College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Brian Murray, 2025 ONMTDT 30

ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: November 5, 2025

Tribunal File No.: PC-11176

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Brian Murray

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: October 3, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Jay Sengupta (panel chair)

Allie Bisset (massage therapist)

Brian Highgate (public)

Jay Mathers (public)

Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Karen Heath and Enniael Stair, for the College

Carina Lentsch, 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, Brian Murray, admitted that he committed professional misconduct by assessing a client’s gluteal muscles without obtaining prior written informed consent during a massage therapy appointment.

2The parties made a joint submission regarding penalty and costs. They sought a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for one month to commence on November 1, 2025, a reprimand, specific terms, conditions and limitations including a review of relevant standards, completion of an individualized ethics and boundaries course and a reflective essay, all to be completed at his own expense, and costs in accordance with the tariff in the Rules of Procedure.

3A joint submission must be accepted unless it would be contrary to the public interest to do so. As this joint submission is not contrary to the public interest, we made the order requested.

4The reasons for our decision are set out below.

Findings of Misconduct

5For the reasons that follow, we find that the College has established that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18.

6Specifically, in respect of s. 51(1)(c), we find that the registrant has breached the following paragraphs of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 (version in force between January 25, 2013 and June 30, 2024) (Regulation) 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 Consent, Prevention of Sexual Abuse, and Professional Boundaries standards);

• paragraph 7 (doing anything to a client for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, cosmetic or other health-related purpose in a situation in which consent is required by law, without such consent); 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).

7It is not in dispute that the client requested a relaxation massage and treatment for her upper body that included the back, neck, shoulders, chest wall, face and scalp. The treatment was not to include the client’s lower body.

8At the beginning of the appointment, the registrant reviewed a Consent for Assessment and Treatment of Sensitive Areas form with the client, who consented to the treatment of her chest wall muscles. She did not consent to the assessment or treatment of her gluteal muscles.

9During the assessment, the registrant performed closed-knuckle compressions to the client’s gluteal muscles over the sheet without her prior written informed consent to the assessment or treatment of her gluteal muscles. The Standard of Practice: Consent is clear that prior written informed consent is required in respect of both assessment and treatment. The other published standards relating to prevention of sexual abuse and professional boundaries contain the same requirement. The registrant’s actions therefore amounted to misconduct under paragraph 6 of section 26 of the Regulation.

10Proceeding to conduct the assessment of the client’s gluteal muscles without obtaining her consent when such consent was clearly required amounted to misconduct under paragraph 7 of section 26 of the Regulation. The registrant’s conduct also amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct under paragraph 44 of section 26 of the Regulation.

11In light of the registrant’s admissions and having reviewed the published standards relating to consent, prevention of sexual abuse and professional boundaries, we find that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct.

Penalty and Costs

12The parties jointly sought the following:

• A suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration for one month, to commence on November 1, 2025;

• A reprimand;

• Terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration that require that:

a. he review the three relevant College standards and confirm he has done so prior to returning to practice;

b. successfully complete an individualized ethics and boundaries course within four months of the date of the order; and

c. complete a reflective essay within 30 days of completion of the coursework.

• Costs in the amount of $5,852 (payable in installments).

13While the Tribunal has the discretion to accept or reject a joint submission made by the parties, we must exercise restraint and should not reject a joint submission unless it meets the “undeniably high threshold” that the proposed penalty “would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system” (see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at paras 34 and 42; Ontario College of Teachers v. Merolle, 2023 ONSC 3453 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 27 and 28; Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.) at paras 8 to 12).

14We find that the proposed penalty is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.

15The misconduct is undoubtedly serious. The registrant performed an assessment of the client’s gluteal muscles, a sensitive area, without her prior informed written consent in contravention of the standards. It is clear that prior informed written consent is required in respect of both treatment and assessment. The standards are in place to ensure that clients can make informed decisions about their care, professional boundaries are maintained to preserve the trust and respect necessary in a therapeutic relationship, and boundary crossing, boundary violation and abuse are prevented.

16The registrant’s prior discipline history involving a boundary violation is a further aggravating factor.

17By way of mitigation, the parties agreed that the registrant had acknowledged responsibility for his conduct, was responsive throughout the investigation and hearing process and had worked collaboratively with the College to proceed by way of a joint submission.

18A registrant is expected to cooperate and respond to inquiries from the regulator. The registrant’s cooperation with the College, on its own, is not a mitigating factor. We find, however, that the registrant’s acknowledgement and acceptance of responsibility for his conduct, is a mitigating factor. This led to this matter proceeding by way of a joint submission and avoided the need for a contested hearing, with evidence being called from the complainants and the associated costs of a lengthier proceeding.

19The parties referred us to this Tribunal’s decisions in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Jing, 2022 ONCMTO 9 and College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Li, 2024 ONCMTO 25. In both those cases, the Tribunal imposed a suspension of one month for similar conduct that included performing compressions on the gluteal muscles of clients without obtaining prior informed written consent. Accordingly, we are satisfied that the length of the proposed suspension is within the range of outcomes in similar circumstances.

20We accepted the parties’ joint submission that, in the particular circumstances of this case, because of the timing of the agreement to proceed by way of a joint position, and the fact that the registrant had 70 client appointments booked for the balance of the month, the registrant’s one-month suspension should commence on November 1, 2025 to accommodate his clients’ care and arrange alternative services for them in a reasonable time.

Order

21A reprimand was delivered at the close of the hearing, and we made the following order:

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded immediately following the hearing in this matter, 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 one (1) month commencing November 1, 2025;

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

i. The registrant shall review the College’s Consent, Professional Boundaries and Prevention of Sexual Abuse standards, and confirm same to the Registrar, in writing, prior to the registrant’s return to practice;

ii. The registrant shall successfully complete an individualized ethics and boundaries course, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, within four (4) months of the date of this order;

iii. The registrant shall complete a 500-word reflective essay, to the Registrar’s satisfaction, indicating lessons learned from the self-directed review and coursework set out at paragraphs 2(b)(i) and (ii) above and how the registrant intends to implement those lessons in his practice, within 30 days of completing the coursework.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852.00, which can be paid in 12 monthly installments, with the first monthly payment due 30 days after the date of this order, and then monthly thereafter, as follows:

a. Payments #1-11 in the amount of $487.66; and

b. Payment #12 in the amount of $487.74.