Professional misconduct findings include improper billing, record-keeping
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has declined to stay the interim suspension of a massage therapist appealing a disciplinary decision that he engaged in professional misconduct by sexually abusing a client and improperly billing and keeping records.
In Carrasco v. College of Massage Therapists of Ontario, 2025 ONSC 4581, the appellant began practising treatment-based deep-tissue massage to alleviate chronic pain and pain from acute injuries in August 1994.
In February 2020, a client had a massage session with the appellant in his clinic. Before the session, they agreed he would discount $20 of the $100 massage fee if she paid cash. She did so, but he did not record the discount on the receipt.
In March 2020, the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario received the client’s complaint alleging that the appellant had sexually assaulted her by reaching under the draping with his hands and touching her breasts during the session.
In November 2020, the appellant voluntarily undertook to practise under another professional’s supervision until the college completed its complaints process.
In July 2021, an Ontario Court of Justice judge acquitted the appellant of criminal charges for sexual assault. He considered the appellant credible and the client not credible.
During the disciplinary hearing, the appellant admitted to improper billing and record-keeping.
In November 2024, a panel of the college’s discipline committee found professional misconduct on the appellant’s part. The panel suspended his licence to practise pending the penalty hearing, as required under the college’s Health Professions Procedural Code.
In December 2024, the appellant filed a notice of appeal. Last January, he told the college that it had not yet updated his public register profile on its website to reflect his appeal of the discipline committee’s decision.
The college immediately made the update and said it would further update the register if the Divisional Court overturned or varied the decision.
When the appellant asked the college to delete the link to the disciplinary decision, the college
refused. The college explained that the decision was in the public record to ensure transparency and serve the public interest.
In a penalty and costs decision in February, the discipline committee mandatorily revoked the appellant’s registration certificate under the Health Professions Procedural Code. It ordered a reprimand and reimbursement of therapy expenses and costs.
That month, the appellant moved to stay the college’s suspension of his licence to practice and the mandatory revocation of his registration certificate pending appeal. He asked the college to amend its website to remove the link to the discipline committee’s decision and replace it with a copy of his notice of appeal. He also wanted to file a factum of more than 30 pages.
Stay denied
The Ontario Superior Court of Justice granted the appellant’s motion to file facta of over 30 pages and dismissed the rest of his motion.
The court denied the stay sought. First, the court ruled that the issues were neither frivolous nor vexatious. It considered the serious issue factor neutral in weighing for or against the stay.
The appellant called the issues very serious. He alleged that the college:
- made various legal and evidentiary errors
- breached procedural fairness
- misused his admissions
- refused to adjourn to permit him to retain his chosen counsel or allow the college-appointed counsel to come up to speed
The college conceded there was a serious issue for trial.
Second, the court found the irreparable harm factor weighed weakly in favour of the stay. The court held that the appellant failed to provide convincing evidence that he could not work elsewhere, was going bankrupt, or was subjecting his family to financial consequences.
The court noted that the appellant filed his stay motion three months after the decision appealed and two months after initiating his appeal.
Third, the court determined that the balance of convenience heavily supported declining a stay and outweighed the other factors. The court explained that a stay would undermine public confidence in the self-regulation of members of the appellant’s profession and similar professions.
Lastly, the court noted that the college’s Health Professions Procedural Code and bylaws required it to post the discipline committee’s decision and reasons on its website.
The court observed that the college also posted the fact that there was a pending appeal of the disciplinary decision, as required, upon the appellant’s alerting it.
The court said posting the decision and the fact of a pending appeal served the public interest. The court added that there was no regulatory requirement to post the appellant’s notice of appeal.
