ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File Nos.: PC-10058, PC-10608
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Jude Ranjith Jesuthasan
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: January 20, 2026
Panel:
Jay Sengupta (panel chair)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Brian Highgate (public)
Robyn Libby (massage therapist)
Carolyn Watt (public)
Appearances:
Ahmad Mozaffari, for the College
Julia Martin, 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, Jude Ranjith Jesuthasan, resigned from the profession effective May 9, 2023, and has undertaken not to reapply for registration. He did not contest that, while he was a registrant, he committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain appropriate records, falsifying a record relating to his practice, signing or issuing a false and misleading document, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a massage therapist. The misconduct is alleged to have occurred in his clinical practice and in his business as a tutor when he facilitated cheating on the College’s certification exam.
2As a preliminary matter, pursuant to s. 40 of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO, 1991, c. 18 (Code), we granted the College’s request, made on consent, to amend the Notice of Hearing in PC-10058 and correct a typographical error by replacing a reference to paragraph 47 with a reference to paragraph 49 of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 17 (Regulation).
3We found that the registrant had committed professional misconduct by failing to maintain appropriate records, falsifying a record relating to his practice, signing or issuing a false and misleading document, and engaging in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a massage therapist.
4The parties made a joint submission regarding penalty and costs. They sought a reprimand, and costs in the amount of $65,319.36 to be paid in installments. They did not ask for the revocation or suspension of the registrant’s certificate since he has given an undertaking to resign from the College and never reapply.
5A joint submission must be accepted unless it would bring the administration of the professional discipline system into disrepute or it would otherwise be contrary to the public interest. As this joint submission, considered in light of the resignation and undertaking, would not do so, we made the order requested. The reasons for our decision are set out below.
Findings of Misconduct
6For the reasons that follow, we find that the College has established that the registrant engaged in professional misconduct under s. 51(1)(c) of the Code.
7We find that the registrant has breached the following paragraphs of s. 26 of the Regulation:
paragraph 26 (failing to keep records as required);
paragraph 27 (falsifying a record relating to the member’s practice);
paragraph 29 (signing or issuing, in the member’s professional capacity, a document the member knows contains a false or misleading statement);
paragraph 44 (engaging in conduct or performing an act relevant to the practice of the profession that, having regard to the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional); and
paragraph 49 (engaging in conduct that would reasonably be regarded by members as conduct unbecoming a massage therapist).
8The registrant did not contest that he issued false receipts and created false treatment notes for treatments that he did not provide. He also did not contest that he failed to maintain patient records as required.
9For example, between May and July 2022, the registrant issued or permitted to be issued receipts for treatments that he did not provide. During that same period, he created false treatment notes for treatments he did not provide and routinely recorded inaccurate treatment times for multiple patients in their records.
10The registrant did not contest that, as a private tutor preparing candidates for the College’s Multiple-Choice Question Examination (MCQ), he solicited information about actual questions on the MCQ from students who had recently taken the exam and then shared the information with students in his tutoring classes who were about to sit for the exam, in an effort to increase their chances of passing the exam. He did so over a number of years (2021 and 2022) and received payment from students taking his course.
11The uncontested evidence included communication between the registrant and undercover investigators from the College, in which the registrant’s practices of soliciting and distributing actual questions from the exam were confirmed. Furthermore, the College investigation revealed that an analysis of the “mock MCQ exams” provided to students by the registrant showed that 109 questions in it were very similar or similar to questions on the most recent exams. One hundred and two of those 109 questions appeared on exams that were being administered to exam candidates at the time of analysis.
12By facilitating exam cheating and undermining the integrity of the College’s examination process, the registrant demonstrated a lack of integrity and engaged in dishonest practices that constituted both conduct unbecoming a massage therapist and 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. In College of Massage Therapists of Ontario v. Kennedy, 2024 ONCMTO 24, a registrant who facilitated cheating on the College’s certification exam was found to have engaged in disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct and conduct unbecoming a massage therapist.
13In light of the uncontested facts, we find that the registrant has engaged in professional misconduct as alleged by the College.
Penalty and Costs
14The parties jointly sought the following:
a reprimand; and
costs in the amount of $65,319.36 (payable in installments).
15While the Tribunal has the discretion to accept or reject a joint submission made by the parties, we must exercise restraint and should not reject a joint submission unless it meets the “undeniably high threshold” that the proposed penalty “would be viewed by reasonable and informed persons as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the justice system” (see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 at paras 34 and 42).
16As the registrant has resigned from the profession and undertaken to never reapply for registration with the College, remediation and specific deterrence are not factors in the circumstances of this case. However, the remaining goals of public protection and general deterrence are met with the proposed penalty, and we find it is appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances.
17The reprimand conveys the Tribunal’s disapproval of the conduct and serves both the goal of general deterrence as well as public protection by explaining to the general public and to the rest of the profession that the regulator will take action to ensure breaches such as those committed by the registrant that compromise public protection and safety will be investigated and prosecuted. Paired with the registrant’s resignation and undertaking to never reapply to this College or any other massage therapy regulator in Canada, the outcome ensures even greater protection to the public than revocation of the registrant’s certification of registration, which is the most serious sanction the Tribunal could order, as it precludes the possibility of an application for reinstatement after a period of time.
18The misconduct found to have occurred is serious. By facilitating exam cheating, the registrant participated in dishonest conduct that undermined the integrity of an exam designed to ensure that those entering the profession have the requisite knowledge and skills to do so safely, thereby ensuring public protection. Moreover, this misconduct took place over an extended period of time and was done for financial gain.
19The registrant’s failure to maintain accurate patient records and his falsification of patient records and documents also undermine public confidence in the integrity of the profession.
20By way of mitigation, the College acknowledged that the registrant’s plea of no contest has led to the matter proceeding with a joint submission rather than by way of a complex, lengthy contested hearing with the associated expenses.
21The amount sought in costs is reasonable and reflects the significant costs incurred by the College in investigating the exam cheating allegations and the costs incurred in prosecuting these matters. The registrant’s financial circumstances have been taken into consideration to allow him to pay the costs ordered in installments.
22The Tribunal has the authority to order costs for legal, investigation and hearing expenses under s. 53.1 of the Code (see also Reid v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2016 ONCA 779 and Reid v. College of Chiropractors of Ontario, 2016 ONSC 1041 (Div. Ct.)). It is settled law that other members of the profession should not have to bear the full burden of costs incurred by regulatory bodies in carrying out their functions in circumstances such as these (see Mitelman v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2020 ONSC 6171 (Div. Ct.)).
23In many cases, this Tribunal’s costs award is based on Tariff A to the Rules of Procedure, which need not be supported by a bill of costs. However, there are cases where it is appropriate to order a different amount, and the parties have agreed that is appropriate in this case, in light of the unusually significant costs incurred by the College in one of these matters, which it has supported with an affidavit on costs.
Order
24A reprimand was delivered at the close of the hearing, and we made the following order:
Penalty
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded immediately following the hearing of this matter, 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 $65,319.36, which may be paid in 12 monthly installments of $1,000, followed by 48 monthly installments of $1,110.82, with the first monthly installment due 30 days from the date of this order.