ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: September 15, 2025

Tribunal File No.: PC-10943

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Nidal Saloum

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: July 23, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Sherry Liang (panel chair)

Matthew Gordon (public)

Alpa Patel (massage therapist)

Ashley Van Zelst (massage therapist)

Carolyn Watt (public)

Appearances:

Ahmad Mozaffari, for the College

Nidal Saloum, 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

1This case involves allegations of sexual abuse, physical abuse, breach of standards of practice and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct by the registrant during a massage therapy session. The Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee referred the allegations to the Discipline Committee (now the Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal).

2The College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (the College) and the registrant provided the Tribunal with a Statement of Uncontested Facts (SUF). In this document, which he signed, the registrant pleads no contest to the allegations and agrees that the facts and exhibits in the SUF can be accepted as true and relied on by this Tribunal.

3Based on the facts and exhibits in the SUF, the Tribunal finds that the registrant sexually and physically abused a client, breached the College’s standard of practice relating to the prevention of sexual abuse and engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. The Tribunal accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs, ordering a reprimand, revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration, reimbursement to the College for funding provided to the client for therapy or counselling, security to guarantee payment of those funds, and payment of costs to the College.

Statement of Uncontested Facts

4The registrant does not contest that during massage therapy treatment in June 2023, he rubbed a client’s intergluteal cleft, touched her anus and grazed her vagina multiple times. While touching these areas, the registrant said “is this okay?”, “is the pressure okay?” and “is this tight?” or words to that effect, in a sexually suggestive tone. He also treated this client’s breasts and upper inner thighs without consent and fully exposed her breasts.

5The touching and behaviour described above were sexual in nature and not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided.

Sexual abuse

6Under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18 (the Code), sexual abuse of a patient is professional misconduct. “Sexual abuse” is defined in subsection 1(3) of the Code:

1(3) In this Code,

“sexual abuse” of a patient by a member means,

(a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the patient,

(b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the patient by the member, or

(c) behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the member towards the patient.

(4) For the purposes of subsection (3),

“sexual nature” does not include touching, behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided.

7We find that the registrant sexually abused the client within the meaning of the above provisions when he touched her vagina, intergluteal cleft, anus, breasts and upper inner thighs in a sexual manner and without a clinical purpose. He also sexually abused her by making remarks of a sexual nature.

Contravention of a standard of practice

8Under s. 26(1), para. 9 of O. Reg. 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 27 (the Regulation and the Act) (para. 6 of s. 26 at the time of the events), contravening a published standard of the College is an act of misconduct. The College alleges and the registrant does not contest that he contravened the College’s Standard of Practice: Prevention of Sexual Abuse, in effect at the time of the events.

9The standard prohibited sexual abuse of clients, adopting the Code’s definition of “sexual abuse”. It stated that touching a client’s genitals or anus is always considered sexual abuse. The standard set out that massage therapists may only treat a client’s sensitive areas, which include the breasts and upper inner thighs, when clinically indicated and after obtaining written informed consent. Finally, the standard required registrants to apply effective draping measures.

10The registrant contravened the standard when he sexually abused the client, including touching her genitals and anus, treating sensitive areas without clinical indication or consent, making remarks of a sexual nature and exposing her breasts for a sexual purpose.

Physical abuse

11Under s. 26(1), para. 11 of the Regulation (para. 8 of s. 26 at the time of the events), physical abuse of a client is an act of misconduct. The Act and the Regulation do not define physical abuse. The College referred us to the factors set out in Carruthers v College of Nurses of Ontario, 1996 CanLII 11803 (ON SC) in determining whether conduct amounts to physical abuse:

a) the circumstances in which the conduct is alleged to have occurred;

b) the nature of the conduct;

c) the words and/or gestures, if any, which accompanied the conduct;

d) the nature and extent of the force applied by the registrant to the client;

e) the intent, purpose or motive of the registrant in engaging in the conduct; and

f) the nature and extent of the consent, if any, of the client to the registrant’s conduct.

12The registrant did not contest that his actions constitute physical abuse. We find that the registrant violated the client’s bodily integrity when he touched areas of her body that registrants must never touch and treated sensitive areas without consent, all for a sexual purpose and without any clinical indication. We find these actions amount to physical abuse within the meaning of para. 11.

Disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct

13While the registrant did not contest the facts in the SUF, he submitted at the hearing that these facts did not prove he violated his professional ethics. We disagree. We are satisfied that the registrant engaged in conduct which members of the profession would regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional, under para. 38 of s. 26(1) (formerly para. 44 of s. 26) of the Regulation. The registrant’s actions amounted to an egregious boundary violation and breach of the trust that clients place in their registered massage therapist.

Penalty and costs

14The parties jointly submitted that the registrant be reprimanded, his certificate of registration be revoked, that he reimburse the College for funding provided to the client under the program established pursuant to section 85.7 of the Code, post $6,000 in security for this funding and pay costs of $5,852 to the College.

15As the College submits, our role is limited when the parties agree on a 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. We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not contrary to the public interest.

16Having concluded that the registrant sexually abused a client and that the sexual abuse included touching the client’s genitals, anus and breasts, section 51(5) of the Code requires us to reprimand the registrant and revoke his certificate of registration. These are mandatory penalty terms, which we order.

17Under section 85.7 of the Code, the College is required to establish a program to provide funding for therapy and counselling for clients who allege sexual abuse by a registrant. The parties jointly submitted, and we found it appropriate to order, that the registrant reimburse the College for any funding provided to the client under that program, up to the maximum allowable, and that he post security in the amount of $6,000 to guarantee those payments. This amount and the payment schedule are reasonable having regard to the cases referred to us.

18The parties jointly submitted, and we order, that the registrant pay costs of $5,852 to the College. The amount corresponds to the standard rate for the costs and expenses of a half-day hearing pursuant to Tariff A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. We are satisfied that the proposed costs award and payment schedule are reasonable and reflect the principle that the College’s registrants as a whole should not bear the entire expense of a proceeding that results in a finding of professional misconduct.

Order

19We made the following order:

1. 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.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:

a. revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852, which can be paid in 29 monthly payments of $195 and a final payment of $197, with the first monthly payment due in March 2028, and every subsequent payment due monthly.

4. The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided to the client in the Notice of Hearing with number PC-10943, under the program required under section 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum amount allowable.

5. The Tribunal requires the registrant to post security in the amount of $6,000 to guarantee payments of any amount he is required to pay pertaining to the client under paragraph 4 above, which can be paid in 30 monthly installments of $200, with the first payment due 30 days from the date of this order.

6. Any amount of security provided by the registrant pursuant to paragraph 5 that has not been used by June 29, 2028 will be applied towards the costs the registrant owes pursuant to paragraph 3.