Nature of Action: On June 5, 2015, a panel of the Discipline Committee (“the Panel”) determined that Mr. Martin: 1) failed to comply with section 75 of the College’s Bylaws, which requires each registrant to adhere to the College’s Code of Ethical Conduct (the “Code”); 2) failed to comply with sections 1(2) and 2(a) of the Code; and 3) committed professional misconduct in relation to four different former female patients as set out in the Second Further Amended Citation dated February 17, 2015 (PDF). On September 15, 2015, the Panel released its order and reasons for decision on penalty (see below).
Determination of professional misconduct and breach of Code:
With respect to Patient #1 (D.K.), the Panel found that in the course of providing massage therapy services, Mr. Martin:
With respect to Patient #2 (V.S.), the Panel found that in the course of providing massage therapy services on October 17, 2013, Mr. Martin:
With respect to Patient #3 (L.T.), the Panel found that in the course of providing massage therapy services on October 11, 2013, Mr. Martin:
With respect to Patient #4 (A.W.), the Panel found that in the course of providing massage therapy services on January 24, 2013, Mr. Martin:
Read Reasons for Decision (Reissued on June 26, 2015 to add paragraph numbers – PDF)
Following its consideration of written submissions on penalty, publication and costs from the College and from Mr. Martin, the Panel released further reasons for decision on September 15, 2015 and ordered that Mr. Martin:
The penalties imposed by the Panel were those available under the Act following Mr. Martin’s resignation. Mr. Martin resigned following the initial hearing and the Panel’s determination of professional misconduct and breaches of the Code. The Panel noted that it is important to proceed with professional discipline in such cases, in order to demonstrate to the profession and to the public that a registrant will not be able to avoid the consequences of serious misconduct by resigning his or her registration. In this case, the Panel found that Mr. Martin’s sexual touching and/or viewing of the complainants was intentional and involved a number of significant breaches of trust. Had Mr. Martin not resigned prior to the issuance of the order, the Panel would have imposed the sanctions initially proposed by the College, which included cancellation of registration, a two-year period of ineligibility to re-apply for registration, a $10,000 fine, and a requirement to provide a medical opinion of fitness from a qualified medical practitioner in the event of any reinstatement application.