ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-11156
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Justin White
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: August 12, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
Raj Anand (panel chair)
Jennifer Da Ponte (massage therapist)
Brian Highgate (public)
Robyn Libby (massage therapist)
Jay Mathers (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Justin White, self-represented
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
1During the two appointments at which he treated Client A, the registrant Justin White failed to obtain her informed consent for certain massage therapy services he delivered, including advance written consent for the treatment of sensitive areas of her body. He also failed to respect professional boundaries when he did not use proper draping techniques and did not maintain adequate spatial boundaries. Client A felt uncomfortable and upset, and she terminated the second appointment halfway through.
2At the hearing, Mr. White admitted several acts of misconduct in an agreed statement of facts and he did not contest several other acts in a statement of uncontested facts. We accepted the admitted and uncontested evidence, which we set out below. Based on the parties’ positions, we made a finding of professional misconduct under two allegations: contravention of several standards of practice of the profession, and conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (DDU).
3With regard to penalty, the College filed Mr. White’s undertaking, by which he agreed to resign from the College and not to reapply for registration as a massage therapist in Ontario or elsewhere at any time. On this basis, we accepted the parties’ joint submission that the appropriate penalty was a reprimand, which we delivered at the hearing. We also made the agreed costs order in favour of the College.
4These are our reasons.
Professional misconduct
5Mr. White obtained his certificate of registration as a Registered Massage Therapist (RMT) in 2009.
6Client A sought treatment from the registrant to release tension and stiffness in her muscles. The registrant treated Client A on September 13, 2023 and January 10, 2024.
7During both treatments, Client A disrobed to her underwear and kept her underwear on.
First Appointment
8On September 13, 2023, Client A completed a Health History Form, which indicated the following with respect to informed consent:
Only areas of the body discussed before treatment will be treated unless verbal consent is given during treatment; with the exception of "sensitive areas" which will also require written consent. Sensitive areas include: glutes/buttocks, chest muscles, inner thigh and breasts.
9The registrant did not have any consent discussion with Client A beyond what was on the form she signed. Client A did not provide written consent to treat any sensitive areas, including her upper inner thighs.
10While Client A was lying face up, and while Mr. White was massaging a muscle located on her hip, he made contact with her hips by placing his fingers there under the front of Client A’s underwear.
11While Client A was lying face down, and while the registrant was massaging the back of her thighs, the registrant massaged her upper inner thighs, for which he did not have her consent.
Second Appointment
12During the treatment on January 10, 2024, while Client A was face down, the registrant failed to properly secure the drape that was covering the lower half of her body. The unintended effect was that the drape dragged against the part of Client A’s underwear that was covering her genitals. This caused her to feel that something had made contact with her genitals over her underwear.
13While Client A was lying face down, and the registrant was massaging her shoulders, he failed to take sufficient care to maintain appropriate spatial boundaries. As a result, the holster with lotion that he strapped around his waist made contact with the inside of each of Client A’s forearms.
14Also while Client A was lying face down, and while the registrant was massaging one of her legs, the registrant massaged her upper inner thigh. Client A did not consent to the registrant treating her upper inner thigh, and she told the registrant. He apologized and immediately stopped massaging her upper inner thigh. He did not massage the upper inner thigh on her other leg.
15We have made these findings of fact in relation to the two appointments on the basis of Mr. White’s admissions, with the exception of paragraphs 11 and 14, which he did not contest.
Impact on Client A
16The registrant’s conduct during both of her appointments caused Client A to feel upset and uncomfortable. She terminated the treatment on January 10, 2024, which was booked for 60 minutes, after 30 minutes.
Analysis
17The registrant’s acts as described above in paragraphs 9 through 14 breached College standards that address informed consent, discussing the manner of treatment, massaging sensitive areas, draping, reaching underneath clothing, and physical boundaries.
18The following published College standards deal with these issues: Client-centred Care; Consent; Draping and Physical Privacy; Prevention of Sexual Abuse; and Professional Boundaries
19Mr. White breached the following requirements in these standards:
a. In treating sensitive areas, RMTs must discuss with the client how sensitive areas will be draped and/or clothed, and how touch will occur;
b. RMTs must obtain the client’s written informed consent prior to assessment or treatment of sensitive areas, including the upper inner thighs;
c. Secure and effective physical boundaries are essential to protecting clients from boundary crossings and violations;
d. If a client remains clothed during treatment, RMTs must adjust clothing only with the client’s informed consent and in consideration of their unique needs, views, preferences, concerns, and health goals to protect the client’s physical/personal privacy. RMTs may only treat under clothing when requested by the client after discussing options, and only when it is in the best interest of the client and with the client’s consent. Clothing includes a client’s underwear;
e. When the client is draped and draping is adjusted during treatment, RMTs must drape securely; and
f. RMTs must ensure that all body language and gestures towards clients are polite, professional and respectful at all times, and they must refrain from any behaviour that could increase the risk of boundary violation.
20All of these contraventions involve important aspects of massage therapy that having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The registrant’s acts showed a “serious…disregard for one’s professional obligations,” which was the test for DDU that was adopted by the Divisional Court in Attallah v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3722, at para 54.
21The registrant therefore committed acts of professional misconduct pursuant to s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and as defined in the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991:
a. 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; Draping and Physical Privacy; Prevention of Sexual Abuse, and Professional Boundaries; and
b. 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
22The parties presented a joint submission on both issues. The law is clear that the Tribunal must accept the parties’ joint submission unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that ordering it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Shah, 2025 ONMTDT 19 at para 11; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.).
23We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. Mr. White has cooperated with the College, facilitated the hearing and spared witnesses the need to testify because he admitted or did not contest any of the evidence the parties have put before the Tribunal. At the same time, the effect of the registrant’s undertaking to resign and not to reapply for registration as a massage therapist in any jurisdiction goes beyond the most severe penalty the Tribunal could order, which is revocation of Mr. White’s registration.
24Together with the registrant’s undertaking, our order of a reprimand appropriately balances the established penalty goals: protection of the public, general and specific deterrence, maintenance of public confidence in the profession and its regulation, rehabilitation and expression of this Tribunal’s and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.
25The 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 including an absence of written informed consent, touching beneath clothing, a failure to maintain appropriate spatial boundaries, and lack of sensitivity or respect for a client’s comfort and dignity. While no two cases are identical in all respects, both College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Jiaravuthisan, 2016 ONCPSD 50 and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Hardwick, 2019 ONCPSD 21 also involved similar misconduct and resulted in a reprimand based on a joint submission and a recognition of those registrants’ similar undertakings to resign and not to reapply.
26As agreed by the parties, we ordered the registrant to pay costs in the half-day tariff amount of $5,852.00, payable in 24 equal monthly instalments beginning a month after the hearing.
Order
27We made the following order:
Penalty
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to appeal before the panel to be reprimanded.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852.00, by paying the College $243.83 every month for twenty-four (24) months, beginning September 12, 2025.