Date: April 29, 2026

Tribunal File No.: PC-11339

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario College

and -

Fude Wang Registrant

Heard: March 12, 2026

Panel:

Jennifer Scott (panel chair) Roberto Cesario (public) Howard Shears (public) Jayne Webster (massage therapist) Suzy Wu (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Enniael Stair, for the College Zoe Hountalas, for the registrant

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.

1The registrant, Fude Wang, admits that he failed to obtain the patient’s consent to treatment prior to commencing treatment on July 27, 2024, failed to discuss options for draping the patient, and failed to keep accurate records of his treatment.

2The parties jointly submitted that the penalty for this misconduct should be a reprimand and terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration relating to further education and reflection. They proposed costs of $5,110.

3A joint submission must be accepted unless it is contrary to the public interest. The parties’ joint submission is not contrary to the public interest, and we made the order requested. These are our reasons.

Clerical Error

4The acts of misconduct are set out in Ontario Regulation 544/94, made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27 (Professional Misconduct Regulation). The Professional Misconduct Regulation was amended on June 5, 2024. Under the amended version, the consent provision under s. 26(1), paragraph 10, makes the following an act of professional misconduct:

Doing anything to a client for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, cosmetic or other health-related purpose except with the informed consent of the client or the client’s authorized representative or as permitted or required by law.

5This is the consent provision in effect at the time of the allegations before us.

6The Notice of Hearing filed in this matter relies on an out-of-date version of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (s. 26).

7Under section 40 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18, we can amend a notice of hearing to correct errors or omissions of a minor or clerical nature if we are of the opinion that it is just and equitable to do so.

8It is appropriate to amend the notice of hearing to refer to the correct consent provision in effect at the time of the events in this case. As such, we have corrected para. 1(b) of the Notice of Hearing to refer to s. 26(1) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation (not s. 26) and corrected para. 1(b)(ii) to include the language of s. 26(1), paragraph 10, as set out above.

Findings of Misconduct

9The registrant treated the patient on eight occasions between April 2023 and July 2024. During the last appointment on July 27, 2024, the registrant did not discuss a treatment plan with the patient, did not discuss the patient’s consent to treatment before commencing treatment, and did not discuss options for draping with the patient.

10The Standard of Practice for Draping and Physical Privacy requires the registrant to obtain the patient’s informed consent before providing treatment by discussing the nature of the treatment, the expected benefits, the risks and side effects, alternative courses of action, and the likely consequences of not having the treatment. It also requires the registrant to meaningfully engage the patient in a discussion about the options for draping. The registrant did not do any of these things.

11The Guide to Record Keeping Requirements sets out the requirements for financial and patient health records. Financial records must include the treatment and service provided, the fees charged, and a record of receipts. Patient health records must contain, among other things, information on the examination performed and clinical finding and assessment, needs assessment, treatment plan, details of the treatment applied, and details of every fee or other amount charged. The registrant breached these requirements and failed to keep records as required when he did not document the areas of the patient’s body that he treated when the patient was in a supine position, did not document where he applied cupping treatment and did not document the discount he provided for the cupping treatment in the patient’s record.

12We therefore find that the registrant engaged in the following acts of professional misconduct under s. 26(1) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation:

a. failed to keep records as required (s. 26(1), para. 5);

b. contravened published standards of the College, notably the standards for Draping and Physical Privacy and Record Keeping (s. 26(1), para. 9);

c. did anything to a client for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, cosmetic of other health-related purpose except with the informed consent of the client or the client’s authorized representative or as permitted or required by law (s. 26(1), para. 10); and

d. 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 (s. 26(1), para. 38).

Penalty and Costs

13The parties jointly submitted that the penalty in this case should be a reprimand and further education and reflection.

14Our role is limited when the parties agree on penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is contrary to the public interest in some other way: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at para. 32.

15A joint submission is not in the public interest when it is so unhinged from the circumstances of the case that reasonable and informed persons aware of those circumstances would believe the proper functioning of the professional discipline system has broken down: Anthony-Cook at para. 34. This is a very high bar.

16The joint submission protects the public interest. In its reprimand, the panel explains to the registrant the importance of informed consent, appropriate draping and accurate record-keeping as essential components of the standards of practice of the profession. It is part of his remediation. The registrant is also required to undertake coursework and self-directed review of the standards of practice to mitigate against any breach of the standards of practice in the future. The panel expects the registrant to integrate this learning into his practice and explain how he intends to do so in a reflective essay. The reprimand and further remediation protect the public and demonstrate the College’s professional discipline system is working. The joint submission is accepted for these reasons.

17Although not part of the penalty, the parties agreed on costs to be paid by the registrant. The costs proposed are reasonable and in accordance with Tariff A in the Rules of Procedure of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals.

Order

18We made the following order:

Penalty

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 the text of the reprimand to appear on the public register of the College.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to place the following specified terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, all to be completed at his own expense:

a. A review of the College’s published standards for Draping and Physical Privacy, and Record Keeping within one month of the Tribunal’s order;

b. Successful completion, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, of the College’s record keeping e-workshop by May 29, 2026; and

c. Completion of 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(a) and (b) above and how the registrant intends to implement those lessons in his practice, within 30 days of completing the coursework.

Costs

The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110.00 by April 11, 2026.

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Fude Wang, 2026 ONMTDT 12

Case Summary