WARNING

The court directs that the following should be attached to the file:

NOTICE OF PUBLICATION BAN

An order restricting publication in this proceeding imposed under ss. 45(3) and 47 of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the “Code”), Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 18 shall continue.

In the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario and Jose Alberto Tena Schoelly, the Discipline Committee ordered under ss. 45(3) and 47 of the Code that no person shall publish, broadcast or otherwise disclose any information that would identify the complainant.

Subsection 93(1) of the Code addresses a failure to comply with these orders:

Every person who contravenes an order made under … section 45 or 47… is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable,

(a) in the case of an individual to a fine of not more than $25,000 for a first offence and not more than $50,000 for a second or subsequent offence; or

(b) in the case of a corporation to a fine of not more than $50,000 for a first offence and not more than $200,000 for a second or subsequent offence.

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

DATE: 20210922 DOCKET: C68756

Strathy C.J.O., Pepall and Pardu JJ.A.

BETWEEN

College of Massage Therapists of Ontario Appellant

and

Jose Alberto Tena Schoelly Respondent

Counsel: Erica Richler and Anastasia-Maria Hountalas, for the appellant No one appearing for the respondent

Heard and released orally: September 17, 2021 by video conference

On appeal from the order of the Divisional Court (Justices Nancy L. Backhouse, Richard A. Lococo and Michael A. Penny), dated March 2, 2020, with reasons reported at 2020 ONSC 1348, allowing in part an appeal from a decision of a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, dated March 26, 2019.

REASONS FOR DECISION

[1] Counsel have advised that the appeal has been resolved on the basis that the respondent does not oppose the appeal and will accept the licence revocation ordered by the Discipline Committee. The appeal is therefore moot.

[2] The appellant nevertheless asks that this Court hear its submissions and that we make a decision on the merits. While the appellant seeks a judicial precedent to serve as a guide in other cases, we decline to hear the appeal in the absence of an adversarial context. Nor is it an appropriate use of judicial resources to decide an issue that does not have any practical consequences for both parties.

[3] On consent of the parties, an order will issue reinstating the order of the Discipline Committee of the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario dated March 26, 2019. In so ordering, we express no opinion on the conclusions or analysis of the Divisional Court.

“G.R. Strathy C.J.O.” “S.E. Pepall J.A.” “G. Pardu J.A.”