ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10833
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Nijay Shah
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: June 26, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sophie Martel (panel chair)
Jay Mathers (public)
Ashley Van Zelst (massage therapist)
Carolyn Watt (public)
Eric Wu (massage therapist)
Appearances:
Enniael Stair, for the College
Daniel R. Libman, for the registrant
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, Nijay Shah, admits that he engaged in professional misconduct when, for several years, he improperly billed, falsified documents and failed to keep records as required.
2The parties made a joint submission on penalty, which we accepted because the proposed penalty did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not otherwise contrary to the public interest. We reprimanded the registrant and ordered an eight-month suspension as well as educational courses and the completion of compliance audits. We ordered the registrant to pay costs of $5,852.
Findings of Misconduct
3The registrant is a registrant of the College and the owner of a clinic that provides regulated health care services including massage therapy and physiotherapy.
4Between 2016 and 2019, the registrant engaged in an arrangement with a client and her family where he submitted claims to the client’s insurer for massage therapy and physiotherapy that were not provided as described and permitted the client and her family to receive treatment equivalent to those claimed amounts at other times from him and other individuals.
5In 2022, the registrant submitted massage therapy claims to the client’s insurer for the client and her family when the treatments were not provided as described.
6Between 2016 and 2022, the registrant created several false treatment notes and receipts. The registrant provided the false documents to the insurer and to the College to support the insurance claims of the client and her family.
7Between 2016 and 2022, the registrant failed to keep required records. He failed to maintain treatment notes and failed to issue receipts for treatment.
8The registrant’s improper billing practices, falsified documents and deficient record keeping constitute misconduct under the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27:
Paragraph 6 (Contravened published standards of the College in effect at the time of the misconduct): The registrant failed to maintain required client health records contrary to Communication/Public Health Standard 14, and he failed to issue receipts and submitted false records contrary to the Fees and Billing Standard.
Paragraph 26 (failing to keep records as required).
Paragraph 27 (falsifying a record relating to the member’s practice).
Paragraph 29 (signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows contains a false or misleading statement).
Paragraph 44 (engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct).
9The totality of the misconduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. The failure to keep accurate and complete records places clients at risk and undermines public confidence in the profession. Similarly, the submission of false records to insurers and to the College undermines the trust of insurers and the public.
Penalty and Costs
10The parties jointly proposed a reprimand, a suspension of eight months, an individualized ethics course, a record keeping workshop and the successful completion of up to three compliance audits upon the registrant’s return to practice. The course, workshop and compliance audits are to be completed at the registrant’s expense. The parties also jointly proposed costs of $5,852.
11Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise not in the public interest: R. v. Anthony Cook, 2016 SCC 43. A disciplinary body that rejects a joint submissions on penalty must show why the proposed penalty is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303.
12We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of justice into dispute and is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. We are also satisfied that the proposed penalty appropriately balances the penalty goals: the protection of the public, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and expressing the Tribunal and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.
13The proposed penalty is within the range of penalties that have been ordered by the Discipline Committee (now the Tribunal) in cases that involved similar professional misconduct findings relating to false receipts combined with deficient record keeping. Suspensions ranged from six months to nine months in the following decisions: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Ma, 2019 ONCMTO 8, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Wang, 2022 ONCMTO 16, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Chengcheng Zhu, 2017 ONCMTO 3, and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Yoon, 2024 ONCMTO 3. These decisions also ordered a reprimand and imposed terms, conditions or limitations on the registrants’ certificates of registration that included similar provisions to those proposed in this case regarding the completion of relevant coursework and compliance audits.
14The misconduct in this case was serious in that it lasted several years and concerns a registrant and owner of a clinic who was responsible for his clinic’s billing practices. Submitting false records to an insurer and to the College erodes trust with insurers and undermines the public’s confidence in the profession. The reprimand and eight-month suspension should deter the registrant and the profession from similar future misconduct. They also denunciate the conduct and send the message that such billing practices and false record keeping will be treated seriously by this Tribunal. The ethics course, record keeping workshop and compliance audits are geared towards the rehabilitation of the registrant and to instill confidence in the public that the registrant will engage in the future practice of the profession safely and ethically.
15We accept the parties’ agreement to costs of $5,852, which reflects the tariff rate for a half-day hearing in the Rules of Procedure.
Order
16For the above reasons, our order provides:
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.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:
a. Suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of eight (8) months commencing June 27, 2025 at 12:01 a.m.;
b. Place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, all to be completed at the registrant’s own expense:
i. Successful completion, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of an individualized ethics course, pre-approved by the Registrar, relating to the findings in this case, completed before the registrant’s return to practice;
ii. Successful completion, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of the College’s Record Keeping E-Workshop before the registrant’s return to practice; and
iii. Successful completion of up to three (3) compliance audits, within two (2) years following the registrant’s return to practice.
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs of $5,852 within thirty (30) days of the date of our order.