ONTARIO MASSAGE THERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: PC-11013
BETWEEN:
College of Massage Therapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Gary Canhoto
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: March 3, 2025
Panel:
David A. Wright (Tribunal Chair)
Judith DaSilva (public)
Jennifer Da Ponte (massage therapist)
Bobbie Flint (massage therapist)
Carolyn Watt (public)
Appearances:
Karen Heath and Samil Chagpar, for the College
Gary Canhoto, self-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
1The registrant, Gary Canhoto, does not contest the College’s allegations that he sexually abused a patient, including by touching her genitals, breasts and buttocks in a sexual manner. At the hearing, we found that he committed professional misconduct and imposed the mandatory penalty of revocation and a reprimand. We also ordered costs and requirements for the registrant to repay the College for the patient’s therapy and counselling. These are the reasons for our decision.
2Tribunal Chair David A. Wright conducted case management conferences in this matter and sits on the panel with the consent of both parties.
Plea of No Contest
3The facts were set out in a Statement of Uncontested Facts (SUF). The registrant pleaded no contest under Rule 14.3 of the Health Professions Discipline Tribunals Rules of Procedure. That means that he agreed that the facts in the SUF could be relied upon by the Tribunal for the purpose of this proceeding only and lead to a finding of professional misconduct.
4The facts and exhibits in the SUF are based on the version of events given by the patient. Mr. Canhoto emphasized that while he understood that the facts in the SUF would be relied upon by the panel to make its decision, he did not admit that the events occurred as set out in the SUF nor that he committed sexual abuse. This is consistent with his agreement and Rule 14.3.
Facts
5The registrant provided massage therapy treatment to a female patient twice in 2023. During the second appointment, he did the following:
a. inappropriately draped the patient by:
i. tucking the draping sheet into the patient’s gluteal cleft and the bikini line of her underwear; and
ii. moving and/or placing the draping sheet so that it did not adequately cover the patient’s buttocks or breasts;
b. touched the patient’s breasts, upper inner thighs, and buttocks directly on the skin, without consent;
c. moved the patient’s underwear across her pubic area and lifted her underwear to expose her vagina, then looked at her vagina and said words to the effect of “you are very tight on this side”;
d. touched the patient’s genitals;
e. did not discuss the treatment plan and/or did not describe the proposed treatment;
f. did not discuss the options for draping and/or how the patient’s sensitive areas would be draped; and
g. did not discuss whether the touch of the patient’s buttocks would be directly on skin or through a cloth barrier.
Findings of Professional Misconduct
6Under s. 1(3) of the Health Professions Procedural Code, Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 18 (Code) “sexual abuse” includes touching a patient in a sexual way and sexual remarks. It does not include touching or remarks of a clinical nature appropriate to the service provided.
7The registrant does not contest that the touching and remarks were of a sexual nature. The circumstances, including the touching of the patient’s genitals (which a massage therapist must never do), touching of her upper inner thighs, buttocks and breasts without consent, exposing and looking at her vagina and immediately making an inappropriate comment leave no doubt that the touching and remarks were sexual. He therefore committed sexual abuse under s. 51(1)(b.1) of the Code.
8By touching the patient sexually, 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.” The registrant committed physical abuse, which is professional misconduct under para. 8 of s. 26 of Ontario Regulation 544/94, made under the Massage Therapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 27, version in effect on the date of the misconduct (Professional Misconduct Regulation).
9By failing to obtain consent, Mr. Canhoto committed misconduct under para. 7 of s. 26 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation: Doing anything to a client for a therapeutic, preventative, palliative, cosmetic or other health-related purpose in a situation in which a consent is required by law, without such a consent. He failed to obtain consent of any kind prior to treating the breasts, buttocks and upper inner thighs, all of which require written consent, and did not discuss whether any touch would be directly on the skin.
10Mr. Canhoto contravened published standards of the College, which is professional misconduct under para. 6 of s. 26 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. The sexual abuse was contrary to the Standard of Practice: Prevention of Sexual Abuse. His failures to obtain consent were contrary to the Standard of Practice: Consent. He failed to ensure that sensitive areas were not exposed, he did not discuss the options for draping and/or how the Client’s sensitive areas would be draped, nor whether the touch of the Client’s buttocks would be directly on skin or through a cloth barrier, contrary to the Standard of Practice: Draping and Physical Privacy.
11Finally, the registrant’s conduct showed “a serious or persistent disregard for [his] professional obligations” and was disgraceful, dishonourable and unprofessional: para. 44 of s. 26 of the Professional Misconduct Regulation: see Attallah v. College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 3722at para. 54 (Div. Ct.).
Penalty and Costs
12Under s. 51(5) of the Code, the penalty must include the revocation of the registrant’s certificate of registration and a reprimand, as the sexual abuse included touching of a sexual nature of the patient’s genitals, breasts and buttocks. There is no need to consider the penalty principles, aggravating and mitigating factors or the standard for rejecting a joint submission before ordering these terms, as the Legislature has decided on the proper penalty.
13The parties have also agreed on a reasonable amount for repayment to the College of any funds paid for the patient’s therapy and counselling and security to guarantee those payments. The costs at the tariff rate for a half-day hearing are also appropriate.
Order
14The penalty, repayment and costs terms of the order read as follows:
Penalty 3. 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. 4. The Tribunal directs the Registrar to revoke the registrant’s certificate of registration effective immediately. Reimbursement for Therapy and Counselling 5. The Tribunal requires the registrant to reimburse the College for funding that has been and that may in the future be provided to the [patient] under the program established under section 85.7 of the Code, up to the maximum amount allowable. 6. The Tribunal requires the registrant to post security in the amount of $6,000 to guarantee payments of any amount he is required to pay pertaining to the [patient] under paragraph 5 above, which can be paid in 18 monthly installments, with the first payment in the amount of $390 due 30 days from the date of this order, and with 17 subsequent payments in the amount of $330 due monthly. Costs 7. The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $5,110, which can be paid in monthly installments of $330 until paid in full, with the first monthly payment due 30 days from the date the registrant completes the security payment in paragraph 6 above, or due September 1, 2027, whichever is earlier, and every subsequent payment due monthly. 8. Any amount of security provided by the registrant pursuant to paragraph 6 that has not been used by September 19, 2028 will be first applied towards the costs the registrant owes pursuant to paragraph 7, with any unapplied balance returned to the registrant.