ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10584
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Wan Hua (Annie) Wu
Registrant
COSTS REASONS
Heard: July 8, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Appearances:
Alexandra Matushenko, for the College
Wan Hua (Annie) Wu, not present or 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
1Despite being directed to attend, the registrant, Ms. Wu, did not attend the video case management conference (CMC) held on July 8, 2025, nor did she respond to emails sent by College counsel and the Tribunal in advance. This unreasonable conduct led to wasted expenses, including for the time of College counsel, the CMC Chair and the interpreter. I therefore ordered Ms. Wu to pay the College $500 in costs to compensate for a portion of that wasted money.
Authority to Make a Costs Order
2Rule 17.1.1 of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals Rules of Procedure provides: “In addition to the circumstances set out in s. 53 and s. 53.1 of the Code, the Tribunal may make an order of costs if it finds the conduct or course of conduct of a party has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious, or a party has acted in bad faith.” Rule 17.1.2 provides that failure to follow a panel’s direction may be a factor in assessing costs under Rule 17.1.1. The power to make these rules is set out in s. 17.1 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S.22 (SPPA).
3Since Ms. Wu had notice of this CMC through emails sent by the Tribunal, but she did not attend, it proceeded in her absence under s. 7 of the SPPA and s. 4.1.2 of the Rules. As the Case Management Chair, I have the power to make a costs award under Rule 9.5.2 (n) which allows me to hear pre-hearing motions. I have the power to hear submissions by videoconference under s. 3(1) of the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020, SO 2020, c. 5, Sched. 3.
Reasons for Making a Costs Order
4Costs can only be awarded under Rule 17.1.1 if a party’s conduct has been unreasonable, frivolous or vexatious or a party has acted in bad faith. The following is Ms. Wu’s unreasonable conduct:
At the uncontested merits hearing on June 18, 2025, the hearing could not be completed and an issue arose about the registrant’s plea of no contest and agreement to a joint submission. The panel chair, on behalf of the panel asked that the parties attend a CMC with me to address those issues and confirmed this in a Hearing Management Direction issued later that day.
Also on June 18, 2025, College counsel emailed the registrant with three dates in June that the College was available for the CMC and asked for the registrant’s availability. The registrant did not respond.
On June 19, 2025, College counsel again emailed the registrant.
The registrant responded on June 20, 2025, that she was not available on any of the dates proposed by College counsel. She did not provide her own availability. College counsel immediately emailed back to ask for her availability. The registrant did not respond. Accordingly, College counsel emailed the Hearings Office with the College’s availability and asked for possible dates the Tribunal was available. The Tribunal provided dates. College counsel wrote to the registrant to follow up. The registrant did not respond to either the College or the Tribunal.
On June 25, 2025, College counsel wrote to the Tribunal advising that the registrant had not responded to her and providing the College’s availability. The Tribunal asked the registrant for a response. She did not.
On July 3, 2025, College counsel again wrote to the Tribunal and the registrant to ask if a CMC could be scheduled.
The Tribunal Office conveyed my direction that the CMC would take place on July 8, 2025, at 4:00 PM and that the registrant must make arrangements to be present. She did not respond nor attend.
5Both parties are required to respond to each other and to the Tribunal’s directions and to attend scheduled events when directed. Ms. Wu’s repeated failures to respond, combined with her non-attendance at the CMC, were unreasonable and led to unnecessary costs for counsel’s time, my time and the time of the interpreter. It also wasted Hearings Office staff’s time.
6I exercise my discretion to set costs at $500. Today’s CMC took an hour and a quarter, part of which was taken up with waiting for the registrant. Additional time was incurred in counsel’s correspondence back and forth, in my time preparing these reasons and in Tribunal staff’s time to process them. Just the costs of counsel and the chair for the CMC amount to over $750. Considering that cases have awarded two-thirds of actual costs in discipline proceedings where there was no finding of unreasonable conduct, this nominal award is appropriate in the circumstances.
Order
7Ms. Wu shall pay the College costs of $500, due immediately. Postjudgment interest is payable at the rate of 4% per year, under s. 129 of the Courts of Justice Act¸ RSO 1990, c. C.43.