Date: March 10, 2026

Tribunal File No.: PC-11383

BETWEEN:

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario

College

and -

Aaron Shad

Registrant

Heard: February 13, 2026

Panel:

Sherry Liang (panel chair)

Robyn Libby (massage therapist)

Jay Mathers (public)

Jennifer McGill (massage therapist)

Howard Shears (public)

Appearances:

Emily Graham, for the College

Aaron Shad, 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 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.

1At the time of the events, Aaron Shad was a registrant of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (the College). In addition to providing massage therapy treatments to patients, his practice included being an instructor of massage therapy at a local college.

2The College alleges that the registrant sexually abused a patient (Ms. A) by engaging in sexual intercourse with her and touching her in a sexual manner. It alleges that he contravened published standards of the College relating to client-centred care, maintaining professional boundaries and preventing sexual abuse, falsified records relating to his practice and contacted the patient without the College’s consent after she filed a complaint. The College alleges that by his actions, the registrant engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.

3The College and the registrant reached an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) in which the registrant admitted that his actions described in the agreed facts constitute professional misconduct as alleged. Based on the agreed facts and after hearing the College’s submissions, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct. We accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs, which included the legislated mandatory penalty terms of revocation and a reprimand.

Agreed facts

The registrant’s involvement with the patient while a massage therapy instructor

4As an instructor in a massage therapy program at a local college, the registrant taught Ms. A for about eight months in 2023, until she withdrew from the program. Ms. A met the registrant at the college and did not know him before that. The registrant taught almost every class Ms. A took in that timeframe.

5While the registrant was Ms. A’s instructor, they began a sexual relationship. They engaged in sexual activity in person outside of class at the college campus and in other locations, including the registrant’s then-practice location where Ms. A was shadowing the registrant.

6Ms. A’s relationship with the Registrant interfered with her academic performance. The registrant helped Ms. A pass her exams in the spring of 2023 by going into the college’s electronic system and switching one or two answers to give Ms. A a better mark than she had been able to achieve on her own. In doing so, the registrant admits that he falsified a record relating to his practice. Ultimately, Ms. A left the college because her relationship with the registrant affected her ability to learn.

The registrant’s Involvement with Ms. A during massage therapy appointments

7Ms. A became the registrant’s massage therapy patient and attended three massage therapy appointments at his practice location between March 2024 and July 2024.

8During the first of these appointments, while they were in the treatment room, the registrant had sexual intercourse with Ms. A and engaged in sexual touching of Ms. A. The registrant and Ms. A continued their sexual relationship, including sexual intercourse, into the summer of 2024.

The registrant’s conduct after Ms. A’s complaint to the College

9Ms. A complained to the College on September 13, 2024. On September 24, 2024, the College notified the registrant of Ms. A’s complaint and advised him not to have contact with Ms. A, either directly or indirectly without prior written consent. Despite this, the registrant called Ms. A, and they spoke every day during a one-week period in October 2024. In that time, he told her, among other things, that he needed her back in his life, that he deserved her complaint and that he was going to lose his career. He also disclosed information about his mental health that led Ms. A to contact the Toronto Police Service, which performed a wellness check on the registrant.

10Following her interactions with the registrant, Ms. A was unable to resume her training as a massage therapist. She experienced emotional distress upon attempting to return to classes. She also had difficulty with personal care and she became isolated.

Sexual abuse

11Under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c.18 (the Code), sexual abuse of a patient is professional misconduct. “Sexual abuse” is defined in subsection 1(3) of the Code to mean:

(a) sexual intercourse or other forms of physical sexual relations between the member and the patient,

(b) touching, of a sexual nature, of the patient by the member, or

12“Sexual nature” does not include touching, behaviour or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided (subsection 1(4) of the Code).

13The registrant admits and we find that he sexually abused the patient within the meaning of the above provisions when he had sexual intercourse with her and touched her in a sexual manner when she was his patient.

Contraventions of standards of practice

14Under para. 9 of s. 26(1) of O. Reg. 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27 (the Regulation and the Act) (para. 6 of s. 26 at the time of some of the events), contravening a published standard of the College is an act of misconduct. The College alleges and the registrant admits that he contravened the College’s Standards of Practice on Prevention of Sexual Abuse, Client-centred Care and Professional Boundaries, in effect at the time of the events.

15All these standards prohibit sexual abuse of patients and emphasize the importance of maintaining boundaries in therapeutic relationships with an inherent power imbalance. The registrant contravened the standards when he had sexual intercourse with the patient and touched her in a sexual manner.

Falsifying a record relating to the registrant’s practice

16Under para. 27 of s. 26 of the version of the Regulation in force up to June 30, 2024, it is an act of misconduct to falsify a record relating to a registrant’s practice. The registrant committed misconduct under this provision when he entered the electronic system of the college at which he was an instructor and switched answers to give Ms. A a better mark, in the spring of 2023. He admits and we find that being an instructor of massage therapy at this college was part of his massage therapy practice and the record he falsified related to his practice.

Disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct

17Under para. 38 of s. 26(1) of the Regulation (para. 44 of s. 26 at the time of some of the events), misconduct includes 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.

18We find that the registrant’s conduct in engaging in sexual intercourse with a student and patient, falsifying an academic record and contacting the patient after she made a complaint to the College, would reasonably be regarded by members of the profession as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional. His actions amount to egregious boundary violations and a breach of the trust that patients place in their registered massage therapist. They demonstrate a “serious… disregard for one’s professional obligations” (the Divisional Court in Attallah v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3722, para. 54, describing this ground of misconduct).

Penalty and costs

19The parties jointly submitted that the registrant be reprimanded, his certificate of registration be revoked, that he reimburse the College for funding provided to the patient under the program established pursuant to s. 85.7 of the Code, post $5,000 in security for this funding and pay costs of $5,110 to the College.

20Our role is limited when the parties agree on a penalty. We should only depart from a joint submission if the proposed penalty would bring the administration of justice into disrepute or is otherwise not in the public interest: R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43. We are satisfied that the proposed penalty would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not contrary to the public interest.

21Having concluded that the registrant sexually abused a patient and that the sexual abuse included sexual intercourse, s. 51(5) of the Code requires us to reprimand the registrant and revoke his certificate of registration. These are mandatory penalty terms, which we order.

22Under s. 85.7 of the Code, the College is required to establish a program to provide funding for therapy and counselling for patients who allege sexual abuse by a registrant. The parties jointly submitted, and we found it appropriate to order, that the registrant reimburse the College for any funding provided to the patient under that program, up to the maximum amount allowable, and that he post security in the amount of $5,000 to guarantee those payments. This amount and the payment schedule are reasonable having regard to the cases referred to us.

23The parties jointly submitted, and we order, that the registrant pay costs of $5,110 to the College. The amount corresponds to the standard rate for the costs and expenses of a half-day hearing pursuant to Tariff A of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure. We are satisfied that the proposed costs award and payment schedule are reasonable and reflect the principle that the College’s registrants as a whole should not bear the entire expense of a proceeding that results in a finding of professional misconduct.

Order

24We made the following order:

The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel 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.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective the date of this order.
The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110.00, which can be paid over 24 months, in 23 monthly installments of $213.00 and a final payment of $211.00, with the first payment being due thirty (30) days from the date of this order.
The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding provided for therapy and counselling to Ms. A under s. 85.7 of the Code, up to $17,940.00, which is the maximum amount allowable for Ms. A.
The Tribunal requires the registrant to post security acceptable to the College in the amount of $5,000.00 to guarantee the payment of any amounts he may be required to reimburse the College under paragraph [4], which can be paid over 24 months, in 23 monthly installments of $209.00 and a final payment of $193.00, with the first payment being due thirty (30) days from the date of this order.

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Aaron Shad, 2026 ONMTDT 4

Case Summary