Ontario Massage Therapists Discipline Tribunal

In a professional discipline proceeding, the Tribunal found admitted sexual, physical and verbal abuse of two female massage therapy clients, together with failures to obtain informed written consent, maintain proper draping, and keep required records.

The Tribunal held that jurisdiction continued over the former registrant under the Health Professions Procedural Code despite resignation and prior revocation in another matter.

It ordered mandatory revocation and reprimand, reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding, security for future therapy funding, and tariff costs.

The Tribunal also clarified that, absent rebutting evidence, there is a presumption that clients sexually abused by a registered health professional may require therapy or counselling, so case-specific evidence of future need is not required before ordering security.

In a professional discipline hearing, the College alleged sexual abuse during a massage therapy appointment, asserting that the registrant touched the client’s arms and hands with his erect penis through clothing.

The tribunal applied the balance of probabilities standard requiring clear, cogent and convincing evidence and undertook a detailed credibility and reliability assessment of the client, the registrant, and the surrounding physical and documentary evidence.

The tribunal found the client credible in sincerity but unreliable in her observation, recall, and description of material events, including treatment details and the alleged physical sensations.

The tribunal accepted the registrant’s evidence and the defence urology expert’s opinion that the alleged contact, as described, was physically implausible.

The allegation was not proven and no finding of professional misconduct was made.

Following a prior finding of professional misconduct including sexual abuse of a client, the discipline tribunal determined penalty and costs.

Applying the mandatory consequences under the Health Professions Procedural Code, it ordered a reprimand and immediate revocation where the sexual abuse consisted of sexual touching of the client's breasts.

The tribunal also ordered reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding up to the statutory maximum, required security in a reduced amount because the registrant could no longer practise and earn income as a massage therapist, and fixed costs payable by long-term installments.

A publication restriction protecting the client's identity remained in place.

In a penalty decision following findings of sexual and physical abuse of a client, the Tribunal imposed a reprimand and an eight-month suspension, to commence if the registrant is ever reinstated.

The Tribunal treated the misconduct as an egregious boundary violation involving progressively intrusive touching, exposure of the client's genitals, and abuse of the therapist-client power imbalance.

A prior discipline history, including a similar sexual abuse finding, was a significant aggravating factor, and no mitigating factors were before the panel because the registrant did not attend.

The Tribunal also ordered costs of $11,704 and maintained a publication restriction protecting the client's identity.

In a professional discipline penalty decision, the Tribunal addressed sanction, therapy funding, security, and costs after prior findings that the registrant had committed sexual and physical abuse of a client and had been convicted of sexual assault during a massage therapy appointment.

Applying the mandatory penalty provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code, the Tribunal held that a reprimand and revocation were required and that there was no discretion to impose a lesser sanction.

The Tribunal also ordered reimbursement of therapy and counselling funding up to the statutory maximum, required security for that reimbursement, and imposed costs.

A publication restriction protecting the client's identity remained in place.

The registrant admitted professional misconduct arising from several years of improper insurance billing, falsified treatment notes and receipts, and failures to keep required records.

The Tribunal applied the joint-submission standard and accepted a jointly proposed penalty, finding it would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and was not contrary to the public interest.

In doing so, it emphasized public protection, deterrence, rehabilitation, and denunciation, and compared the proposed disposition to prior discipline decisions involving false receipts and deficient record keeping.

The Tribunal imposed a reprimand, an eight-month suspension, specified educational and compliance conditions, and costs.

In this discipline matter, the tribunal considered whether a registrant's repeated failures to respond to scheduling communications and non-attendance at a directed case management conference justified a costs sanction.

Applying its procedural rules and statutory authority to proceed in absence and award costs for unreasonable conduct, the tribunal found the conduct unreasonable and wasteful of counsel, adjudicator, interpreter, and tribunal staff resources.

The tribunal ordered the registrant to pay $500 in costs immediately, with postjudgment interest under the Courts of Justice Act.

The College prosecuted a discipline case arising from admitted professional misconduct by a registrant who engaged in concurrent treatment and sexual relationships with clients, failed to report criminal charges, breached pandemic practice guidance, violated client confidentiality, failed to maintain records, treated family members, and crossed professional boundaries.

The Tribunal applied the public-interest standard governing joint submissions and held that the proposed penalty and costs order did not meet the undeniably high threshold for rejection.

Given the mandatory consequences for sexual abuse findings and the seriousness of the additional misconduct, the Tribunal accepted the joint submission and ordered immediate revocation, a reprimand, reimbursement for therapy and counselling funding, security, and costs.

The discipline tribunal accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand, immediate revocation, and costs after the registrant admitted practising massage therapy and issuing receipts while suspended.

The tribunal applied the Anthony-Cook public interest test for joint submissions and held the proposed penalty was not contrary to the public interest.

The misconduct was found to be deliberate, repeated, long-standing, and financially motivated, occurring over multiple suspension periods and against a background of prior discipline and persistent regulatory non-compliance.

The tribunal concluded the registrant was ungovernable and that revocation was necessary to protect the public and maintain confidence in the profession's discipline system.

In a professional discipline matter, the registrant admitted misconduct arising from treatment of sensitive areas without the required written and verbal consent, failure to stop immediately when requested, and inadequate draping.

The tribunal applied the public-interest test governing joint submissions and held the proposed six-month suspension, reprimand, remedial coursework, and standards review were not contrary to the public interest.

The tribunal emphasized the seriousness of boundary-protecting consent and draping standards, while noting the absence of prior discipline and the support of analogous disciplinary authorities.

The joint submission was accepted and costs of $5,852 were ordered.

The discipline tribunal proceeded in the registrant's absence after finding proper notice had been given.

Relying on documents from the related criminal proceeding, it found that the registrant sexually abused a client during a massage therapy session and had been convicted of sexual assault under s. 271 of the Criminal Code.

The tribunal held that the conviction was relevant to suitability to practise, that the conduct constituted sexual and physical abuse, breached professional standards, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Because the findings engaged prescribed misconduct and sexual touching of a client, the tribunal held that an interim suspension was mandatory pending the penalty and costs phase.

In a professional discipline hearing, the tribunal found that a registrant sexually abused a client during a single massage therapy appointment at a home-based clinic.

Applying the objective test for conduct of a sexual nature, the tribunal accepted the client’s evidence over the registrant’s and found inappropriate remarks, instructions to fully undress, inadequate draping exposing sensitive areas, non-consensual inner-thigh treatment, breast touching, and the registrant climbing onto the massage table between the client’s legs.

The tribunal also found contraventions of published standards, physical abuse, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

Because the proven conduct included sexual touching of the client’s breasts, the tribunal ordered the registrant’s certificate of registration suspended immediately and directed that penalty and costs be scheduled.

In a professional discipline penalty decision, the tribunal addressed misconduct arising solely from the registrant’s failure to retain a client health record for the required period.

After earlier dismissing sexual abuse, physical abuse, and standards allegations, the tribunal accepted a joint submission imposing a reprimand and, if the registrant returns to practice, a requirement to complete the College’s record-keeping e-workshop.

The tribunal held the proposed sanction met public protection, deterrence, remediation, and public interest objectives.

No costs were ordered, given the admission on the record-keeping issue and the dismissal of the more serious allegations that consumed most of the hearing.

In a professional discipline prosecution, the tribunal found that the registrant sexually and physically abused a client during a massage therapy session.

Applying the civil standard of proof and credibility principles, the tribunal accepted the client’s evidence that the registrant treated sensitive areas without written consent, used insecure draping that exposed the client’s genital area, and repeatedly touched the client’s head with his groin.

The tribunal held this conduct breached the profession’s boundaries standard, constituted sexual abuse under the Health Professions Procedural Code, violated the client’s bodily integrity, and amounted to disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct.

The allegation of breach of the client health record standard was not made out because consent to therapeutic massage treatment had been recorded.

In a professional discipline proceeding, the tribunal found that the registrant sexually abused a client during a massage therapy appointment by engaging in touching and behaviour of a sexual nature that was not clinically appropriate and occurred without consent.

The tribunal also found contraventions of published standards respecting professional boundaries, sexual abuse prevention, consent, and client health records, as well as physical abuse, record-keeping failures, and disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional conduct under the governing regulation and Code.

Applying the Anthony-Cook public-interest standard for joint submissions, the tribunal accepted the proposed penalty.

Mandatory revocation and reprimand were ordered, together with reimbursement of therapy funding and costs.