NOTICE OF PUBLICATION BAN
This is notice that the Tribunal ordered that no person shall publish, broadcast or otherwise disclose the name of the client referred to during the hearing or in documents filed at the hearing, or any information that would disclose the identity of the client. This order was made pursuant to subsection 45(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), being Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991.
Subsection 93(1) of the Code, which is concerned with failure to comply with these orders, provides that: Every person who contravenes an order made under section 45 or section 47 is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,
(a) in the case of an individual to a fine of not more than $25,000 for a first offence and not more than $50,000 for a second or subsequent offence; or
(b) in the case of a corporation to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence and not more than $200,000 for a second or subsequent offence.
ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Indexed as:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Semenuk, 2025 ONMTDT 32
IN THE MATTER OF a hearing directed
by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of
the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
pursuant to Section 26(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code
being Schedule 2 of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991,
S.O. 1991, c. 18, as amended.
BETWEEN:
COLLEGE OF MASSAGE THERAPISTS OF ONTARIO
- and -
CHRISTOPHER SEMENUK
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christin Mandalentsis
Allie Bisset
Jay Mathers
Howard Shears
Ashley Van Zelst
Chair, Professional Board Member
Professional Non-Board Member
Public Board Member
Public Board Member
Professional Board Member
Hearing Date:
Decision Date:
Release of Written Reasons:
August 26, 2025
November 25, 2025
November 25, 2025
DECISION AND REASONS ON PENALTY AND COSTS
A panel of the Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal (the “Panel”) held a hearing on penalty and costs on August 26, 2025. The hearing proceeded by videoconference pursuant to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 - Health Professions Procedural Code, the Hearings in Tribunal Proceedings (Temporary Measures) Act, 2020 and the Discipline Committee Rules. Anastasia-Maria Hountalas represented the College of the Massage Therapists of Ontario (the “College”). Christopher Semenuk (the “Registrant”) was self-represented. Lonny Rosen acted as independent legal counsel to the Panel.
FINDINGS OF PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT
In our decision of January 9, 2025, reported at College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Semenuk, 2025 ONCMTO 3, we found that the Registrant:
a) contravened a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College, in particular Technique Standard 15: Perform Breast Massage, Communication/Public Health Standard 7: Consent, Communication/Public Health Standard 12: Draping, and the Standard on Maintaining Professional Boundaries and Preventing Sexual Abuse; and
b) engaged in conduct or performed 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.
We found as facts that the Registrant provided massage therapy to a female client (the “Client”), during which he undraped and exposed the Client’s entire right breast and massaged the Client’s right breast without having her complete the Consent to Treat Sensitive Areas consent form. We also found that the Registrant did not adequately explain to the Client the rationale for treating her breast tissue.
The College had alleged that the Registrant billed the Client for longer than the actual treatment time, but we did not find that the College proved this allegation or that the Registrant engaged in professional misconduct in that respect.
POSITION OF THE PARTIES ON PENALTY AND COSTS
The College’s position was that we should order, as an appropriate penalty in this matter:
a) A public recorded reprimand;
b) A seven-month suspension of the Registrant’s certificate of registration; and
c) The following terms, conditions and limitations (“TCLs”) on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, all to be completed at his own expense:
i. Successful completion (i.e., an unconditional pass) of an individualized Registrar-approved ethics course within six months of the Panel’s order; and
ii. Successful completion of the College’s online jurisprudence program (formerly the standards and regulations workshop) within six months of the Panel’s order,
(the “Proposed Penalty”).
With respect to costs, the College’s position was that this is an appropriate case for costs to be ordered, and that the Registrant should be required to pay costs of $32,186 based on the tariff rate.
The Registrant did not provide a position with respect to penalty or costs.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES
Submissions of the College
The College submitted that the Proposed Penalty met the four penalty principles the Panel should consider: specific deterrence, general deterrence, public confidence in the College and in the profession’s ability to self-regulate, and remediation. Specifically,
a) the reprimand would serve both specific and general deterrence and has an element of remediation, as it will allow the Registrant to understand why his conduct was unacceptable. The reprimand would also foster public confidence by informing the public about registrants’ obligations when treating sensitive areas;
b) the suspension would serve as a deterrent to the Registrant and to the profession as a whole, communicating that exposing and treating sensitive areas without consent and in a manner contrary to the standards of practice of the profession will attract a significant suspension. It would also help preserve the public’s confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate and appropriately address serious infractions; and
c) the TCLs would help to remediate the Registrant’s conduct in several ways. The individualized ethics course will provide the Registrant with tailored education about appropriate RMT-client boundaries and professionalism. The College’s online jurisprudence course would provide a review of the requirements and expectations for delivering quality, safe and client-centred care. The coursework generally would provide the Registrant with the necessary tools and education to return to a safe and ethical practice following his suspension.
The College submitted that the Proposed Penalty took into account the following two aggravating factors: the Registrant’s discipline history and the nature of the conduct itself.
With respect to the Registrant’s prior discipline history, in March 2013, the Tribunal (formerly the Discipline Committee) found that the Registrant engaged in conduct unbecoming a massage therapist by engaging in a personal and sexual relationship with a massage therapy student whom he was teaching.1 By way of penalty, he was ordered to attend to receive a reprimand, his certificate of registration was suspended for four months, and he was ordered to complete the College’s Professionalism Workshop and submit a reflective essay. The Registrant’s appeal of that decision was dismissed by the Divisional Court.
Additionally, in December 2017, the Discipline Committee found that the Registrant failed to comply with its 2013 order2. The Registrant admitted this allegation, and the Discipline Committee again found that the Registrant engaged in professional misconduct. The Discipline Committee ordered the Registrant to receive a reprimand, complete the Professionalism Workshop and a written essay, and to pay costs.
The College submitted that the 2013 discipline proceedings, like the current case, related to concerns about the Registrant failing to maintain appropriate professional boundaries. The 2017 discipline proceedings related to the Registrant’s failure to comply with an order of the Discipline Committee, which raised concerns regarding his insight and judgment. These past proceedings are therefore an aggravating factor, as they demonstrate a persistent lack of appropriate judgment regarding the Registrant’s professional obligations, despite the Registrant having completed remediation on the issue of professionalism.
The College submitted that the nature of the conduct in this case was itself an aggravating factor. The Registrant exposed and treated a sensitive area, the Client’s breast, without obtaining written consent or explaining the rationale, despite the Registrant being an experienced RMT with knowledge of draping, treatment of sensitive areas, and consent requirements, having served as a teacher and mentor and having the skills and expertise to avoid such conduct. The Panel had previously characterized the conduct not as a minor misstep but as an exacerbation of the RMT-client power imbalance.
In further submissions, the College noted that the Proposed Penalty reflected the severity of the conduct in question and was proportional given past decisions of this Tribunal.3 These decisions established that this type of conduct generally merits a reprimand, a four-to-eight-month suspension and TCLs requiring a registrant to complete remediation-focused coursework. These decisions also stood for the proposition that cases involving the exposure and treatment of sensitives areas and involving a single client generally fall in the middle of the established suspension range. However, none of the previous cases involved a registrant with a prior discipline history. Since the Registrant was previously suspended for four months in 2013 after he was found guilty of professional misconduct for boundaries violations related to a personal and sexual relationship with a student, the College submitted that a higher, seven-month suspension is proportionate in the circumstances.
With respect to costs, the College submitted that section 53.1 of the Code empowers us to award costs and that this is an appropriate case in which to do so, so that the full costs of prosecuting this matter are partially borne by the Registrant rather than entirely borne by the membership through their dues.
The College submitted that it was substantially successful at the hearing on the merits, and that it is well-established that costs follow the cause. The Discipline Committee Rules include a tariff amount for the costs payable for a full day of hearing time ($8,778) and a half-day of hearing time ($5,852). If the College is seeking costs at or below the tariff rate, it is not required to tender evidence to support the amount of its costs claim. Because the hearing proceeded over three full days and one half-day (including the penalty and costs portion), the total tariffed costs for the hearing are $32,186.00.
The College submitted that the actual costs of the investigation and hearing exceeded $78,000 and that it is typical in regulatory cases for registrants to be ordered to pay two-thirds of the costs actually incurred. Accordingly, the use of tariffed costs represents a significant reduction to the Registrant. In addition, the tariffed amount is reasonable, provides transparency and predictability, and permits registrants to make informed decisions as to how to proceed, knowing the consequences of contesting allegations of misconduct.
The College proved the allegations relating to the Registrant having undraped, exposed and treated the Client’s breast without having her complete the required form or having adequately explained his rationale for the treatment. It did not prove the allegation that the Registrant billed the Client for longer than the actual treatment time. On the issue of whether the Panel could consider the parties’ divided success on the merits when determining costs, as was done in Van Arem v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario,4 the College submitted that:
(a) unlike this Tribunal, the College of Veterinarians of Ontario (CVO) Discipline Committee does not have a tariff and instead uses two-thirds of the actual costs incurred as a benchmark for awarding costs;
(b) the nature of mixed success in Van Arem was very different from this case, as the registrant in Van Arem admitted to record keeping allegations, which were proven, and denied the most serious allegations relating to improper administration of a drug, which were not proven. The most serious allegations against the Registrant in the present case were proven; and
(c) the parties in Van Arem spent significant hearing time on the unproven allegations, including witnesses being called solely to give evidence regarding those allegations, while the Client’s evidence in the present case relating to billing and the time of her arrival and departure at the clinic represented only a small portion of her evidence.
Accordingly, the College submitted that no reduction in the tariffed amount was warranted, despite the College being unsuccessful in proving the billing-related allegations of misconduct.
Submissions of the Registrant
The Registrant made only very brief submissions, in which he expressed that he did not accept the Panel’s decision and that he planned to pursue judicial review. He expressed that he had attended the penalty hearing in the hope that the Panel might consider the impact of its decision on the Registrant and on the profession as a whole and added that he had been denied access to justice.
He subsequently made submissions with respect to costs, arguing that the costs should be reduced to reflect the time spent on the unproven allegations. The application of the tariff to the total hearing time would be unfair as significant time was spent on the unproven allegations. The Registrant suggested that a reduced costs amount would be appropriate, though he did not make submissions on what reduction would be appropriate.
DECISION
The panel carefully considered the parties’ submissions and unanimously accepts the Proposed Penalty consisting of a reprimand, a seven-month suspension, and TCLs requiring completion of an individualized ethics course and the College’s online jurisprudence program.
On the issue of costs, a majority of the panel orders the Registrant to pay costs in the amount of $29,260, in accordance with the tariff rate. The dissenting panel member would order a reduced amount of $21,945, reflecting that success was divided between the College and the Registrant.
The panel’s unanimous reasons on penalty, the majority’s reasons on costs, and the dissenting reasons on costs are set out below.
REASONS FOR DECISION ON PENALTY
We accept the Proposed Penalty as reasonable and appropriate in light of the nature and severity of the Registrant’s conduct, his prior discipline history and the fact that we could identify no mitigating factors. We were satisfied that the Proposed Penalty as a whole would protect the public and instill confidence in this Tribunal’s ability and willingness to impose a serious sanction for serious professional misconduct.
In particular, the suspension and reprimand would meet the goals of specific and general deterrence, sending a message to the Registrant and the profession that misconduct of this nature would result in a significant sanction. We believe that a suspension is also necessary to preserve public confidence in the profession’s ability to self-regulate.
The coursework will provide an opportunity for the Registrant to learn from his mistakes and reflect on them, permitting him to return to practice safely following his suspension. Specifically, the coursework is aimed at ensuring that the concerns with the Registrant’s conduct as it relates to the treatment of sensitive areas are remediated. The College’s online jurisprudence course is designed to provide a review of the requirements and expectations for delivering quality, safe and client-centred care. It is especially relevant as it reviews the standards of practice, with special focus on treating sensitive areas and maintaining professional boundaries. With the history and current findings related to this Registrant, this course will be relevant and provide necessary remediation.
Similarly, an individualized, Registrar-approved ethics course will provide the Registrant with tailored education about appropriate RMT-client boundaries and professionalism and will directly speak to and remediate gaps in the Registrant’s knowledge and judgment.
The reprimand would also have an element of remediation, as it will provide the Registrant with an opportunity to understand why consent and other requirements related to the treatment of sensitive areas are essential to the practice of massage therapy, and would help to foster public confidence.
We accepted the two aggravating factors presented by the College as relevant and warranting a penalty on the higher end of the range. The Registrant had been the subject of two prior discipline proceedings, the first relating to a prior incidence of boundary violation and the second relating to a failure to comply with a disciplinary order, which reflected on the Registrant’s professional judgment. Both proceedings were relevant to the Registrant’s conduct in this matter, and the nature of his conduct was itself an additional aggravating factor given the importance of consent to the treatment of sensitive areas in massage therapy.
We found the Proposed Penalty was proportionate to the Registrant’s conduct and was in line with the cases presented by the College. Each of the cases related to treatment, exposure or touching of a client’s sensitive area and where there was no allegation of sexual abuse. The findings in those cases all resulted in registrants receiving a penalty that included a reprimand, a suspension ranging from four to eight months, and TCLs that were aimed at remediating the registrants’ conduct. The penalties were therefore all consistent with the Proposed Penalty and established a range of four to eight months for a reasonable length of suspension, with most of the registrants receiving a four or five-month suspension for misconduct involving a boundary violation with one client. The registrant in Guertin received a longer suspension due to misconduct involving two clients. However, none of the prior cases involved a registrant with a prior discipline history.
The prior findings of misconduct and the pattern of boundary violations (based on the Registrant’s conduct with the Client and his conduct with a student in a previous case) warranted a suspension at the higher end of the range. Further, the fact that the Registrant directly touched the Client’s breast and engaged in a critical boundary violation in this matter despite previous remediation opportunities to address boundaries made a longer suspension necessary.
REASONS OF MAJORITY FOR DECISION ON COSTS
We found that this was an appropriate case in which to order costs, and that it was appropriate to apply the tariff rate. We observed, and College counsel subsequently agreed, that the hearing took two full days and two half-days, including the penalty and costs phase. Applying the tariff rates at $8,778 per full day and $5,852 per half-day totals $29,260.
We considered the College’s affidavit evidence outlining the actual costs incurred in investigating and prosecuting this matter as well as the tariff rates included in the Discipline Committee Rules and determined that the tariff amount was reasonable.
We also considered the fact that the billing-related allegations of misconduct were not proven, as well as the decision of the CVO Discipline Committee in Van Arem, upheld by the Divisional Court, where costs were reduced due to allegations advanced that were not proven. However, we found that the hearing time spent on the unproven allegation in this case was not sufficiently significant to warrant a reduction in costs. While a reduction in costs may be appropriate in cases that have a clear division of success, we view this as appropriate only in cases such as Van Arem, where significant hearing time is attributable to allegations that were not ultimately proven. We did not find that to be the case here where, unlike in Van Arem, the more significant allegations of misconduct were proven and most of the hearing time was spent on the proven allegations of misconduct. As such, we did not find a reduction in costs to be appropriate in this matter.
We have reviewed the reasons of the dissenting panel member, and do not share her view that the evidence and submissions relating to the billing allegations comprised approximately 25% of the hearing time. In our view, the time allocated to the evidence and submissions relating to the billing allegations comprised well below 25% of the hearing time, though we would not propose to estimate the amount of hearing time allotted to this issue because the evidence relating to the billing allegations was woven into the testimony of the Registrant and the Client regarding all of the events of the day in question. The evidence of the two witnesses who testified regarding the billing allegations was not clearly divisible by allegation, and no estimate of the hearing time attributable to a particular allegation would be reliable. This is in contrast to cases such as Van Arem, where witnesses provided evidence solely in respect of unproven allegations. In those circumstances, hearing time can be easily divided among proven and unproven allegations. That is not the case here, and we did not view the time attributable to the billing allegations either in terms of oral testimony or closing submissions, to have accounted for a significant portion of the hearing.
ORDER
Having reserved our decision on penalty and costs, we now direct the following:
The Registrant is required to appear before a panel of the Tribunal within 45 days of the date of this order 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 Registrar is directed to suspend the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration for a period of seven months, effective immediately; and
The Registrar is directed to impose the following terms, conditions and limitations on the Registrant’s Certificate of Registration, all to be completed at his own expense:
a) Successful completion (i.e., an unconditional pass) of an individualized Registrar-approved ethics course within six months of this order; and
b) Successful completion of the College’s online jurisprudence program within six months of this order.
- The Registrant is required to pay the College costs in the amount of $29,260.00 within 45 days of the date of this order.
DISCIPLINE PANEL
Christin Mandalentsis, Chair, Professional Board Member
Allie Bisset, Professional non-Board member
Jay Mathers, Public Board Member Howard Shears, Public Board Member
Ashley Van Zelst, Professional Board Member
DISSENTING REASONS ON COSTS
I am aligned with my fellow panel members regarding the penalty terms of the order, but I dissent on the issue of costs. I agree that this is an appropriate case in which to order costs. However, for the reasons set out below, the amount of costs ordered should be $21,945, reflecting that success was divided between the College and the Registrant.
Where success is divided between the parties, it is open to the panel to make an award of costs that reflects that divided success. In Van Arem, the CVO Discipline Committee found that success as between the parties was divided because significant allegations were not proven by the College. As a result, it found it reasonable to adjust costs to reflect the allegations that were proven versus allegations that were not. I found that this case was similar to Van Arem in that the College proved some allegations but failed to prove that the Registrant billed the Client for longer than the actual treatment time. I estimated that approximately 25% of the hearing time was spent addressing the time-based billing allegation, and as such, the tariffed amount should be reduced by 25%.
The College submitted that there were two significant factors distinguishing this case from Van Arem. First, the CVO Discipline Committee does not use a tariff, and therefore began the costs analysis from the premise that registrants should pay two-thirds of the College’s costs. Accordingly, application of the tariff rate in the present case already results in the registrant paying well below two-thirds of the College’s actual costs, and therefore no further reduction is warranted. Second, the College noted that the allegations that were proven in Van Arem were admitted and all of the witnesses’ evidence related to the allegations that were not proven. I considered these submissions but determined that the principle that costs should be reduced to reflect divided success was still applicable and should be applied to reduce the costs award in this case.
The College’s argument is that because the allegations proven in Van Arem were uncontested, they took up less hearing time, whereas in this case, all allegations were contested and most of the hearing time was taken up by the allegations that were ultimately proven. Further, the proven allegations were the more serious ones, and therefore the costs should not be reduced because less serious allegations were not proven.
I do not accept the College’s submission that the lack of tariff rates for CVO proceedings is relevant to the question of whether costs should be reduced to reflect divided success. If the starting point in this Tribunal’s analysis is the tariff rate, rather than two-thirds of the costs incurred as in CVO proceedings, then that is the value that should be ordered to be paid by the registrant if the College is entirely successful, or reduced if success is divided.
I also do not accept the College’s submission that because the more serious allegations were proven, costs should not be reduced. The unproven allegations were sufficiently serious for the College to advance and for the Registrant to contest and this took up hearing time. Regardless of the seriousness of the allegations, whatever time a hearing takes, contested or uncontested, if the allegations are proven and an award of costs is appropriate, the registrant will be ordered to pay the costs. The registrant should not be liable for the costs incurred in the prosecution of allegations that are ultimately found to be unproven.
In this case, serious allegations, including the more serious of these, were proven, and I agree that costs should be ordered. However, significant time and effort throughout the hearing was spent on the billing issue – related to both evidence of the Registrant and the Client, and submissions. In my estimation, approximately 25% of the hearing time was related to the billing issue. Accordingly, I would apply the tariff rates to determine that the amount of costs based on the tariff is $29,260 and then reduce that amount by 25% to reflect the parties’ divided success, resulting in a costs award of $21,945. The Notice of Hearing provides support for this analysis because one of the four factual allegations was related to the unproven billing conduct, and the estimated hearing time allotted to this allegation was approximately 25%.
The burden of proof continues to be on the College in the penalty and costs phase, and it is my view that the College did not prove that the full tariff amount should be ordered. Registrants who are brought before the Tribunal should not bear the burden of the costs associated with unproven allegations simply because other allegations are established. I am also not suggesting that it is always appropriate to reduce costs from the tariffed amount where some allegations are not proven. In this case, there was a clear separation of the allegations, and it was easier to distinguish evidence pertaining to one allegation from another. I estimated that the hearing time could have been reduced by more than half a day if the billing allegations were not advanced. I therefore view it as appropriate to adjust the costs based on this division.
The College presented evidence as to the costs actually incurred in this case, though it was not seeking and did not argue that the costs award should be based on that. The College submitted that tariffs are implemented to prevent the need for the College to prove their costs, but also to provide transparency: registrants are made aware of the tariff and that it will be sought by the College if the allegations are proven. I accept this submission and find that a panel should not depart from the tariff rate when awarding costs unless there is good reason to do so. I find that divided success, in this case, provides good reason to depart from the tariff rate.
Allie Bisset, Professional Non-Board Member
Footnotes
- College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Semenuk (Discipline Committee) (16 May 2013), unreported.
- College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Christopher Semenuk, 2017 ONCMTO 28.
- College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v El-Tatari, 2019 ONCPSD 26; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Kim, 2022 ONCMTO 23; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Guertin, 2016 ONCMTO 13; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v Thieu, 2018 ONCMTO 7; and College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v Wilson, 2016 ONCPSD 46.
- 2024 ONSC 7072 (Div. Ct.).