ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: June 3, 2026

Tribunal File No.: PC-10561

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

• and -

Manuel Enrique Batista Hornia

Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: May 15, 2026

Panel:

Raj Anand (panel chair)

Roberto Cesario (public)

Brian Highgate (public)

Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)

Ravara Van Vliet (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Ahmad Mozafarri, for the College

Manuel Enrique Batista Hornia, 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

[1] At a single treatment session in August 2022, the registrant engaged in a series of acts of physical or sexual abuse of a Patient in rapid succession. Without any discussion or consent from the Patient, the registrant touched the Patient’s upper inner thighs and buttocks and removed the Patient’s underwear. The registrant also failed to appropriately drape the Patient, touched and exposed the Patient’s genitals, moved his face close to the Patient’s penis, and made remarks of a sexual nature to the Patient. The registrant then apologized for “going too far” and asked the Patient to “keep this between us.”

[2] One week later, Mr. Batista resigned his registration with the College while under investigation. That does not affect the Tribunal’s ability to hear this referral, as s. 14(1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code) makes a former registrant subject to the jurisdiction of the College in relation to professional misconduct that happened while they were a registrant.

[3] After the allegations against him were referred to the Tribunal in September 2025, the registrant left one voicemail message with College counsel but otherwise chose not to participate in this proceeding. The College and the Tribunal made many efforts to reach him. Accordingly, the Tribunal Chair made a case management order that the registrant was not entitled to further notice, and the hearing would proceed in his absence: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Batista, 2026 ONMTDT 8. College counsel also indicated they would make one last effort to reach the registrant to confirm the hearing date and the details of the penalty and costs the College would be seeking.

[4] The Tribunal Chair also ruled that the College could present its evidence by affidavit, which spared the Patient the obligation to attend and go over his ordeal in a public hearing. At the hearing we also received an affidavit confirming that College counsel had left a voice message with the registrant about four weeks before the hearing as promised.

[5] We accordingly conducted the hearing in the absence of the registrant. After reviewing the evidence and College argument, we made findings of sexual and physical abuse, breach of standards of practice of the profession, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. We issued an order set out below that included the revocation of Mr. Batista’s certificate of registration.

[6] These are our reasons.

The August 9, 2022 appointment

[7] The Patient was visiting his parents in his hometown when he booked a 90-minute massage therapy session with the registrant for the afternoon of August 9, 2022. The registrant recognized the Patient’s name because he had treated the Patient a few years before. They did not know each other in any other context.

[8] When the Patient arrived, they discussed the kind of massage he wanted (standard full body) and the kind of pressure (medium to light). The Patient mentioned some lower back discomfort. He signed a form to provide his personal information and medical history.

[9] Normally, when the Patient requests a full body massage, his arms, legs, back and scalp are treated, not his buttocks or upper inner thighs. Before the treatment the registrant did not discuss the treatment plan or draping, and he did not discuss the treatment of the Patient’s upper inner thighs or buttocks.

[10] The Patient did not complete a consent form setting out the areas the registrant could treat, and he did not give the registrant consent to treat the Patient’s upper inner thighs or buttocks. The Patient did not know that the registrant was required to obtain his written consent before massaging these sensitive areas.

[11] On the massage table there was a white draping sheet and a fitted bed sheet. There may have been a blanket as well.

[12] Mr. Batista stepped out of the room after instructing the Patient to get onto the massage table and under the sheet. While the registrant was out of the room, the Patient took off his clothing other than his underwear, placed his clothes on a chair that was in the corner of the room, got onto the massage table, and lay on his stomach under the draping sheet. After knocking on the door, the registrant re-entered the room.

[13] While the Patient was on his stomach, the registrant treated his back, shoulders, legs and neck. He also treated the fatty, fleshy parts of the Patient’s buttocks, while the Patient had his underwear on.

[14] At about the 45-minute mark, the registrant directed the Patient to turn over. He turned on his back, remaining fully covered by the draping sheet. The registrant then treated his shoulders, scalp, arms and legs. He also treated the Patient’s upper inner thighs. In each case the registrant removed the part of the body he was working on from under the draping sheet, leaving one area exposed at a time.

[15] The registrant asked the Patient how old he was. The Patient answered the question, but he found it “odd and out of the blue,” since Mr. Batista was not otherwise conversational during the session. The Patient was in his late 20s but says he looked very young for his age. He was often mistaken for a teenager and asked where he went to school.

[16] A few minutes later, without warning or asking the Patient, the registrant removed the Patient’s underwear completely by quickly tugging them down with both hands. Mr. Batista then tossed the underwear across the room to the chair where the Patient had placed the rest of his clothes. The registrant asked whether that was “fine.” The Patient was taken by surprise, but said “I guess,” because he understood some people get massages in the nude.

[17] From that point onward, the registrant changed his draping technique, and left the Patient only partially covered for the rest of the massage.

[18] As the treatment progressed, the Patient became more relaxed. Ten to 30 minutes later, he was dozing off, with his eyes closed, but not asleep. He was partially covered, with one of his legs and his genital area fully exposed.

[19] At that point, Mr. Batista began stroking the Patient’s scrotum and penis. That startled the Patient, who became “very, very alert.” He opened his eyes, quickly lifted his head, and saw the registrant’s head only one or two inches from the Patient’s penis. The Patient panicked. “Shocked and appalled,” he immediately sat up and told Mr. Batista to stop.

[20] The registrant asked if he had “gone too far,” and the Patient replied “yes.” Mr. Batista apologized, said there was still time left in the treatment session, and offered to massage a different part of his body. The Patient said “no” and told him to leave because the treatment session was over. The registrant again apologized for “going too far” and asked the Patient to “keep this between us” because he did not want to get into trouble.

[21] The Patient left the treatment room about 15 minutes before the end of the scheduled 90-minute appointment. On August 18, 2022, he reported to the College what had occurred.

Professional misconduct

[22] The registrant engaged in professional misconduct under four separate provisions of the Code and Ontario Regulation 544/94 (version in force between January 25, 2013 and June 4, 2024) made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991.

[23] First and foremost, the registrant’s conduct constituted sexual abuse of the Patient. The definition of sexual abuse in s. 1(3) of the Code includes touching, of a sexual nature, of the patient by the registrant, and behaviour or remarks of a sexual nature by the registrant towards the patient.

[24] Viewed in the context of the massage therapy session as a whole, and viewed objectively as required, we conclude that many of the distinct but interrelated acts by Mr. Batista, taken together, demonstrate sexual abuse:

• Touching the fatty, fleshy parts of the Patient’s buttocks without discussion or consent;

• Touching the Patient’s upper inner thighs without discussion or consent;

• Asking the Patient an unusual question about how old he was, before getting the answer and then accelerating the registrant’s abusive conduct by moving to the Patient’s underwear and his genitals;

• Abruptly pulling off the Patient’s underwear, for which again there was no consent, and throwing it across the room, leaving the Patient unexpectedly nude, which obviously had a sexual purpose;

• Changing the draping technique without warning or discussion, leaving parts of the Patient’s body including one entire leg and his genitals fully exposed;

• Stroking the Patient’s scrotum and penis, which obviously had a sexual purpose;

• Putting his head very close to the Patient’s penis, which obviously had a sexual purpose;

• Admitting he had gone too far and could get in trouble, thereby acknowledging he had violated his professional obligations and indicating that his conduct was sexual in nature.

[25] Second, all of the physical acts listed above, including touching with his hands, removing and throwing the Patient’s underwear, exposing the Patient’s penis and putting his head close to the Patient’s penis, also constituted physical abuse by Mr. Batista (s. 26, para. 8 of the Regulation). Physical abuse does not require proof of an intention to cause bodily harm. In our view, all of these acts represent a breach of the Patient’s bodily integrity, having regard to all of the circumstances: Carruthers v. College of Nurses of Ontario, 1996 CanLII 11803 (Div. Ct.).

[26] Third, the registrant breached four separate but overlapping standards of practice of the profession (s. 26, para. 6 of the Regulation).

[27] Clearly, the registrant breached the standard on prevention of sexual abuse. That standard also requires proper draping in accordance with the standard on draping and physical privacy.

[28] Mr. Batista breached the standard on draping and physical privacy in many respects. The standard requires draping at all times, unless the patient prefers to remain clothed. In this case the Patient was not draped when the registrant exposed the Patient’s genitals. Moreover, there was no discussion about draping, contrary to the standard. Mr. Batista also breached other specific paragraphs of this standard of practice by failing to explain clearly what parts of the body would be assessed and treated; by exposing the Patient’s genitals; by reaching under the draping; and by failing to drape securely, when the registrant only partially covered the Patient.

[29] The registrant did not comply with the standard of practice on consent in numerous ways as well. He did not discuss the treatment plan or treatment of the Patient’s upper inner thighs or buttocks. He also failed to obtain a written consent before treating the upper inner thighs and buttocks, which are sensitive areas. The failure to obtain consent is also covered by the standard on draping and physical privacy, and by the standard on boundaries, referred to below.

[30] Mr. Batista violated the standard of practice on professional boundaries in several other respects. His touching constituted sexual and physical abuse, as we concluded earlier. His verbal conduct in asking about the Patient’s age, his physical conduct in taking down the Patient’s underwear and throwing it across the room, and his placement of his head near the Patient’s penis all breached the paragraph of this standard that requires registrants to “ensure that all spoken remarks, body language and gestures towards clients are polite, professional and respectful at all times….”

[31] The registrant’s many acts of sexual and physical abuse and breach of standards of practice, taken together, are also clearly conduct that would reasonably be regarded by the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional, and they display Mr. Batista’s disregard for his professional obligations (s. 26, para. 44 of the Regulation).

Penalty and costs

[32] Under s. 51(5) of the Code, the revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration and the delivery of a reprimand, are mandatory penalties because he engaged in “touching of a sexual nature of the patient’s genitals…or buttocks”.

[33] In our view, quite apart from the legislation, no lesser penalty than revocation would meet the objectives of public protection and maintenance of confidence in the regulation of the profession. Regardless of Mr. Batista’s resignation, general deterrence requires that the penalty send an unambiguous message to the profession as well. The registrant’s conduct was egregious because it breached several standards of practice, violated the physical integrity of the Patient and the zero-tolerance policy of the College and this Tribunal in cases of sexual abuse, caused distress to the Patient and undermined public confidence.

[34] We also order Mr. Batista to reimburse the College for funding for therapy and counselling provided for the Patient under the program required under s. 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum allowable amount of $17,370, and to post security in that amount to guarantee the payment of that reimbursement.

[35] We asked the College whether the amount should be revised to $20,370, to reflect the increase as of April 1, 2026, but the College asked for the amount that was in effect when the Patient became eligible for funding. Apart from that, College counsel noted, as indicated in the affidavit evidence, that the voice message to the registrant to alert him for the last time about our hearing, confirmed that the College would be requesting the sum of $17,370. The College therefore took the position, which we accept, that procedural fairness requires an award of the lower amount.

[36] We award the College costs at the half day tariff rate of $5,110.

Order

[37] We made the following order:

Penalty

1. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded within thirty (30) days of the date of this order, 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 revoke the Registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110 within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling

4. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to reimburse the College for any funding for therapy and counselling provided to the patient under the program required under s. 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum allowable amount of $17,370.

5. The Tribunal requires the Registrant to post security in the amount of $17,370 to guarantee the payment of any amounts he may be required to reimburse the College under paragraph 4 above, within thirty (30) days of the date of this order.

6. Any amount of security provided by the Registrant pursuant to paragraph 5 above that has not been used by August 18, 2027 will be returned to the Registrant.