intercourse. A reprimand and revocation of the certificate of registration are the mandatory penalties prescribed in these circumstances under s. 51(5)(1) and (3) of the Code.

19The registrant’s failure to report criminal charges, follow COVID-19 protocols during the pandemic, maintain appropriate records and maintain professional boundaries, along with breaching client confidentiality and treating family members serve to compound the serious nature of the multiple breaches of his professional obligations.

20By way of mitigation, the College acknowledged that the registrant had accepted responsibility for his conduct, was responsive throughout the investigation and hearing process and had worked collaboratively with it to proceed by way of a joint submission. A registrant is expected to cooperate and respond to inquiries from the regulator. The registrant’s cooperation with the College, on its own, is not a mitigating factor. We find, however, that the registrant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, is a mitigating factor. This led to this matter proceeding by way of a joint submission and vitiated the need for a contested hearing, with evidence being called from the complainants and the associated costs of a lengthier proceeding.

21The College has established a program to fund therapy and counselling for persons who allege sexual abuse by a registrant, pursuant to s. 85.7 of the Code. The parties jointly requested that the registrant be ordered to reimburse the College for funding provided to three clients up to the maximum allowable amount for each of them and we granted that request.

22While an order that a registrant post security for such reimbursement is discretionary, we are satisfied that the amount of $5,000 jointly agreed to by the parties is reasonable and in line with previous decisions of this Tribunal (see College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Puniyanikodan, 2020 ONCMTO 38 and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Hukui, 2023 ONCMTO 21).

23The amount sought in costs is reasonable and in line with the tariff.

Order

24A reprimand was delivered at the close of the hearing and we made the following order:

Finding

The Tribunal finds that the registrant committed the following acts of professional misconduct:

1. Clause 51(1)(b.1) of the Code (sexual abuse of a patient, more specifically sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the patient and touching of a sexual nature of the patient by the member); and

2. Clause 51(1)(c) of the Code and as defined in one or more of the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 (version in force January 25, 2013 – June 4, 2024) made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991:

i. Paragraph 6 (contravening a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College, or failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, in particular, the standards for Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse; and Client Health Record; and Prevention of Sexual Abuse, and Professional Boundaries; and Privacy and Confidentiality; and Fees and Billing); and

ii. Paragraph 26 (failing to keep records as required); and

iii. Paragraph 41 (contravening the Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 or the regulations under either of those Acts, in particular, s. 85.6.4 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991); and

iv. Paragraph 44 (engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional).

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded immediately following the hearing of this matter, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:

a. revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852, which can be paid in 22 monthly installments of $266, with the first payment due on September 1, 2026.

Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling

4. The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided to the clients referred to as Clients A, B and C in the Notice of Hearing with number PC-10027, under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum amount allowable for each client and to post security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee payments of any amount he is required to pay pertaining to Clients A and B, which can be paid in 16 monthly installments of $312.50, with the first payment due on May 8, 2025.

5. Any amount of security provided by the registrant pursuant to paragraph 4 that has not been used by August 16, 2026, will be applied towards the costs the registrant owes pursuant to paragraph 3.