<<
Treatment Sessions from December 2015 to March 2016
7. The treatment sessions between in or about December 2015 and in or about March 2016 became increasingly sexualized.
8. During sessions in or about December 2015, the Registrant told Client #1 that he looked really good. The Registrant said this because Client #1 was wearing regular clothing instead of his work uniform. Client #1 told the Registrant that she had "a nice rack" referring to her breasts. 9. In or about February and March 2016, Client #1 and the Registrant discussed explicit sexual activities during treatment sessions, including the Registrant disclosing to Client #1 that she wanted to have sex with him and that she found it difficult to concentrate because she was thinking about sexual activities she would like to do with him. 10. In or about March 2016, on at least one occasion, the Registrant and Client #1 kissed in the treatment room during and/or immediately prior to the start of a treatment session.
Treatment Sessions in April and May 2016
11. In or about April, 2016, during a treatment session, the Registrant and Client #1 had sexual intercourse in the treatment room.
12. During treatment sessions that followed in or about April and/or May 2016, the Registrant and Client #1 kissed. 13. In or about April and May 2016, the Registrant and Client #1 engaged in sexually explicit conversations during treatment sessions. >>
<<11. In or about April, 2016, during a treatment session, the Registrant and Client #1 had sexual intercourse in the treatment room.>>
<<14. The text message exchanges between Client #1 and the Registrant from in or about January 2016 to in or about May 2016 included sexually explicit discussions.
15. On or about May 2016, Client #1 sent the Registrant a picture of his penis via text message. The Registrant replied that she was watching pornography and thinking about Client #1. >>
<<Counsel for the College submitted that the proposed penalty was mandatory in light of the findings of frank sexual abuse and pursuant to section 51(5) of the
Health Professions Procedural Code. Counsel reminded the panel that there is no discretion in these types of cases. >>
<<A. THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE FINDS that the Registrant has committed acts of professional misconduct pursuant to s. 51(1)(b.1) of the
Health Professions Procedural Code (the
"Code"), being Schedule 2 to the
Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, and pursuant to s.51(1)(c) of the Code, particularly paragraph 6 (contravening a standard of the profession) paragraph 8 (abusing a client, verbally or physically), paragraph 44 (engaging in conduct or performing an act, relevant to the practise of the profession, that, having regard to all the circumstances, would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional), and paragraph 49 (conduct unbecoming) of
section 26 of
Ontario Regulation 544/94 made under the
Massage Therapy Act, 1991,5.0. 1991, c. 27. >>
Access all information related to judgment Ontario (College of Massage Therapists of Ontario) v Crystal Emre, 2017 ONCMTO 6 (CanLII) on CanLII.
www.canlii.org