College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Wan Hua (Annie) Wu, 2025 ONMTDT 28

ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: September 24, 2025

Tribunal File No.: PC-10584

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Wan Hua (Annie) Wu

registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: June 18, 2025 by videoconference, and in writing

Panel:

Raj Anand (panel chair)

Robyn Libby (massage therapist)

Jalpa Patel (public)

Carolyn Watt (public)

Jayne Webster (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Alexandra Matushenko, for the College

Wan Hua (Annie) Wu, 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

1Between 2020 and 2022, the registrant Wan Hua (Annie) Wu failed to maintain hundreds of the records she was required to keep as a registered massage therapist. She also issued many receipts in her name for massage therapy treatments to six clients when she did not provide the treatments to them, either at all or as written in the receipts.

2Ms. Wu admitted the first set of allegations, relating to her record keeping deficiencies, and she pleaded no contest to the second set, pertaining to her issuance of false receipts. We made findings of professional misconduct, including contravention of standards of practice of the profession and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct (DDU), and we accepted the parties’ joint submission to order a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and several remedial terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate of registration.

3These are our reasons.

The proceedings

4After the parties arrived at an agreed statement of facts (ASF), a statement of uncontested facts (SUF), and a joint submission on penalty and costs (JSP), they attended a half-day hearing to deal with the merits, penalty and costs. The panel chair issued a hearing management direction when the hearing adjourned, stating as follows:

We were unable to complete the hearing this morning, and the appropriate procedure to complete the hearing will have to be decided. At the same time, the registrant expressed concern about the basis on which she signed the SUF, while also making clear that she wanted this hearing to be concluded as soon as possible. In the circumstances, as I suggested at the conclusion of the hearing today, I urge the parties to discuss the issues I have outlined above with a view to confirming the next steps they wish the panel to follow from a procedural and/or evidentiary standpoint in order to conclude this hearing fairly and expeditiously. To be clear, I am not necessarily suggesting any variation from the standard procedure in a case like this one in which there is an ASF, an SUF, and a joint submission on penalty. But in my view, the parties would benefit from some discussions on their own or with assistance. To that end, I ask them to meet with the Tribunal Chair for confidential discussions that may be helpful.

5The registrant did not participate after that. Despite being given several opportunities, she did not respond to the College or the Tribunal, and she did not attend a case management conference with the Tribunal Chair on July 8, 2025. Given the concerns Ms. Wu had expressed at the hearing, and despite her lack of cooperation thereafter, the Tribunal Chair issued case management directions inviting the registrant to state in writing by July 15 whether she wished to withdraw her plea of no contest and her agreement to the JSP. Again, there was no response.

6Accordingly, on July 21, the panel made a finding of professional misconduct in accordance with the allegations in the notice of hearing, the ASF and the SUF. We indicated that written reasons on the merits would follow, and we gave Ms. Wu another opportunity if she wished to make written submissions on penalty and costs. Once again, she did not provide any response.

7In effect, the hearing came full circle, as we were left with the information that had been filed in advance of the June 18 hearing: the admitted and uncontested written evidence on the merits, and the parties’ JSP. The College filed its written submissions in support of the JSP, which we accept in our reasons below.

Professional Misconduct

Recordkeeping Failures

8From 2020 to 2021, the registrant failed to maintain the required massage therapy records for several of her clients.

9Ms. Wu did not complete or maintain the client health record with treatment notes. She did not complete or maintain the financial record with treatment notes, and she did not complete or maintain the financial record with copies or records of the receipts issued for payment of the services provided. She also failed to maintain appointment records.

10As part of the ASF, the parties put forward a detailed chart prepared by the College’s investigator, setting out the contents of the registrant’s client records for each treatment date. The investigation revealed the following.

• Ms. Wu’s files contained records of 269 massage therapy treatments she provided, but treatment notes for only 115 of those treatments.

• Eight of the registrant’s client files contained notes or forms related to other clients.

• Ten of the registrant’s client records were missing copies of treatment receipts where corresponding treatment notes were included.

• One hundred and thirty-eight of Ms. Wu’s client records were missing treatment notes where corresponding treatment receipts were included.

11Based on this evidence, we made a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to clause 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code), as defined in the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 (version in effect January 25, 2013 until June 4, 2024) made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27:

a. Paragraph 6: Contravening a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College, in particular, Communication/Public Health Standard 14 (Client Health Record) dated January 2006, which sets out the contents of records to be kept for each client’s treatment, including the date, time, duration, fee, and a note of the treatment provided;

b. Paragraph 26: Failing to keep records as required; and

c. 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 (DDU). The registrant’s record-keeping deficiencies showed a “serious…disregard for one’s professional obligations,” which was the test adopted for DDU by the Divisional Court in Attallah v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3722at para 54.

False receipts

12From November 2020 until May 2022, the registrant issued receipts in her name to six clients, who were parents or children in two families, for massage therapy treatments which she had not provided, either at all or as stated on the receipts.

13Ms. Wu’s communications over this period appear in text messages, transcribed and submitted in evidence at the hearing, between Ms. Wu and one parent in each of the two families. It appears from these text messages that with her knowledge, the registrant’s receipts were being submitted by these family members to insurance providers for reimbursement. We set out our findings with respect to the two families under separate headings below.

Clients 1 and 2: MM and JT

14Between November 27, 2020 and May 19, 2022, the registrant issued numerous false receipts to her client, NT, in the names of NT’s spouse (MM) and child (JT). The evidence indicated that this occurred on the following dates: March 27, March 30, May 9, 12, 13, and 19, 2022.

15A similar pattern occurred each time that the registrant issued false receipts in the names of MM and JT. First, NT sent the registrant a text message requesting that the registrant create massage therapy receipts for themself, MM, and/or JT. NT then transferred funds to the registrant, typically amounting to approximately half the cost of treatment, and confirmed to the registrant that the transfer of funds was sent.

16The registrant then provided NT with back-dated receipts for massage therapy treatments issued to MM and/or JT, as requested by NT. In some instances, shortly after NT received the receipts, NT confirmed that the receipts “went through” to NT’s insurance provider. This pattern repeated on several occasions.

17For example, on March 27, 2022, NT sent the registrant a text message advising that a previous receipt that the registrant had issued to NT had gone through to NT’s insurance provider. In the same exchange, NT asked the registrant to “do another one.” The registrant asked NT “how much” NT wanted, and NT responded that they wanted two receipts: one for themself and one for their spouse, each depicting one hour of massage therapy treatment.

18In the same exchange, the registrant asked NT for their spouse’s name, which NT provided as MM. NT then sent the registrant an electronic money transfer for approximately half the cost of treatment, and in exchange, the registrant sent NT two treatment receipts: one for NT and one for MM, each depicting a 60-minute massage therapy treatment, and each back-dated to March 15, 2022. Notably, prior to creating this receipt for MM, the registrant did not know MM’s name.

19On March 30, 2022, NT asked the registrant if she wanted to “do another one,” to which the registrant replied by asking for an electronic money transfer. NT confirmed that they sent the registrant an electronic money transfer, and the registrant provided two treatment receipts to NT: one for NT, and one for MM, each depicting a 60-minute massage therapy treatment, and each back-dated to March 22, 2022.

20On May 9, 2022, NT asked the registrant to “do 2 hours” for NT and MM and asked the registrant to backdate the receipt to “2 weeks ago.” The registrant responded that NT could not choose the date and confirmed that she would choose the date. NT then confirmed that they sent an electronic money transfer to the registrant, and the registrant issued two receipts: one for NT and one for MM, each depicting a 60-minute massage therapy treatment, and each back-dated to May 3, 2022.

21On May 12, 2022, NT asked the registrant to “do [NT’s child]” because “[NT’s child’s doctor] said [NT’s child] needs massage [therapy] to help with sleep.” The registrant responded that she could “try one for your [child] and with you and your [spouse] same day.” NT then sent the registrant an electronic money transfer. When NT followed up with the registrant to “send it now,” the registrant asked NT for NT’s child’s name, which NT provided as “JT.” The registrant then sent four backdated receipts to NT, two of them for JT, whose name the registrant only learned when she issued the receipts. In fact, NT had only just informed the registrant that JT’s doctor had recommended massage therapy treatment for JT. The following day, NT wrote to the registrant that “it went through” and that “we will use my [child] now too.”

22On May 19, 2022, NT asked the registrant to “do another one,” and the registrant responded that she could not issue receipts to JT every time she issued receipts to NT or MM. The registrant suggested that she could create receipts for JT “every other time,” to which NT responded, “well mine is almost up so how would I use [JT’s].” The registrant then suggested limiting JT’s receipts to half an hour. NT agreed. NT sent the registrant an electronic money transfer, and the registrant sent three backdated receipts to NT, two for JT and one for MM, totalling two hours.

23After receiving the receipts, NT told the registrant that she “did [JT] twice” and “one was supposed to be [MM].” To this, the registrant responded that the receipts were “okay like that” and that the registrant would issue a receipt to MM next time. NT responded that NT would reduce the payment to the registrant next time because they had transferred the registrant funds based on the cost of two-and-a-half hours of treatment. The registrant agreed.

24Each of the treatment receipts issued by the registrant to MM and JT contained false information. The registrant did not provide treatments to MM and JT as depicted in the above noted receipts. There were no corresponding treatment notes or records for any of the treatment receipts issued by the registrant to MM and JT.

Clients 3, 4, 5 and 6: AT, NoT, DT and AiT

25Between November 2020 and July 2021, the registrant issued receipts for massage therapy treatments to four clients, AT, their spouse (NoT), and their two children (DT and AiT), for treatments that the registrant did not provide, either at all or as depicted in the receipts.

26On November 14, 2020, the registrant informed her client, AT, that she was not working at the Clinic that day and could not treat AT, NoT, or their children. The registrant informed AT that she could book AT, NoT, and their two children for four consecutive massage therapy treatments on the following day, November 15, 2020.

27The registrant issued four receipts, one each to AT, NoT, and their children, all dated November 14, 2020, totalling four hours. There was one treatment note, for a 30-minute appointment for AiT, and none for the other three clients.

28On May 23, 2021, the registrant informed AT that she could schedule two of AT’s family members for treatments at the same time, but in different rooms. The registrant then issued receipts dated May 23, 2021 in her name for 60-minute massage therapy treatments to each of AT and NoT. There were no corresponding treatment notes, and the registrant could not have provided 60-minute massage treatments to two clients simultaneously in two different treatment rooms.

29On July 9, 2021, the registrant informed AT that she could schedule appointments for the following day, “2 appointments at 10… and 1 appointment at 11.” The registrant then issued receipts dated July 10, 2021 in her name for 60-minute massage therapy treatment to each of AT, NoT, and DT. There were no corresponding treatment notes for these receipts, and she could not have provided 60-minute massage treatments to two clients simultaneously in two different treatment rooms.

30All of these receipts contained false information. The registrant did not provide treatments to AT, NoT, DT or AiT as reflected in these receipts, either at all, or to all of these clients, or on the dates reflected on the receipts.

31Based on this evidence, we made a finding of professional misconduct pursuant to clause 51(1)(c) of the Code, as defined in the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 (version in effect January 25, 2013 until June 4, 2024) 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, in particular, the Standard of Practice: Fees and Billing dated February 9, 2021, in effect as of January 1, 2022 and requiring registrants to issue accurate receipts;

b. Paragraph 27: Falsifying a record relating to the member’s practice;

c. Paragraph 29: Signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows contains a false or misleading statement; and

d. 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, under the test as stated in Attallah, cited above.

32Our finding with respect to breach of standards in paragraph 6 of the Regulation is based only on the evidence relating to Clients 1 and 2, since the evidence relating to Clients 3 to 6 preceded the effective date of the standard in question. Our finding with respect to paras 27, 29 and 44 of the Regulation is based on the evidence relating to Clients 1 to 6.

Penalty and Costs

33The parties jointly submit that the appropriate penalty comprises the following elements: a reprimand, a five-month suspension, and terms, conditions and limitations (TCLs) on Ms. Wu’s certificate of registration requiring her before returning to practice to complete the PROBE Ethics and Boundaries Program and the College’s Recordkeeping E-Workshop. She must also complete up to three compliance audits within two years after the conclusion of her suspension.

34Where the parties arrive at a joint submission on the appropriate penalty, the panel is required to accept it unless the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.). These cases were applied by this Tribunal in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Yoon, 2024 ONCMTO 3 at p. 9; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Slavin, 2023 ONCMTO 14 at p. 8; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Epps, 2025 ONMTDT 15 at paras. 9 and 10.

35Applying that test, we are not prepared to depart from the parties’ joint submission. The order provided by the parties appropriately balances the well-established penalty goals of protection of the public, general and specific deterrence, rehabilitation and promoting confidence in self-regulation of the profession by the College.

36The order also falls well within the range and type of penalties that have been ordered by the Tribunal in similar circumstances. We recognize that each case is based on its unique set of facts, and of course decisions generally have less precedential value where the panel has a limited role in assessing a joint submission. Nonetheless, the cases submitted by the College provide support for a penalty in the range of the JSP that we received.

37The following cases involve the issuance of false receipts by a registrant, in which a joint submission resulted in an order for a reprimand, a suspension of five or six months, and similar TCLs to the ones the parties put forward here: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Ma, 2019 ONCMTO 8; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Lee, 2019 ONCMTO 30; Yoon; and Slavin, which we referred to above; and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Mazzella, 2023 ONCMTO 16.

38Having regard to this jurisprudence and the goals to be achieved in imposing a penalty, the parties’ JSP does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and we issue the penalty order quoted below.

39The panel also accepts the parties’ joint submission that Ms. Wu will pay costs of $5,852, which is the tariff rate for a half-day hearing, in instalments over 24 months.

Order

40We make the following order:

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded within 30 days of this Order, with the fact of the reprimand and a summary of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:

a. suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of five (5) months or until such time as the registrant completes the terms, conditions and limitations described in paragraph b.i. and b.ii. below, whichever is longer, commencing on the date of this Order.

b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, each at the registrant’s own expense:

i. that the registrant successfully complete the PROBE Ethics and Boundaries Program, to the satisfaction of the Registrar;

ii. that the registrant successfully complete the College’s Record Keeping E-Workshop. Proof of successful completion of the College’s Record Keeping E-Workshop within the last six (6) months of the date of this Order, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, shall be considered satisfactory of this requirement.

iii. that the registrant complete up to three (3) compliance audits, within two (2) years of the date that her suspension concludes.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852, which can be paid in twenty-four (24) monthly payments of $243.83, with the first monthly payment due sixty (60) days from the date of this Order, and every subsequent payment due monthly.