ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-10047
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Jun Yang
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: September 16, 2025, by videoconference
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Jennifer Da Ponte (massage therapist)
Jay Mathers (public)
Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)
Howard Shears (public)
Appearances:
Emily Graham, for the College
Jun Yang, 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
1The registrant, Jun Yang, committed professional misconduct in several ways. He did not create records for many clients and treatments. Some records existed but were not complete. He also issued receipts for treatments he had not provided and allowed others to issue false receipts using his signature. When investigators for the insurance companies asked him for information about the claims, he gave them false information.
2Mr. Yang admitted the record-keeping allegations. He did not contest the allegations about receipts and his communications with insurance companies. At the hearing we found misconduct as alleged. We also accepted the parties’ joint submission that the penalty should be a ten-month suspension, education in record keeping and ethics, compliance audits when he returns to practice and a reprimand. As also agreed, we ordered costs at the tariff rate of $5,852.
3Tribunal Chair David A. Wright conducted case management conferences in this matter and sits on the panel with the consent of both parties.
Record Keeping
4Mr. Yang’s record keeping was abysmal. The College found the following during its investigation:
He created no client health records or financial records for 66 treatments he provided clients in their homes. The only record of these treatments is a spreadsheet with the billing date, duration of the treatment and price. There are no client names or identifiers.
Sun Life asked him for the health records of certain clients he treated at four different clinics and found the following.
Among four clients at GTA Active Rehab, there were no records of the times of the treatments and no records at all of 12 appointments.
At Holistic Medical Centre, there were no records of one of 10 treatments for one client.
Among the three clients at Humber 27 Wellness & Foot Clinic, there were no records for seven treatments.
For one client at Top Rehab, there were no records of one of seven treatments.
He made no records of a treatment of one client at Aroma Day Spa.
He made no client health records at all for the treatments he provided while working occasionally at Love Feet Spa during a five-month period in 2021.
He made no client health records at all at Sunshine Wellness Centre, where he practised occasionally over almost five years.
5The registrant’s conduct in failing to keep records as required contravened Communication/Public Health Standard 14: Client Health Record (for treatments before January 1, 2022) and the Guide to Record Keeping Requirements (for treatments on or after that date). In relation to his record-keeping, the registrant committed professional misconduct by: failing to keep records as required; contravening a published standard of the College; and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. See Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27, s. 26(1) (Regulation), paras. 5, 9 and 38 of the current version of the regulation and s. 26, paras. 26, 6 and 44 of the version in force at the time of the events.
6Failure to keep records in accordance with the College’s standards puts the public at risk and damages its confidence in the massage therapy profession. Records must be available to, among others, the client, other healthcare providers, the College and insurers. They must contain, among other things, medical history, details of examinations and treatments, advice given, fees charged, consents and treatment plans.
False Receipts and False Responses to Insurers
7In October 2017, a friend of the registrant's asked him to give her receipts bearing his name and registration number for massage therapy services that neither he nor anyone else provided. The registrant issued four receipts for treatments that did not happen. The receipts included the registrant's name, registration number and signature. His friend paid for the treatments herself and submitted insurance claims for these treatments.
8In February 2018, a woman provided an undercover Manulife investigator with a massage at Lucky Health Centre. The investigator was asked to return for a receipt on a different day. When he returned, a woman gave him another massage. The receptionist gave him two receipts, both indicating that the registrant had provided massage therapy treatments. The registrant had pre-signed the receipts and allowed Lucky Health Centre to issue receipts with his name and registration number for treatments given by an unregistered person.
9When Manulife later asked the registrant to verify that he had provided the treatments, he confirmed he had done so, which was false. Manulife also required copies of the receipts, but the versions Mr. Yang provided were different than the ones the clinic gave the investigator. He had prepared new receipts for treatments he did not perform and sent them to Manulife.
10Another client received four treatments from a woman in August 2019 at Li’s Acupuncture. The clinic gave the client receipts indicating that Mr. Yang had provided the treatments. In fact, the person who performed the treatments was unregistered, and Mr. Yang had pre-signed the receipts and permitted the clinic to issue them.
11Sun Life emailed him to confirm he had provided the treatments on the receipts. Mr. Yang replied that he had checked his records and had provided the treatments. This was false.
12Finally, in December 2019 Mr. Yang treated a client at Aroma Day Spa in Hamilton. At the time, Sun Life did not accept claims from that clinic location. The clinic provided the client with a receipt that indicated that treatment had been received at a clinic in Burlington. Mr. Yang had provided pre-signed stickers with his signature which were added to the receipt. When Sun Life asked the registrant to verify that he had performed the treatment, he only looked at whether the signature was his. He did not consult his treatment notes, as he had not made any. The steps he took to verify the treatment were inadequate.
13In relation to the false receipts and responses to the insurance companies, Mr. Yang committed professional misconduct by: falsifying records relating to his practice; signing or issuing, in his professional capacity, a document that he knew contained a false statement; and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. See paras. 4, 7, and 40 of s. 26(1) of the current Regulation; paras. 27, 29 and 44 of s. 26 of the version in force at the time.
14In permitting his name and registration number to be used for false claims for massages given by unregistered practitioners, Mr. Yang put clients at risk. They may well have believed they were receiving a massage from a registered massage therapist (RMT). False receipts and false responses to insurance companies have multiple consequences. False claims, and the need to investigate them, contribute to higher costs of employee benefit plans. They also reduce confidence in the massage therapy profession. The public relies on RMTs to be honest, careful and accurate in all aspects of their work.
Penalty and Costs
15The College and the registrant’s agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303(Div. Ct.) at paras. 9-12. The test is adapted from the Supreme Court’s analysis in the criminal law context in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. While criminal law approaches should not be automatically imported into professional regulation, courts and discipline tribunals have found that on the issue of joint submissions, the test is the same.
16The Tribunal must accept and implement a joint submission in all but the most exceptional circumstances. There must be something completely unacceptable, unusual or unconscionable to reject it, not a disagreement or belief that a different outcome would better serve the public interest or be a more fit penalty. Just because the joint submission is not the penalty the Tribunal would have ordered does not mean that the proposed resolution would bring the administration of the discipline system into disrepute.
17The Tribunal may not “tinker” with a joint submission, which is the result of a careful balancing by the parties of the relevant considerations. It should take the joint submission “as is” and proceed on the basis that any aspects of penalty that were not included were intentionally excluded.
18There are many reasons for this high bar. It encourages settlement. If the College and registrants do not have confidence that settlements will be implemented, they will be less likely to happen, with negative consequences for the public interest. Settlements have many benefits for the discipline process. They avoid the stress of a hearing for witnesses, the registrant and those close to them. They save time and costs and lead to a faster resolution of the issues for the parties and quicker action to protect the public interest.
19Compromise also avoids an “all or nothing” situation for either party. Both parties avoid the risk that challenges in their case, such as weaknesses in witness testimony, legal arguments or evidence that may be inadmissible will affect the outcome. This information is not available to the panel but is usually an important factor in the parties’ decisions. Joint submissions help protect the public interest by making sure that, subject to very limited exceptions, a finding will be made and a penalty implemented. For the registrant, a joint submission maximizes certainty about the result of the case and the penalty, including its timing. If there is a suspension, registrants can plan and arrange for others to care for clients based on the agreed starting date. Settlement can also involve creative and meaningful terms, conditions and limitations that would be difficult to order and implement without buy-in from both parties.
20The parties have agreed on a ten-month suspension, education, compliance audits and costs. The long suspension recognizes the very serious nature of the misconduct, which includes both poor record keeping and dishonesty. The education and monitoring will promote rehabilitation and public protection once the registrant returns to practice. The reprimand, which was delivered at the hearing, allowed the panel to express its concerns directly to the registrant. The penalty as a whole sends the strong message to the public and the profession about the importance of honesty, completeness and care in treatment and financial records.
21The registrant has admitted some of the misconduct and not contested others, saving the College the time and expense of a contested hearing. This is a mitigating factor.
22The College relies on two previous cases involving joint submissions: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Huk (unpublished, August 10, 2015) and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Zhu, 2017 ONCMTO 3. In Zhu, the registrant fabricated a client file for a client she did not treat, signed receipts for a treatment she did not provide, failed to take reasonable precautions to prevent the improper use of pre-signed receipts and provided false and/or misleading information to a College investigator. She received an effective suspension of five months. In Huk, the registrant had prepared receipts and made claims to an insurer for treatments that did not occur, prepared false treatment records and failed to keep records as required. In that case, the effective suspension was eight months. These cases help demonstrate that the suspension in this case is within the appropriate range.
23This penalty would not bring the professional discipline system into disrepute, and we made the order below.
Order
24Our order provides:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded, 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 ten (10) months, commencing immediately;
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, effective immediately:
i. Within ten (10) months of September 16, 2025:
The registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense, 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;
The registrant shall successfully complete, at his own expense, the College’s record-keeping e-workshop; and
The registrant shall successfully complete up to three (3) compliance audits related to his billing and record-keeping practices within two (2) years following the registrant's return to practice and at the registrant's expense, with each compliance audit being no more than $500.00.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852.00 by October 16, 2025.