ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: July 21, 2025

Tribunal File No.: 190130-0101

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Jeffrey Pitts

Registrant

PENALTY REASONS

Heard: May 29, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Jennifer Scott (panel chair)

Brian Highgate (public)

Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)

Howard Shears (public)

Jayne Webster (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Anastasia-Maria Hountalas, for the College

No one appearing for the registrant

RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION

The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal ordered, under ss. 45(3) and 47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, that no one may publish or broadcast the name of the client and/or any information that would disclose the identity of the client 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

1We found that Jeffrey Pitts used his position as a registered massage therapist to massage parts of the Client’s body that were not clinically indicated. He began the massage by telling the Client a full body massage included treatment of sensitive areas when it does not. His conduct became progressively more intrusive during the massage. It began with massaging two of the Client’s sensitive areas (buttocks and inner thighs) and moved to touching her head with his groin, and ultimately exposing her genitals, while breathing heavily at times. His behaviour was sexual in nature and constituted sexual and physical abuse. It was also disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and contrary to the Standard for Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse (Boundaries Standard). See College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Pitts, 2025 ONMTDT 11.

Penalty

2The College sought a penalty of a reprimand and eight-month suspension. The Tribunal made this order at the hearing.

3The overarching purpose of a penalty order is protection of the public. The public is protected when the registrant and other registrants are discouraged from committing misconduct (specific and general deterrence), when tools are provided to address the registrant’s misconduct (remediation), and when the public has confidence in the College’s ability to regulate the profession in the public interest. In making our order, we considered protection of the public, the seriousness of the registrant’s misconduct (the conduct itself and any aggravating and mitigating factors), the proportionality of the penalty to the misconduct, and the Client’s impact statement.

Client’s Impact Statement

4The Client provided a statement describing the impact of Mr. Pitts’ sexual abuse on her. She said the incident left her with emotional scars, including anxiety, fear and a deep sense of vulnerability. The Client has struggled to regain trust in professionals and feel safe in similar settings. The incident has affected her relationships, daily life and overall well-being.

5The Client’s impact statement puts squarely before us the significant impact of sexual abuse on clients. Disruption of relationships, destruction of the trust in health professionals, and the emotional scars that result from the abuse are significant and long-lasting.

Seriousness of the Misconduct

6The Client went to Mr. Pitts for neck and shoulder pain. He asked the Client if she wanted a full body massage and proceeded to massage certain sensitive areas without written consent. During the massage, Mr. Pitts pressed his groin against the Client’s head. When she turned onto her back, Mr. Pitts lifted her legs 90 degrees causing her draping to fall away and exposing the Client’s genitals.

7Mr. Pitts engaged in sexual and physical abuse of the Client. His conduct became progressively more serious – from massaging her sensitive areas, to touching her head with his groin, to exposing her genitals, while breathing heavily at times. This conduct is disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional and contrary to the Boundaries Standard. It is also very serious. It is an egregious boundary violation and an abuse of the power inherent in the relationship between a massage therapist and their client.

Aggravating and Mitigating Factors

Aggravating Factors

8Mr. Pitts has a discipline history. In March 2019, he was found to have committed professional misconduct after he was convicted of an offence relevant to his suitability to practise and engaged in conduct unbecoming a registered massage therapist. The offence he was convicted of was dangerous driving causing death.

9In June 2023, Mr. Pitts was found to have committed professional misconduct for sexually abusing a female client. The conduct arose when Mr. Pitts exposed and massaged a client’s breasts in August 2018 without clinical indication and without obtaining her informed consent to treat that sensitive area. His certificate of registration was revoked.

10The conduct at issue in the 2023 matter occurred one month before the incident before us. The facts in that case are very similar to the facts here. In the 2023 matter, the client went to Mr. Pitts because she had tension in her upper back and shoulders. During the intake interview, Mr. Pitts suggested a full body massage, and the client agreed. Mr. Pitts provided a full body massage and massaged the client’s breasts. Mr. Pitts did not obtain informed consent for the treatment of the client’s breasts.

11Mr. Pitts’ history demonstrates a pattern of deeply concerning conduct. In both cases, female clients came to him to address specific areas of concern. Instead of treating those concerns, Mr. Pitts suggested full body massages and then massaged sensitive areas without obtaining informed consent. In the 2023 case, Mr. Pitts exposed and massaged a client’s breasts. In this case, he exposed the Client’s genitals.

Mitigating Factors

12Despite receiving notice, Mr. Pitts did not attend the hearing. As a result, the panel is not aware of any mitigating factors.

Proportionality

13The College relied on several cases involving registrants who engaged in sexual abuse involving some physical touch. These cases are different from the case before us because they involve more overt acts of hugging, kissing and inappropriate comments. See College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Yaghini, 2017 ONCPSD 29, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Miners, 2015, College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Muhammad, N. H., 2013 ONCPSD 23 and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Marks, 2012 ONCPSD 13.

14Although these cases are different and not binding on us, they do provide a suspension range of two to nine months for what the College describes as non-frank acts of sexual abuse involving some physical sexual touch. This range provides us with some guidance. It is important to note that in the cases provided by the College, the registrants did not have a prior disciplinary history. Mr. Pitts has a disciplinary history of sexual abuse.

15When considering the seriousness of Mr. Pitts’ misconduct and his disciplinary history, we find a significant penalty is required. We ordered an eight-month suspension and reprimand. This penalty sends a strong message to Mr. Pitts and to other registrants that this conduct will not be tolerated and assures the public that the College’s discipline system is working. The goal of protecting the public is met by this order.

Costs

16The College asks for a costs order of $11,704, representing the tariff rate of two half-day hearings, one for the merits and one for the penalty and costs hearing. We agree this is the proper costs order.

Order

17At the conclusion of the hearing we ordered:

a. The Registrant is required to appear before a panel of the Tribunal on a date to be set by the Registrar 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 eight months commencing on the date of his reinstatement if his Certificate of Registration is ever reinstated; and

c. The Registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $11,704 within 30 days of the date of the order.