ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: December 15, 2025

Tribunal File No.: PC-10686

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Jian Feng Feng

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: November 3, 2025, by videoconference

Panel:

Jay Sengupta (panel chair)

Sean Adderley (massage therapist)

Matthew Gordon (public)

Brian Highgate (public)

Alpa Patel (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Natasha Danson and Samil Chagpar, 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, Jian Feng Feng, admitted that he engaged in professional misconduct by issuing, or permitting to be issued, invoices for treatment for two clients without having provided the treatments and by failing to keep records of treatments for 12 appointments for a third client.

2The parties made a joint submission regarding penalty and costs. We accepted the joint submission on penalty because it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not otherwise contrary to the public interest. We reprimanded the registrant and ordered a six-month suspension, completion of both an individualized ethics course and record-keeping workshop and three compliance audits of his billing and record-keeping practices within two years of his return to practice following the suspension. We also ordered the registrant to pay costs of $5,852.

Findings of Misconduct

3The registrant admitted that he issued or permitted to be issued one receipt to Client 1 and two receipts to Client 2, for massage therapy treatments that he had not provided to those clients. He also admitted that he had failed to complete treatment notes for 12 massage therapy appointments for Client 3 over an approximately three-month period.

4The registrant’s improper billing practices, falsified receipts and deficient record-keeping constitute misconduct under the following paragraphs of section 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 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, Communication/Public Health Standard 14: Client Health Record, dated January 2006;

• Paragraph 26 – failing to keep records as required;

• Paragraph 29 – signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document that the member knows contains a false or misleading statement; 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.

5The registrant’s conduct would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. Creating false receipts undermines the trust of insurers and the public. Failure to keep complete and accurate treatment records places clients at risk and undermines public confidence in the profession.

Penalty and Costs

6The parties jointly proposed a reprimand, a six-month suspension and terms, conditions and limitations on his certificate of registration (completion of an individualized ethics course, completion of a record-keeping workshop and three compliance audits of his practice within two years of his return to practice following the suspension, all at his own expense). The parties also proposed that the registrant be ordered to pay costs in line with the tariff rate for a half-day hearing.

7The panel should only depart from a joint submission on penalty 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. A disciplinary body that rejects a joint submission on penalty must show why the proposed penalty is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that it must be rejected: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.).

8We are satisfied that the penalty jointly proposed by the parties in this case would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and that it is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. It serves the accepted penalty goals of public protection, specific and general deterrence, remediation or rehabilitation of the registrant and expresses the Tribunal and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.

9The proposed penalty is also in line with the range of penalties imposed by the Tribunal in cases involving findings of similar misconduct relating to false receipts and deficient record keeping (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Huang, 2024 ONCMTO 6, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Slavin, 2023 ONCMTO 14, College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Wang, 2022 ONCMTO 16). The cases put before us resulted in suspensions that were between three and nine months in length in addition to terms, conditions and limitations on those registrants’ certificates of registration.

10We note that the registrant has admitted his misconduct and, through his cooperation with the College, avoided the need for a contested hearing requiring the attendance of witnesses to establish the misconduct. We are also mindful of the fact that the registrant was previously disciplined for similar misconduct, which is an aggravating factor. He was found to have issued receipts for treatment which he had not provided (see College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Feng, 2017 ONCMTO 19). The registrant’s certificate was effectively suspended for three months on that occasion. In this case, the parties have jointly proposed a suspension that is double the length of the previous suspension. This appropriately reflects the aggravating factor and is expected to have a strong deterrent effect on the registrant.

11The reprimand and suspension serve to denounce the misconduct and signal to the registrant, the profession and the public that improper billing practices and deficiencies in record keeping will be treated seriously by the Tribunal. The terms, conditions and limitations serve the dual purposes of rehabilitation of the registrant as well as instilling confidence in the public that the registrant will practise in an ethical and competent manner upon his return to the profession following his suspension.

12Finally, we accept the agreement that $5,852 should be paid in costs to the College, as the amount reflects the tariff rate for a half-day hearing, and that the registrant should be permitted to pay those costs in installments.

Order

13At the close of the hearing, we made the following order:

1. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to appear before the panel immediately following the hearing in this matter to be reprimanded, 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. suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of six months, to commence immediately after the hearing in this matter; and

b. impose the following specified terms, conditions, and limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, all to be completed at the Registrant’s own expense, to the satisfaction of the Registrar:

i. the Registrant must successfully complete an individualized ethics course with an instructor who has been pre-approved by the College within eight months of the date of the Tribunal’s order. The instructor shall provide to the College a summative report that includes their conclusion on whether the Registrant successfully completed the course,

ii. the Registrant must successfully complete the College’s Recordkeeping E-Workshop within eight months of the Tribunal’s order, and

iii. the Registrant must successfully complete up to three compliance audits related to his billing and recordkeeping practices, within two years following the Registrant’s return to practice after the suspension described in paragraph 3(a) above.

3. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852, payable in 23 monthly installments of $243.83, with the first payment due within 30 days of the date of the Tribunal’s order, and each subsequent payment due monthly thereafter until the last payment, which will be in the amount of $243.91.