Date: January 26, 2026

Tribunal File No.: 170221-0101

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

and -

Coel Findlay

Registrant

Heard: January 6, 2026

Panel:

David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)

Brian Highgate (public)

Jennifer Da Ponte (massage therapist)

Carolyn Watt (public)

Jayne Webster (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Erica Richler, for the College

Coel Findlay, self-represented

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.

1The registrant, Coel Findlay, pleaded no contest to allegations of professional misconduct arising out of his actions during three appointments with a client. Based on the uncontested facts, we found that he had committed professional misconduct because he was found guilty of an offence relevant to his suitability to practise, he sexually and physically abused a client, contravened published standards of the College and engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

2Before the hearing, Mr. Findlay resigned from the College and undertook not to apply for registration to practise massage therapy in Ontario or in any other jurisdiction. The parties made a joint submission that the penalty should be a reprimand and that the registrant should be ordered to pay costs. We must accept the joint submission unless it would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute. We found that it would not, and made the order requested.

3Tribunal Chair David Wright conducted case management conferences in this matter and sits on the panel with the consent of the parties.

Plea of No Contest

4By pleading no contest under Rule 14.3.1 of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals Rules of Procedure, the registrant agreed that the panel could rely upon the facts in the statement of uncontested facts for the purposes of the Tribunal proceeding. A plea of no contest is not an admission. Mr. Findlay also emphasized during the hearing that he did not agree to or admit the facts in the SUF. He understood that they would be relied on by the panel in this decision.

Uncontested Facts

5The registrant treated a female client at three appointments on January 17, 2017, January 24, 2017, and February 2, 2017. During the first two appointments, he did one or more of the following:

a. failed to ensure that the draping was secure and that the client’s sensitive areas were not exposed;

b. massaged and/or touched the client’s buttocks without the client’s prior informed consent;

c. massaged and or touched the client’s chest wall and/or breast tissue without the client’s prior informed consent.

6During the third appointment, he did one or more of the following:

a. failed to ensure that the draping was secure and that the client’s sensitive areas were not exposed;

b. massaged and/or touched the client’s buttocks without the client’s prior informed consent;

c. touched the client’s genital area and/or pubic area without consent.

7The touching and/or behaviour described in the previous paragraphs was sexual in nature and not of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided.

8The registrant was also charged in criminal court with sexually assaulting the client. He was found not guilty of the sexual assault charge but guilty of assault contrary to s. 266 of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c. C-46. The trial judge found that the Crown had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the registrant touched the client in the area of the pubic bone and that the client did not consent to being touched in this area. The registrant was sentenced to a conditional discharge and 18 months probation.

Findings of Misconduct

9The registrant committed misconduct under s. 51(1)(a) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code). Under that section a panel shall make a finding of misconduct if the registrant “has been found guilty of an offence that is relevant to the [registrant’s] suitability to practise.” It is self-evident that an assault committed on a client during a treatment is relevant to the registrant’s suitability to practise.

10The registrant committed sexual abuse under s. 51(1)(b) of the Code. Under that section a panel shall make a finding of misconduct if the registrant has sexually abused a patient. Sexual abuse is defined in s. 1(3) of the Code to include touching, of a sexual nature, of the client by the registrant and behaviour of a sexual nature of the registrant toward the client. It does not include touching of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided. It is uncontested that the failure to properly drape, touching of the client’s buttocks and/or breasts and/or touching of the client’s genital and/or pubic areas without consent was of a sexual nature and not appropriate to the treatment of the client.

11It is professional misconduct to contravene “a standard of practice of the profession or a published standard of the College, or [fail] to maintain the standard of practice of the profession”: Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27, s. 26(1), para. 9 (general regulation).¹ The registrant contravened the following published standards that were in effect at the time of the events:

a. Communication/Public Health Standard 7: Consent

b. Communication/Public Health Standard 11: Pre/Post Treatment Protocol

c. Communication/Public Health Standard 12: Draping

d. Technique Standard 16: Perform Massage to the Chest Wall.

12The registrant also abused a client physically, which is professional misconduct under s. 26(1), para. 11 of the general regulation. The conviction for assault, along with the violations of the client’s physical integrity, establish physical abuse. Finally, all these actions constitute disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional conduct, which is professional misconduct under s. 26(1), para. 38 of the general regulation.

Penalty and Costs

13The parties submit that the penalty should be a reprimand. The College and the registrant’s agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.) at paras. 9-12; College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Yang, 2025 ONMTDT 29 at paras. 15-19. The test is adapted from the Supreme Court’s analysis in the criminal law context in R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. While criminal law approaches should not be automatically imported into professional regulation, courts and discipline tribunals have held that on the issue of joint submissions, the test is the same.

14While this has since changed, at the time of these events in early 2017, there were no mandatory penalties for any of the sexual misconduct found in this case.

15The registrant’s resignation and undertaking never to reapply for registration as a massage therapist in any jurisdiction result in greater public protection than any order the Tribunal could make. Revocation is the most serious penalty available to us under s. 51(2) of the Code. Under s. 72(3) of the Code, if a registrant’s certificate is revoked for sexual abuse, they can apply for reinstatement five years after the revocation. Moreover, a revocation order only affects Ontario. The registrant has given up his ability to seek reinstatement or apply to practise elsewhere.

16In other cases, both at this College and others, panels have found it appropriate to order only a reprimand when the registrant has given a similar undertaking: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. White, 2025 ONMTDT 26; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Feigel, 2019 ONCPSD 1; College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario v. Mossanen, 2018 ONCPSD 54. Like this case, there were findings of sexual abuse that did not result in mandatory penalties in Feigel.

17As the panel stated in White at para. 24:

Together with the registrant’s undertaking, our order of a reprimand appropriately balances the established penalty goals: protection of the public, general and specific deterrence, maintenance of public confidence in the profession and its regulation, rehabilitation and expression of this Tribunal’s and the profession’s disapproval of the misconduct.

18The parties’ proposed order, which also included costs at the half-day tariff rate on an instalment basis, would not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute.

Order

19We made the following order:

Penalty The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before a panel of the Tribunal immediately following the hearing of 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. Costs The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110, which can be paid in 23 monthly installments of $213 and a final payment of $211, with the first due on February 6, 2026.

Footnotes

At the time of the misconduct in 2017, the list of acts of misconduct was contained in s. 26 of the general regulation. The wording of each of the types of misconduct we have found was the same, although the paragraph number was different. Contravening a published standard of the College was in para. 6, physical abuse was in para. 8 and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct was in para. 44.```

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Coel Findlay, 2026 ONMTDT 2

Case Summary

Plea of No Contest

Uncontested Facts

Penalty and Costs

Order

Footnotes