ONTARIO PHYSIOTHERAPISTS DISCIPLINE TRIBUNAL
Tribunal File No.: 25-003-PT
BETWEEN:
College of Physiotherapists of Ontario
College
- and -
Antoine Daher
Registrant
FINDING AND PENALTY REASONS
Heard: March 3, 2026
Panel:
Sherry Liang (panel chair)
Mark Heller (public)
Frank Massey (public)
Maureen Van Wart (physiotherapist)
Appearances:
Joanna Birenbaum, for the College
Alexa Banister-Thompson, 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.
Introduction
1Antoine Daher is a registrant of the College of Physiotherapists of Ontario (the College), practicing in a clinic in Eastern Ontario. The College alleges, among other things, that he hugged and kissed a patient (Patient A), made unwelcome personal comments and touched her in an unwelcome manner. With respect to a second patient (Patient B), the College alleges that the registrant moved her clothing in the course of treatment without informed consent or adequate draping. The College alleges that through these actions the registrant failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession and engaged in conduct that members of the profession would reasonably regard as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
2The College and the registrant reached an agreed statement of facts in which the registrant admitted that his actions constitute professional misconduct as alleged. Based on the agreed facts and after hearing submissions, the panel found that the registrant committed professional misconduct. We accepted the parties’ joint submission on penalty and costs, which included a suspension of the registrant’s certificate of registration of up to five months, training and individualized coaching requirements and a reprimand.
Professional misconduct
3The registrant treated Patient A on two occasions in 2025: after she injured her leg in a motor vehicle accident, and when her regular physiotherapist was on vacation. Patient A was about 25 years old at this time, and the registrant was 48.
4At the first appointment, Patient A was upset and crying about something in her personal life. The registrant hugged her, kissed her on the cheek (which Patient A described as a “peck”), and made comments to the effect that she shouldn’t be sad or cry, that she was a pretty girl, had a pretty name and a nice smile. The registrant states that he was attempting to console Patient A and believed that this was a socially acceptable way to do so. These events took place near the end of the appointment, after the treatment had taken place in an open room surrounded by a curtain. The patient experienced the comments and conduct as unwelcome and unprofessional.
5At the second appointment, Patient A appeared visibly upset. Prior to commencing treatment in an area enclosed by a curtain, the registrant gave her a hug and asked how she was doing. Near the end of the treatment, he hugged her again and gave her a kiss on her forehead and her cheek. During the appointment, the registrant asked her why she was upset and persisted in asking her to share this personal information. He also lifted the patient’s hand and put it to his mouth while asking her to share why she was upset.
6Also, during the second appointment, the registrant commented on Patient A’s appearance, including commenting that she looked nice. At both appointments, the registrant spoke to Patient A at a physical distance that was too close to her face, such that she reasonably experienced the registrant as being in her “personal space.”
7Furthermore, while providing clinically indicated treatment to Patient A, the registrant treated her on her bare skin under the waistband of her shorts without informed consent before placing his hand under the waistband. The registrant admits that in his treatment of Patient A, he failed to maintain the standards of practice of the profession in respecting patient boundaries and maintaining professional patient communications.
8Patient B saw the registrant for four appointments in the spring of 2025 for treatment of injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Patient B was 30 years old at the time. Patient A and Patient B were not known to each other.
9During Patient B’s appointments, the registrant unclasped her bra for the purpose of clinically indicated treatment, while she was lying prone and without asking permission or otherwise obtaining informed consent. He also lowered or had her lower her shorts or leggings without informed consent or adequate draping, which made Patient B feel exposed and uncomfortable. In addition, the registrant lifted Patient B’s shirt to provide clinically indicated treatment to her shoulder without her informed consent or adequate draping.
10The registrant admits that he failed to obtain informed consent from Patient B, failed to communicate to her what he was going to do before he did it, failed to adequately drape and failed to respect her boundaries.
11Under para. 1 of s. 1 of Ontario Regulation 388/08 made under the Physiotherapy Act, 1991, SO 1991, c. 37 (Professional Misconduct Regulation) failing to maintain the standards of practice of the profession is professional misconduct. The standards of practice applicable to the case before us are found in a number of documents including the Competency Profile for Physiotherapists in Canada, the College’s Code of Ethical Conduct and its standards on Assessment, Diagnosis, Treatment; Boundary Violations; Sexual Abuse; and Communication. As set out in these documents, registrants are required to obtain patients’ ongoing informed consent to physiotherapy services, maintain professional boundaries, for example, by refraining from comments, words or gestures that are not directly related to clinical care, and communicate in a respectful and professional manner.
12Through his conduct with Patients A and B as described above, the registrant failed to maintain these standards of practice and engaged in misconduct as defined in para. 1(1) of the Professional Misconduct Regulation. He also engaged in misconduct under para. 18 of this regulation in that his conduct would reasonably be regarded by registrants as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.
Penalty and costs
13The parties’ agreement on penalty must be implemented unless it is so “unhinged from the circumstances” that implementing it would bring the administration of the College’s professional discipline system into disrepute: see R. v. Anthony-Cook, 2016 SCC 43 and Bradley v. Ontario College of Teachers, 2021 ONSC 2303 (Div. Ct.). We are satisfied that the proposed penalty is not contrary to the public interest in this manner.
14The parties provided us with decisions of this tribunal to establish that the proposed penalty is proportionate to the misconduct. In most of these (see, for example, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Thomas, 2024 ONCPO 72, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Ragheb, 2021 ONCPO 40, College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Pillai, 2021 ONCPO 31 and College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Trambulo, 2019 ONCPO 25) the registrant received lengthier suspensions than the one proposed here. College counsel informed us that this registrant has been unable to practise for many months as a result of terms imposed by the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee, which it took into account in agreeing to the joint submission on penalty. We also observe that in those other cases, the registrant engaged in behaviour such as touching or exposure of patients’ breasts or genitals, or, as in one case (Pillai), was found to have committed sexual abuse. In College of Physiotherapists of Ontario v. Howell, 2024 ONCPO 69, the panel imposed a suspension to last until the completion of the PROBE course after a registrant treated a patient on bare skin under her waistband without informed consent, similar to one element of this case.
15While each of the above decisions was based on its own set of unique facts, we conclude that the suspension proposed here is reasonably within the range of penalties for similar misconduct.
16The suspension and reprimand serve the goals of specific and general deterrence. The registrant has acknowledged his misconduct, and the penalty reminds him of the importance of respecting boundaries, maintaining professionalism and ensuring that he obtains a patient’s ongoing informed consent during treatment. General deterrence is achieved by demonstrating to other registrants that maintaining professional standards is essential to continuing to enjoy the privilege of practicing the profession.
17The terms, conditions and limitations imposed on the registrant’s certificate of registration serve the purpose of remediation and ensure that the registrant has the tools to return to practice in keeping with the standards of practice of the profession. The penalty shows the public that the College takes seriously its responsibility to govern the profession and enhances public confidence in the College’s ability to protect the public.
18We considered the mitigating factors addressed in the agreed facts and during the parties’ submissions. Among other things, by admitting to the misconduct and participating in the proceedings, the registrant has shown insight and remorse and spared the parties and the Tribunal the time and expense of having a contested hearing.
19This registrant is new to Canada and to the practice of physiotherapy in this country. He has a long history of practice overseas. Although this does not excuse the misconduct, it provides context for his actions and suggests that the remedial steps he has agreed to take will, combined with his evident commitment to the profession, ensure that he will return to practice in keeping with the standards of the profession.
20Having regard to the relevant penalty principles as well as the caselaw, we are satisfied that the joint submission is not contrary to the public interest.
21We also accept the parties’ joint costs submission of $3,500, along with the installment provisions, which are reasonable.
Order
22We made the following order:
Penalty
The Tribunal requires the registrant to appear before the panel to be reprimanded. The fact of the reprimand and the text of the reprimand shall appear on the public register of the College.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to suspend the Registrant’s certificate of registration until the earlier of:
a. August 4, 2026 at 9:00 am; or
b. The date on which the Registrar receives confirmation from the ethics and boundaries counsellor, set out in paragraph 3(b) below, that the Registrant has demonstrated insight into his admitted conduct, and has demonstrated an understanding of the standards of practice for communications, consent and boundaries.
The Tribunal orders, for greater clarity, that while the Registrant is serving their suspension, they shall not use the title Physiotherapist, Physical Therapist, or any abbreviation thereof including PT nor can their name along with the PT title and/or registration number be used for billing purposes. All social media and web presence will be updated accordingly.
The Tribunal directs the Registrar to place the following specified terms, conditions or limitations on the Registrant’s certificate of registration, all of which are to be completed at the Registrant’s own expense:
a. The Registrant shall review the following standards of practice, tools and resources and confirm completion of same in writing to the Registrar within 60 days of the Discipline Tribunal’s Order.
Boundaries
Boundary Violations Standard
Essential Competency Profile for Physiotherapists
Boundaries and Sexual Abuse E Learning Module (including final quiz)
Guide to the Standard
Module
Boundaries and Consent
Webinar – Professional Boundaries
Videos
How to Avoid Misunderstandings in a Clinical Setting
How to Develop a Sensitive Practice
Professional Boundaries in PT
Code of Ethical Conduct
Code of Ethical Conduct – effective August 1, 2024
Professional Misconduct Regulation
Ethics and Professionalism Tool Kit — CPA (free access)
Communication
Communication Standard – effective August 1, 2024
E- Learning Person Centred Communication (including confirmation step)
Communication Guide
Module: Patient Centred Care
Module: Effective Communication Techniques
Other Resources
a. E- learning: Understanding and Maintaining Professional Boundaries
b. Handbook on Sensitive Practice for Health Care Practitioners
c. Therapeutic Relationship Guide
d. Managing Challenging Situations Resource Guide
e. FSPT Videos
i. Process-Oriented Boundaries
ii. Power Dynamics
iii. Nature of Relationships
iv. Sexual Misconduct: The Big Picture
v. This Could NEVER Happen to Me! Protecting Yourself and Preventing Sexual Misconduct
f. Alberta Health Services Trauma Informed Care
b. The Registrant shall attend one-on-one counselling from an ethics and boundaries counsellor, selected by the College and paid for by the Registrant, focused on boundaries, professionalism, ethics and informed consent. The counselling sessions shall be completed when the counsellor provides the Registrar with a written report that the Registrant has demonstrated insight into his admitted conduct, and has demonstrated an understanding of the standards of practice focused on communications, consent, boundaries and professionalism. The counsellor shall be provided a copy of the Notice of Hearing, Agreed Statement of Facts, the reasons for decision of the Tribunal, the transcripts of the statements to the College provided by Patients A and B, and copies of the complete text messages provided by Patients A and B to the College.
c. Within the first six (6) months following the Registrant’s return to practice after the suspension, the Registrant shall participate in side-by-side practice enhancement coaching, focused on communications, boundaries, consent and draping. There shall be no more than four (4) practice coaching sessions. The cost of the coaching program will be assumed by the Registrant.
d. For a one-year period following the Registrant’s return to practice, the Registrant may not supervise physiotherapists, physiotherapist students or physiotherapist residents, nor may the Registrant supervise any of the above persons until such time as the Registrant has successfully completed all remediation set out in this order.
Costs
- The Tribunal requires the registrant to pay the College costs in the amount of $3,500 by September 30, 2028. The Registrant shall pay monthly installments in the amount of $145.83 commencing October 1, 2026