ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 210106-0101 & 210111-0101
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Rolando Arango
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: June 24, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Charles Gollob (massage therapist)
Matthew Gordon (public)
Jalpa Patel (public)
Appearances:
Ahmad Mozaffari, for the College
Rolando Arango, self-represented
The Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal is the Discipline Committee established under the Health Professions Procedural Code.
Introduction
1The registrant, Rolando Arango, admits that he sexually, physically and verbally abused two female clients who sought massage therapy treatment from him. He also did not keep proper records or obtain consent correctly. His actions had a profound effect on these clients. As is mandatory under the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (RHPA), we reprimanded him and revoked his certificate of registration. We also ordered that he reimburse the College for funding for therapy and counselling, post security for funding that may be paid in the future and that he pay the College costs at the standard tariff rate.
2Tribunal Chair David A. Wright conducted case management conferences in these matters and sits on the panel with the consent of both parties.
Power of the Tribunal to Hear This Case
3Mr. Arango resigned from the College in September 2021, after the events at issue here. His certificate of registration was revoked in 2024 for sexually touching another client during an appointment in 2020: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2024 ONCMTO 13. Under s. 14(1) of the Code, the College continues to have jurisdiction over former registrants for actions they took while they were registrants. See College of Nurses of Ontario v. Dumchin, 2016 ONSC 626 (Div. Ct.).
Nature of the Abuse
4Mr. Arango provided massage therapy treatments to Client 1 in her home from about 2018 to 2021. He kept no treatment records other than carbon copies of receipts. Over the course of the treating relationship, he treated her chest, breasts, buttocks, and upper inner thighs without obtaining her written consent as required by the College’s standards. He also routinely exposed her breasts.
5During an appointment in January 2021, he massaged Client 1’s upper inner thighs without prior written consent. He also lowered her underwear to below her buttocks, touched and inserted his finger into her vagina, touched her labia, rubbed her clitoris, inserted his finger into her anus and put his mouth on her genitals and performed oral sex on her.
6Mr. Arango treated Client 2 for about three months in 2020. He kept no treatment records other than carbon copies of receipts. Over the course of the treating relationship, he treated her buttocks, breasts, chest wall and upper inner thighs without prior written consent.
7Over the course of the treatment relationship, Mr. Arango touched Client 2’s nipples while massaging her breast; touched and placed his finger inside her vagina; placed his hand on her vulva; touched her clitoris; placed his finger in her anus, touched her gluteal cleft and ran his thumb along her anus. He also pulled her bathing suit bottoms to below her buttocks and fully exposed her breasts.
8Mr. Arango told Client 2 that she would never heal if it was not for him when she expressed discomfort about the treatment. He told her she had beautiful eyes and that he liked making eye contact with her while he was massaging her breasts. He said that women her age were more liberal with their bodies and that she should wear heels. He said she should not tell anyone about his treatment while and after placing his finger into her anus.
Findings of Misconduct
9Under s. 1(3) of the Code, sexual abuse includes touching of a sexual nature of the patient by the registrant and behaviour and remarks of a sexual nature by the registrant towards the patient. It is evident, and Mr. Arango admits, that this conduct was sexual in nature (Code, s. 1(4)). Mr. Arango sexually abused both patients.
10Section 26(1), para. 11 of O. Reg. 544/94 under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27 (Regulation) makes physical and verbal abuse professional misconduct (see para. 8 of s. 26 at the time of the events). Mr. Arango physically abused both patients, since his sexual touching violated their physical integrity. He verbally abused Client 2 by making sexual comments to her and telling her not to tell others what had happened.
11By failing to keep records, Mr. Arango committed misconduct under s. 26(1), para. 5 of the Regulation (formerly s. 26, para. 26).
12It is also misconduct to contravene a published standard of the College (Regulation, s. 26(1), para. 9 (formerly s. 26, para. 6)). Mr. Arango contravened:
the College’s Standards for Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse, when he sexually abused the client, engaged in unprofessional communication, failed to obtain informed written consent for treatment of the breasts, buttocks, upper inner thighs or chest wall muscles, and failed to ensure that the clients’ genitals and gluteal cleft were not exposed and used improper draping;
Communication/Public Health Standard 7: Consent, when he failed to obtain informed consent;
Communication/Public Health Standard 12: Draping, when he failed to properly drape the clients;
Communication/Public Health Standard 14: Client Health Record, when he failed to maintain records.
13All of these actions would also be reasonably regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional: Regulation, s. 26(1), para. 38 (formerly s. 26, para. 44).
Impact Statements
14Each client wrote a compelling impact statement and read it at the hearing. Their eloquent words helped the panel understand the impact of Mr. Arango’s actions.
Client 1
15Client 1 described her sense of betrayal that what she thought were purely clinical actions were threatening and violating. She explained that “[w]hat used to feel like loving acts for my health and wellness are now reminders of violations, and broken trust, and all of these awful sensations that make me want to jump out of my skin.”
16These events have affected her trust in all health care practitioners. She is afraid to go to physiotherapy, and this has worsened her chronic pain. She left her family physician of thirty years to switch to a female practitioner, because “I couldn’t move past the fear that something horrible could happen.” She has not received a massage since the January 2021 appointment and doubts she ever will. As she put it, “I sought help for chronic pain. This should be a safe thing to do. I don’t want to be on guard when receiving basic healthcare.” [emphasis is Client 1’s]
17Client 1 described how she is a more anxious person and is hypervigilant. She feels less safe in many aspects of life. She feels grief and betrayal and cannot trust others like she used to. This grief has irreversibly altered her and she wonders if she will ever feel at home with herself again.
Client 2
18Client 2 stressed the trauma that Mr. Arango’s abuse caused her. It has “destabilized the sense of safety I used to experience in life, especially in professional settings.” She experienced intense anxiety and dissociation. She is an entrepreneur, and after the abuse she could “barely work” and her business declined. She explained how this feels:
Anxiety has become a regular presence in my life. In the toughest moments my mind involuntarily flashes back, ruminates, and recounts my time on the massage table and my body shakes and trembles at the remembrance of his touch…. I grieve the loss of my body as a safe space, I grieve the way this has dulled and taken so much joy from my life. I’m so tired from it all and yet sleep has never been more difficult.
19Like Client 1, the abuse has affected Client 2’s ability to get healthcare. She had to stop seeing a male physician because of the anxiety. She does not feel able to see a RMT or any other physically based practitioner “because the feeling of being unsafe is worse than the physical pain of injury that I have had to endure without treatments.”
20Client 2 described her “spiritual wound”; she “has always lived with an open heart, and a belief in the best of others - both of these dispositions have been challenged greatly but, while my heart still aches, I am a survivor and I remain dedicated to reclaiming my heart-centred living.”
Revocation and Reprimand
21Revocation and a reprimand are mandatory penalties under s. 51(5) of the Code, since this sexual abuse included oral to genital contact and touching of a sexual nature of the clients’ genitals, anus, breasts and buttocks. We made these orders.
Reimbursement of Funding for Therapy and Counselling
22The College seeks reimbursement of funding paid for therapy or counselling for one of the clients. For the other, it seeks both an order that the registrant reimburse the College for funding and post security for amounts that might be paid in the future. Money paid as security, if not used, will be returned to the registrant when the client’s eligibility for funding ends on January 10, 2026.
23Each health college must establish a program to fund therapy and counselling for patients (Code, s. 85.7). Under the Code, a patient is eligible if it is alleged in a complaint or report that a registrant abused them. The College has also established the Funding for Therapy and Counselling Policy. Under O. Reg. 59/94 made under the RHPA (Funding Regulation), funding may be up to $17,940 over a five-year period. The program is administered by the College’s Client Relations Committee.
24When making an order after a finding of sexual abuse, a Tribunal panel may order that the registrant reimburse the College for funding for the abused client under the program (Code, s. 51(2), para. 5.1)). It may also order the registrant “to post security acceptable to the College to guarantee the payment of any amounts the member may be required to reimburse” (Code, s. 51(2), para. 5.2). If the registrant posts security and the client does not use the funds, the College returns it to the registrant at the end of the client’s eligibility period.
25This case presents an opportunity to clarify an issue that has developed in this Tribunal’s caselaw: the holding that there must be a case-specific evidentiary basis to conclude that a client will seek funding under the program before ordering the registrant to post security. Various decisions over the past four years have adopted this requirement.
26The panel raised this issue at the hearing and the College submitted that we should find that an order to post security does not require case-specific evidence that the abused client may need therapy or counselling. We agree. Instead, the Tribunal should presume that therapy may be needed, a presumption that can be rebutted if there is evidence the client will not obtain therapy.
27Multiple cases have applied the requirement that the College point to case-specific evidence the complainant may require therapy. In College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Al-Jundi, 2021 ONCMTO 13, the panel stated that “the law requires some evidence to suggest that the Client will seek funding before a panel can make an order for security.” The panel did not identify the source of the legal principle to which it was referring. Other cases that suggested evidence is required for reimbursement or security orders are College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Bennett, 2021 ONCMTO 22, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Sharone, 2021 ONCMTO 35; and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Jaraar, 2021 ONCMTO 15; and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Peygumbari, 2024 ONCMTO 16.
28This jurisprudence may have developed in response to the Divisional Court’s decision in Sliwin v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2017 ONSC 1947 at paras. 142-144. The court found that the Discipline Committee’s order that the registrant post the maximum amount of security for therapy funding was “unreasonable in the circumstances of this case.” The facts of that case were unusual. The complainant had testified that “no exploitation occurred” and she sought to withdraw the complaint. It had been nine years since the relationship ended and the complainant had not sought therapy. She had brought a civil lawsuit against the registrant that was settled, and the settlement could have taken into account the need for therapy.
29The Divisional Court concluded at para. 144 that it was unreasonable “to provide for such a contingency on an indefinite basis, when all the evidence that is available leads to the conclusion that the contingency will not arise.” [emphasis added] It appears the limited eligibility period in the Funding Regulation was not brought to the court’s attention. Eligibility for funding ends five years after the date the complaint or report was made or, if therapy started before the date of the complaint or report, five years after therapy started. See s. 1(b) of the Funding Regulation and s. 4.5 of the CMTO Funding for Therapy and Counselling Policy. CMTO returns the money if the client does not use at least that amount of funding within the five-year period.
30The conclusion in Sliwin was based on the combination of the evidence that the complainant would not need counselling or therapy, the passage of time since the events and the fact there was a civil settlement. Its holding was correctly articulated in summarizing the College’s submissions in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Mah, 2018 ONCMTO 28, However, Sliwin does not mandate the evidentiary burden that developed in subsequent caselaw.
31There should be a presumption that clients or patients sexually abused by a registered health professional may need counselling or therapy. The harm of sexual abuse is well documented, and its eradication is a purpose of the sexual abuse provisions of the Code: s. 1.1. That therapy or counselling assists survivors in dealing with the trauma of sexual abuse is a notorious and accepted fact. We can take notice of that fact without the need for formal evidence: R. v. J.M., 2021 ONCA 150 at para. 31; s. 16(a) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, RSO 1990, c. S. 22. Consistent with Sliwin, this presumption can be rebutted if there is specific evidence that the patient will not use the therapy.
32This is fair to the registrant and to the College. The purpose of orders for reimbursement is to ensure that the costs of therapy are paid, in whole or in part, by the registrant who committed sexual abuse, rather than all registered massage therapists through their annual fees. Orders to provide security ensure that the College has the funding available and does not have to find and collect from the registrant or former registrant amounts the College has paid for therapy provided after the order was made. The security is returned to the registrant if not used within five years of the date the complaint was made or the date therapy started, whichever is earlier. Given the time needed for an investigation and to get to a hearing, this is often significantly less than five years from the date of the order. For example, here it is less than seven months.
33In the case before us, there is no evidence to rebut the presumption that the clients may need therapy and an award for security is appropriate. The parties’ agreement on reimbursement and security is appropriate and would not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute, in accordance with the test set out in Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.). In light of the parties’ agreement to an amount within a reasonable range, we do not need to address the principles for deciding disagreements over the appropriate amount of security.
Costs
34The parties agreed on costs at the tariff rate of $5,852 and to a reasonable payment plan, which we ordered.
Order
35We made the following order:
Penalty
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. revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852, which can be paid in 35 monthly payments of $162 and a final payment of $182, with the first monthly payment due 12 months from the date of the Tribunal’s Order.
Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling
The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided to the client referred to as “the Client” in the Notice of Hearing with number 210106-0101, under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, in the amount of $17,370, which can be paid in 36 monthly payments of $482.50, with the first monthly payment due 30 days from June 24, 2025.
The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided to the client referred to “the Client” in the Notice of Hearing with number 210111-0101, under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum allowable amount of $17,370 and to post security in the amount of $13,000 to guarantee payments of any amount he is required to pay pertaining to the client referred to as “the Client” in Notice of Hearing with number 210111-0101, which can be paid in 35 monthly payments of $360 and a final payment of $400, with the first payment due 30 days from June 24, 2025.
Any amount of security provided by the registrant pursuant to paragraph 5 that has not been used by January 10, 2026 will be returned to the registrant.