ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-11012
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Pamela Reimer
Registrant
PENALTY REASONS
Heard: July 3, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sophie Martel (panel chair)
Lauren Carnegie (massage therapist)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Brian Highgate (public)
Jalpa Patel (public)
Appearances:
Anastasia-Maria Hountalas and Enniael Stair, for the College
Pamela Reimer, self-represented
RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION
The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal ordered, under ss. 45(3) and 47(1) 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
1In our decision reported at College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Reimer, 2025 ONMTDT 13, we found that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct. We concluded that she sexually abused the client, contravened published standards of the College, physically abused the client and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.
2Having found that the registrant touched the client’s breasts in a sexual manner, we ordered the immediate suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration and directed the Hearings Office to schedule a hearing on penalty and costs.
3At the penalty and costs hearing, we ordered the mandatory penalty terms of a reprimand and the revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration. We also ordered the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided to the client for therapy and counselling and ordered her to post security for this funding. We ordered costs in the amount of $29,260, according to an installment schedule.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE
4The hearing proceeded via videoconference. Prior to the hearing, the videoconference hearing facilitator assigned the parties and Panel members to various breakout rooms: one for the Panel and one for each of the parties. Ms. Carnegie, a Panel member, was inadvertently placed into a breakout room with Ms. Hountalas, counsel for the College. Not initially realizing that Ms. Carnegie was a Panel member rather than a College employee, Ms. Hountalas advised the Panel member that she had spoken with the registrant who had shared her intention to pursue an appeal. Ms. Hountalas shared with the Panel member that she had advised the registrant of her right to appeal and her belief that the registrant would likely need some guidance during the course of the penalty and costs hearing.
5The short discussion between College counsel and the Panel member occurred inadvertently. Ms. Hountalas and Ms. Carnegie confirmed that no information was shared privately that was also not shared openly at the hearing. Both parties were given an opportunity to make submissions about the inadvertent discussion and neither made allegations of bias or requested a recusal of the Panel and/or one of its members. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded as scheduled.
PENALTY
6Having concluded that the registrant sexually abused her client and that the sexual abuse consisted of touching of a sexual nature of the client’s breasts, section 51(5) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code) requires us to reprimand the registrant and revoke her certificate of registration. These are mandatory penalty terms, which we order.
7Under section 85.7 of the Code, the College has established a program to provide funding for therapy or counselling for persons who allege sexual abuse by a registrant. During the hearing to consider the misconduct allegations, the client provided testimony about the impact of the registrant’s conduct on her such as her ongoing response of not feeling safe in certain environments. The client also provided an impact statement regarding this lasting effect on her sense of safety and her loss of trust in being alone in someone else’s space. Aside from this evidence, it is also reasonable to conclude that a client who is sexually violated by a person in a position of trust may require therapy or counselling.
8Ontario Regulation 59/94 made under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 sets out the maximum amount of funding that may be provided to a person in a case of sexual abuse and sets out the period during which time funding may be provided. In the circumstances of this case, the client remains eligible to claim funding from the College until September 18, 2028.
9The College requested that the registrant be responsible for the maximum amount of allowable funding of $17,940. The College also requested that the registrant post security in the amount of $14,000. The College submitted that its approach in contested discipline hearings where there has been a finding of sexual abuse is to seek approximately 80% of the full funding amount in security where the client’s eligibility period expires between three to four years after the hearing.
10While repeatedly given the opportunity to provide evidence and make submissions regarding her ability to reimburse the College for funding and post security for such funding, the registrant opted not to do so. Her position is that our misconduct findings are wrong and that she intends to appeal them.
11It is appropriate in our view that a registrant reimburse the College for funding provided to a client. The profession should not bear the full financial responsibility resulting from the registrant’s misconduct. An order to repay the College for the costs of funding also meets the statement of purpose of the sexual abuse provisions of the Code set out in section 1.1, which is to encourage the reporting of sexual abuse, to provide funding for therapy and counselling, and ultimately, to eradicate the sexual abuse of clients.
12The case law relied upon by the College in support of its request for security for the funding provides a wide range of security orders. The submitted case law included a case where the panel accepted a joint submission on penalty and costs, which included no security for funding (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Tchepourov, 2019 ONCMTO 22). In the submitted contested case (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Williams, 2020 ONCMTO 6) and the two cases where the registrant did not participate and the allegations were deemed contested (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Puniyanikodan, 2020 ONCMTO 38 and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Ling, 2018 ONCMTO 15), the security orders ranged from $8,000 to $16,060, equal to 50% or 100% of the maximum amount at the time.
13While the registrant did not avail herself of the opportunity to provide any evidence regarding her ability to post security, we recognize that since our interim order of May 5, 2025, in which we suspended the registrant’s certificate of registration, she has been unable to earn any income as a registered massage therapist. She will also not be able to earn income as a registered massage therapist in the future because of the order revoking her certificate of registration. Taking the inability to earn income as a registered massage therapist into consideration and the wide range of security order amounts in the case law, we order that the registrant post security in the amount of $10,000, which is between 50% and 60% of the maximum amount.
COSTS
14It is an accepted principle that the profession, through its membership fees, should not bear the entire costs resulting from the misconduct. The College’s request for costs is reasonable and appropriate given the length of the hearing. The hearing to consider the misconduct allegations lasted two and a half days. The penalty hearing lasted half a day. The requested costs amount reflects the full-day and half-day tariff rates found in the Rules.
15The registrant also did not avail herself of the opportunity to provide any evidence regarding her ability to pay costs. Given that the registrant can no longer earn income as a registered massage therapist, she likely is unable to pay a costs award as a lump sum in a short amount of time. Furthermore, we have ordered that the registrant pay a lump sum of $10,000 within 30 days of our order as security for funding, which will also affect her ability to pay costs. As a result, we ordered that costs be paid in monthly installments over the course of 60 months. We note that a similar approach was followed in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Gullia, 2015 ONCMTO 1, in which the Discipline Committee ordered that the registrant pay costs in line with the tariff rate but permitted the repayment through installments.
ORDER
16We made the following order on penalty and costs:
The registrant is required to appear before a panel of the Tribunal to be reprimanded, with the fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College;
The Registrar is directed to revoke the registrant’s Certificate of Registration, effective immediately; and
The registrant is required to reimburse the College for any funding for therapy and counselling provided to the client under the program established under section 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum allowable amount of $17,940.00;
The registrant is required to post security for the funding identified in paragraph 3 above in the amount of $10,000.00 within 30 days of the date of this order, with any remaining amount (if any) to be returned to the Registrant on or after September 18, 2028; and
The registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $29,260.00, in 60 monthly installments of $487.66, with the first installment due on August 3, 2025, and every month thereafter and the final installment of $488.06 due at the end of the 60-month period.