ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Date: April 7, 2026 Tribunal File No.: PC-11499
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario College
- and -
Jierong Zhang Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: February 10, 2026
Panel: Jay Sengupta (panel chair) Charles Gollob (massage therapist) Matthew Gordon (public) Jalpa Patel (public) Jeanette Plante Bouffard (massage therapist)
Appearances: Samil Chagpar, for the College Jierong Zhang, not present or 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 patients or any information that could identify patients or disclose patients’ 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 College alleged that the registrant, Jierong Zhang, committed professional misconduct by failing to comply with the requirements of the College’s Quality Assurance Program and by failing to reply to written inquiries from the College in an appropriate and timely manner. The College alleged that failing to do so also amounted to both disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a massage therapist.
2The registrant was not present at the hearing. We were satisfied that she had received notice of the date and time of the hearing. On January 13, 2026, the Hearings Office sent the registrant, by email, the Case Management Directions advising the hearing would be scheduled on January 10 or 11, 2026, and on January 27, 2026, it advised her of the date and time of the scheduled hearing, also by email.
3The hearing proceeded in her absence and, for the reasons that follow, we found the College had established that the registrant had committed the alleged misconduct and ordered that her certificate of registration be suspended for five months, or until she complies with terms, conditions and limitations outlined in the order and appears to receive a reprimand. We also ordered the registrant to pay costs.
Findings of Misconduct
Deemed Admissions Pursuant to a Request to Admit
4Despite having received the Notice of Hearing, the registrant did not participate in the Tribunal’s proceeding. The College sent the registrant a Request to Admit under Rule 12.3.1 of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals Rules of Procedure. She was asked to admit the truth of the facts and the authenticity of documents contained in the Request to Admit for the purposes of the Tribunal proceeding.
5The registrant did not respond to the Request to Admit within the 30 days required under the Rules of Procedure or at any time since then in advance of the hearing. She also did not attend the hearing. Accordingly, pursuant to Rules 12.3.3 and 12.3.4, she was deemed, for the purposes of the Tribunal proceeding, to have admitted the truth of the facts and the authenticity of the documents mentioned in the Request to Admit.
Findings
6For the reasons that follow, we find that the College has established that the registrant’s conduct contravenes the following paragraphs of s. 26(1) of Ontario Regulation 544/94 (Regulation) made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (Act):
Paragraph 43 (failing to reply appropriately or within a reasonable time to a written inquiry made by the College that requests a response);
Paragraph 36 (contravening the Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or the regulations under either of those Acts);
Paragraph 38 (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); and
Paragraph 40 (engaging in conduct that would reasonably by regarded by registrants as conduct unbecoming a massage therapist).
7The registrant’s conduct also contravened s. 51(1)(b.0.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code), which makes it professional misconduct to fail to cooperate with the Quality Assurance Committee or any assessor appointed by that committee.
8The registrant has been suspended since January 2025 for non-payment of fees. At the time of these events, however, the registrant was a registrant of the College in the general class.
9Registrants are required to comply with the College’s Quality Assurance Program. The requirements of the program are set out in ss. 28 through 39 of the Regulation, and sections 80 through 82 of the Code.
10The Quality Assurance Program is in place to ensure registrants meet the level of competence and ethical conduct required of members of the profession by participating in self-assessment, continuing education and professional development activities each calendar year. The requirements include maintaining records of the registrant’s participation in these activities and cooperating with peer and practice assessments when selected to do so.
11The evidence established that the registrant failed to complete a Practice Profile, which is a component of STRiVE, the College’s Quality Assurance Program, by the final deadline of July 5, 2024, despite receiving several reminders and extensions from the College.
12On August 22, 2024, she was required to complete a Practice Assessment by December 2, 2024, as an alternative to fulfilling the incomplete Practice Profile. As a first step in this alternative process, the registrant had to complete a Pre-Interview Assessment by September 13, 2024.
13Due to her failure to meet that deadline, she received six reminders from the College during the months of September, October and November 2024 and the deadline to complete the Pre-Interview Assessment was extended several times. The registrant did not respond to the communications from the College and failed to meet the Practice Assessment final deadline of December 2, 2024.
14The registrant’s sustained pattern of non-compliance with the legal requirement of all members of the profession to participate in the quality assurance program, one of the core responsibilities of a registrant of the College, fundamentally subverts the system of regulation of the profession. We find that this conduct and her repeated failure to respond to the College’s inquiries amount to a contravention of the Act, the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, or regulations under those Acts. The conduct also constitutes both dishonourable, disgraceful or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a registrant.
15Accordingly, we are satisfied that the College has established the professional misconduct alleged.
Penalty and Costs
16The College sought an oral reprimand, to be delivered on a date set by the Registrar since the registrant was not present. It sought terms, conditions or limitations on her certificate of registration, requiring that she pay all outstanding fees, complete all outstanding quality assurance program requirements, undertake and complete an individualized ethics course, respond to all College communications within 15 days and provide proof of completion of annual quality assurance program requirements by a date to be specified by the College.
17In addition, the College sought that the registrant be suspended for a period of five months or until she has complied with the terms, conditions and limitations on her certificate of registration and appeared to receive the reprimand. Finally, the College sought that the registrant be required to pay costs in the amount of $5,110.00 by March 11, 2026.
18The regulator’s responsibility to ensure public protection and maintain public confidence in the profession depends on the compliance and cooperation of its registrants.
19We are satisfied that the penalty requested reflects the seriousness of a registrant disengaging from the regulator and failing to complete the Quality Assurance Program, in place to ensure registrants are practising competently and safely and meets the penalty goals of public protection and specific and general deterrence.
20Although the registrant had some limited interaction with the College during the investigation stage, there has been a persistent and serious pattern of non-compliance and non-participation in the College’s quality assurance process and this hearing.
21The length of the suspension sought and the terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration are in line with those ordered in similar cases (see CMTO v. Le, 2024 ONCMTO 9 and CMTO v. Cumberbatch, 2022 ONCMTO 8). While the length of suspension ordered in those cases was somewhat shorter (two months in Le and four months in Cumberbatch), the registrants in those cases participated in the process and those hearings proceeded by way of joint submissions on finding and penalty.
22We are satisfied that the circumstances of this case, particularly the registrant’s non-participation in the investigation and hearing, warrant the longer period of suspension of five months.
23We also find the proposed terms, conditions or limitations appropriate. Requiring that the registrant complete the coursework and appear for a reprimand before she is permitted to return to practice serves the penalty goal of public protection because it ensures that remediation measures will take place before her return to the profession.
24The costs sought by the College, which reimburse the College for hearing-related expenses, are appropriate and in line with the tariff amount for a half-day hearing set out in the Rules of Procedure.
25Accordingly, we made the following order:
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 a period of at least five months, to commence on the date of the order and continuing for five months or until the registrant complies with the provisions outlined in paragraphs 1, 2(b)(i) and 2(b)(iii), whichever is longer;
b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately:
i. The registrant must comply with all administrative requirements of the CMTO including payment of all outstanding fees owed to the College to reinstate their certificate of registration;
ii. The registrant must successfully complete any outstanding Quality Assurance requirements within three months of the date of their return to practice;
iii. Prior to the registrant's return to practice, the registrant must provide proof, acceptable to the Registrar, of successful completion of an individualized ethics course with a course provider approved by the College regarding the issues raised in this case, which is to be taken at the registrant’s own expense;
iv. The registrant must respond to all College communications within 15 days; and
v. After the registrant's return to practice, for each calendar year, the registrant must provide to the College proof of completion of all STRiVE or other Quality Assurance Program requirements by October 31 or the stipulated deadline for the completion of STRiVE or the Quality Assurance Program, if different.
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110 by March 11, 2026.