ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10579
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Jeffery Mosher
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: August 15, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Sophie Martel (panel chair)
Brian Highgate (public)
Robyn Libby (massage therapist)
Howard Shears (public)
Jayne Webster (massage therapist)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Rebecca Young, 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, Jeffery Mosher, admits that he engaged in professional misconduct by failing to obtain written consent for the treatment of a client’s gluteal muscles (buttocks), by failing to keep a health and financial record for the client and by communicating with the client at inappropriate hours for several months through multiple mediums. We concluded that the registrant contravened published standards of the College, failed to keep records as required and engaged in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
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 a four-month suspension. We imposed terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration requiring that he complete educational courses and chart audits. We also ordered the registrant to pay costs of $5,852, in installments.
Findings of Misconduct
3The registrant provided 12 massage therapy treatments to the client between May and August 2022.
4At her first appointment, the registrant had the client complete a health history form. The registrant’s record for this client also included a blank Informed Consent Form, which was unsigned, and which did not address the treatment of sensitive areas. Apart from these two documents, the registrant did not keep a client health record for this client. He did not keep contemporaneous treatment notes, nor did he record his treatment plan. He also did not keep financial records nor issue any receipts for the payment of the services he provided to the client, who paid cash for her treatments.
5At the outset of the client’s first ten appointments, the registrant verbally discussed with the client that he would provide a full body massage treatment, which would include the treatment of her buttocks over the drape. The client verbally agreed to this treatment. During these ten appointments, the registrant massaged the client’s buttocks over the drape while the client was lying face down on the treatment table. The registrant never obtained written consent from the client for the treatment of her buttocks.
6Over a period of several months in 2022, the registrant communicated by social media, direct messaging and text messaging with the client about matters relevant to his practice such as the scheduling of appointments and the client’s treatments. However, he sometimes sent his communications at inappropriate hours of the night and early morning.
7Several published standards of the College require that a registrant obtain a client’s written informed consent prior to the treatment of sensitive areas, including the buttocks. For the treatment of the buttocks, written consent must be obtained at least once per treatment plan. While verbal consent can be obtained prior to subsequent treatments, the Standard of Practice: Consent requires that the registrant document consent conversations in the client’s health record within 24 hours of the assessment and/or treatment. In this case, the registrant failed to obtain written consent for the treatment of the client’s buttocks, and he failed to document their verbal consent conversations. These standards are safeguards intended to put the client’s well-being at the forefront of massage treatment, to protect a client’s autonomy and wishes, and to avoid misunderstandings.
8The registrant also failed to adhere to the College’s record keeping requirements. Other than a health history form, the registrant failed to keep records for the client as required. He did not document his examinations, advice, treatment plan and details of the treatment applied. He also failed to keep a financial record, which should contain the treatment and service provided, the fees charged and a copy or record of receipts. Accurate records contribute to the quality and continuity of care and may be necessary for insurers, complaints and legal proceedings.
9The standard of Practice on Professional Boundaries recognizes the inherent power imbalance in the therapeutic relationship and requires that registrants take necessary actions to manage it as needed. It also requires registrants to refrain from any behaviours that could increase the risk of a boundary violation. By communicating with the client through multiple mediums at inappropriate hours of the night and early morning for several months about not just scheduling matters but also treatment discussions, the registrant failed to maintain appropriate professional boundaries, thereby risking a blurring of the lines between a professional and a personal relationship.
10The totality of the above misconduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession to be disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. In particular, the failure to obtain written consent for the treatment of a sensitive area and the failure to keep records place clients at risk and undermine public confidence in the profession.
11In summary, we concluded that the registrant engaged in misconduct under the following paragraphs of s. 26 of O. Reg. 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27:
Paragraph 6: Contravening a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College, or failing to maintain the standard of practice of the profession, in particular, the Standards for: Client-centred Care, Consent, Prevention of Sexual Abuse, Professional Boundaries and Record Keeping;
Paragraph 26: Failing to keep records as required; and,
Paragraph 44: Engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Penalty and Costs
12The parties jointly proposed a reprimand, a suspension of four months, an individualized ethics course, a professionalism workshop, a record keeping e-workshop, review and preparation of a written summary of the College’s standards of practice at issue, and participation in three chart audits upon the registrant’s return to practice. The course, workshops and chart audits are to be completed at the registrant’s expense. The parties also jointly proposed costs of $5,852, to be paid in monthly installments over 24 months.
13Our 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 submission 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 (Div. Ct.). We must therefore consider if the proposed penalty is so unhinged that it would cause a reasonably informed person to believe that the proper functioning of the registered massage therapy professional discipline system had broken down.
14We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not cause a reasonably informed person to believe that the proper functioning of this professional discipline system had broken down. We are also satisfied that the proposed penalty appropriately balances the penalty goals of the protection of the public, maintaining public confidence in the College’s ability to govern the profession in the public interest, general and specific deterrence, and rehabilitation.
15The 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 consent and record keeping. For example, in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Di Sun, 2017 ONCMTO 18, the Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a suspension of three months and the completion of various educational courses and a chart audit. In that case, the registrant had failed to keep records as required and authorized another practitioner to perform massage sessions on his clients and to sign and issue receipts on his behalf. In College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Gudov, 2021 ONCMTO 3, the Discipline Committee ordered a reprimand, a suspension of three months and an individualized course in ethics. During a single treatment session, the registrant had treated a client’s gluteal area without obtaining prior written informed consent, failed to ensure that the client was adequately draped throughout the treatment, and demonstrated a stretch with his body pressed against the client’s back while the client was using her arms to hold a towel to cover her breasts.
16The misconduct in this case was multi-faceted in that it included misconduct relating to consent, record keeping and professional boundaries. It also occurred over the course of multiple treatment sessions. As such, a slightly longer suspension of four months is proportionate to the penalty/suspension ordered in the above two cases. The reprimand and four-month suspension should deter the registrant and the profession from similar future misconduct. They also denounce the conduct and send the message that similar deficiencies in practice will be treated seriously by this Tribunal. The ethics course, professionalism workshop, record keeping e-workshop, review and written summary of the standards and chart audits are aimed at 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.
17We accepted the parties’ agreement to costs of $5,852, which reflects the tariff rate for a half-day hearing in the Rules of Procedure. We also accepted the parties’ proposal that such costs be paid in installments.
Order
18For the above reasons, our order provided:
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 four (4) months, commencing immediately;
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately, all to be completed at the registrant’s expense:
i. Within six (6) months of the date of the order, the registrant shall:
successfully complete individualized instruction in professional ethics to the satisfaction of the College, with an instructor acceptable to the College. The instructor shall provide a summative report to the College including their conclusion about whether the registrant successfully completed the instruction;
successfully complete the College’s professionalism workshop;
successfully complete the College’s record keeping e-workshop;
review and prepare a written summary acceptable to the College of the College’s standards of practice on: Client-centred Care, Consent, Prevention of Sexual Abuse, Professional Boundaries, and Record Keeping; and
ii. Within twelve (12) months following the end of the suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration, the registrant shall participate in three (3) chart audits, including the review of 10-20 client files selected by the auditor, together with the corresponding appointment records and financial records for those clients (at the registrant’s expense with costs of each audit not to exceed $500).
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852.00, in twenty-three (23) monthly payments of $243.83 each and a final 24th payment of $243.91, with the first monthly payment due thirty (30) days after the date of the Tribunal’s order.