College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Hamilcar II Englis Amaya, 2026 ONMTDT 3

ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL

Date: March 10, 2026

Tribunal File No.: PC-11000

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario College

• and -

Hamilcar II Englis Amaya Registrant

FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS

Heard: February 4, 2026

Panel:

David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair) Matthew Gordon (public) Jim Marinow (massage therapist) Jalpa Patel (public) Suzy Wu (massage therapist)

Appearances:

Karen Heath, for the College Daniel Libman, 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 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 registrant, Hamilcar Il Englis Amaya, committed professional misconduct during a 2023 treatment session with a patient. He massaged her gluteal muscles without written consent, moved her underwear into her gluteal cleft, placed his fingers under her underwear and inadvertently touched her pubic hair and genitals under her underwear while treating her hip. When the patient expressed distress, he did not take her concern seriously or address it appropriately. While this conduct was not sexual in nature, it was highly inappropriate and contrary to the College’s standards.

2Mr. Amaya admitted that he committed professional misconduct by contravening published standards of the College, physically abusing the patient, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct. The parties reached a joint submission on penalty: a reprimand, an eight-month suspension and several remedial measures. We made the requested order at the hearing, for reasons to follow. We must accept a joint submission unless it is so unhinged that it would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute. That is not the case here.

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

Findings

4The patient had seen the registrant for eight previous treatment sessions. She attended this appointment because she was experiencing right hip pain and discomfort in her “gluteals.”

5Although the patient gave verbal consent for a massage of her gluteal muscles, the registrant did not obtain written consent as he should have. The College’s Standard of Practice: Consent (Consent Standard) states that RMTs must obtain a patient’s written informed consent prior to every assessment and treatment of sensitive areas including the buttocks/gluteal muscles. During the treatment, the registrant moved the patient’s underwear into her gluteal cleft without consent while massaging her gluteal muscles. He placed his fingers under her underwear in an attempt to anchor the tissue below her left pelvic bone during a compression to her left hip. When the patient expressed that she was still experiencing pain in her right hip, he slid his fingers across her pubic area under her underwear towards her right hip, inadvertently touching her pubic hair and genitals. When the patient expressed distress and asked him, “is this even allowed?” the registrant responded, “well I have to treat that area.”

6This series of actions violated the College’s practice standards in many ways. Most serious, as explained in the Consent Standard, massage therapists must never touch the patient’s genitals. This requires taking every possible step to ensure that it does not happen accidentally. The registrant also contravened the College’s Standard of Practice: Draping and Physical Privacy, which requires that:

a. RMTs may only assess or treat under a patient’s clothing when it is requested by the patient after discussing options, is in the best interest of the patient and where the patient has given consent.

b. RMTs must not reach underneath a patient’s clothing in a way that could risk touch of an area of the body for which the patient has not given consent to be touched.

c. RMTs may only adjust clothing with the patient’s informed consent and in consideration of the patient’s unique needs, views, preferences, concerns, and health goals to protect the patient’s physical/personal privacy.

7The registrant’s insensitive and inappropriate response to the patient’s expression of distress after he touched her genitals and pubic hair is also extremely concerning. RMTs must monitor patients for changes in consent and comfort throughout treatment and address discomfort when expressed. The registrant was flippant and made no attempt to answer the patient’s question.

8By touching the patient without proper consent, and through his lack of care in ensuring he did not touch prohibited areas, the registrant invaded the patient’s bodily integrity and committed physical abuse. As noted in College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Li, 2024 ONCMTO 25 at para. 22, “a finding of physical abuse does not require proof of bodily harm or an intent to inflict bodily harm. The question is whether the health professional’s conduct amounts to ‘maltreatment of the bodily integrity’ of a patient or, to put it another way, invasion of physical integrity.”

9The registrant showed “a serious or persistent disregard for [his] professional obligations” and therefore engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct: see Attallah v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3722 at para. 54 (Div. Ct.).

10We therefore found that the registrant committed the following acts of misconduct as defined in s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/93 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27 (version in force at the time of the events):

a. contravened published standards of the College, in particular the standards for Consent and Draping and Physical Privacy (para. 6);

b. abused a patient physically (para. 8);

c. engaged in conduct relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional (para. 44).

Penalty and Costs

11The College and the registrant’s agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that 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 29at 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.

12This stringent standard encourages settlement by ensuring “a high degree of certainty” that the agreed penalty will be accepted, avoiding “the need for lengthy, costly and contentious” hearings: R. v. Nahanee, 2022 SCC 37at para. 2. Other benefits include more expeditious action to protect the public, avoiding an “all or nothing” situation for either party, sparing witnesses the stress of testifying, certainty of when the penalty will start, and the ability to reach “creative and meaningful, terms, conditions and limitations that would be difficult to order and implement without buy-in from both parties”: Yang at para. 19.

13The eight-month suspension reflects the seriousness of the misconduct. The registrant showed insufficient care for the sensitivity of the patient’s pubic, genital and gluteal areas, and failed to respond even when she raised concerns. He disregarded clear standards set by the College. While the registrant intended these actions to be therapeutic and not sexual, he violated the patient’s bodily integrity and caused her distress. In a single treatment, he breached standards in multiple ways; this was not one momentary lapse.

14The registrant has admitted misconduct, showing insight and avoiding the need for the patient to testify and for the College to incur the costs of a contested hearing. This is mitigating.

15The jointly proposed suspension period is within the range of penalties in other cases involving non-sexual contact with sensitive areas: College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Epps, 2025 ONMTDT 15 (six months); College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Thieu, 2018 ONCMTO 7 (five months); College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Ragheb, 2021 ONCPO 40 (twelve months with six suspended if remediation completed).

16In addition to the specific and general deterrence achieved by the suspension, the penalty protects the public and promotes rehabilitation by requiring the registrant to complete an ethics course, review several published standards of the College, complete a mentorship session on treating hip pain and prepare a reflective paper on his learnings from his mentorship.

17The costs proposed, which compensate the College for the costs of the hearing, are appropriately based on the Tribunal’s tariff for a half-day hearing.

18The joint submission is reasonable and would not bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute, and we therefore made the requested order.

Order

19Our order provides:

Penalty

1. 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.

2. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to:

   a. suspend the registrant’s certificate of registration for a period of eight (8) months, to commence on the date of this order;

   b. place the following terms, conditions and limitations on the registrant’s certificate of registration, all to be completed at the registrant’s own expense and prior to his return to practice:

   i. The registrant shall successfully complete, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, a pre-approved ethics course;

   ii. The registrant shall review the College’s standards of practice on Client-Centred Care, Communication, Consent, Draping and Physical Privacy, Prevention of Sexual Abuse, and Professional Boundaries, as well as the College’s Code of Ethics, and confirm completion of same in writing to the Registrar;

   iii. The registrant shall successfully complete, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, one mentorship session with a pre-approved mentor on appropriate techniques for treating hip pain; and

   iv. The registrant shall successfully complete, to the satisfaction of the Registrar, a 500-word reflective paper setting out his learnings from the mentorship session and how he intends to integrate them into his practice.

Costs

3. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,852.00 within 30 days of the date of this order.