I am a Registered Massage Therapist (RMT) in Ontario and a survivor of patient sexual misconduct. Like many others in the profession, I have experienced the real consequences of unsafe clinical environments, unclear discharge expectations, and the absence of trauma-informed, system-level support when a patent behaves abusively.

Massage Therapy is regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA), which requires the College of Massage Therapists of Ontario (CMTO) to act exclusively in the public interest and to ensure that care is delivered in a manner that is safe, ethical, and competent; however, the conditions under which Massage Therapy is practiced reveal a significant regulatory gap: practitioner safety is not meaningfully protected, despite being essential to patient safety and public trust.

A Systemic Safety Gap in Massage Therapy Regulation

Unlike most other RHPA-regulated professions, Massage Therapy lacks any sector-specific practitioner-safety framework. Nurses, physicians, midwives, dental professionals, and personal support workers operate within Ministry-mandated or institutionally enforced violence-prevention systems. Registered Massage Therapists—89% of whom are women and many of whom work alone in private clinics or home-based settings—have no comparable protections.

While CMTO Standards and the Code of Ethics require RMTs to manage sexualized, threatening, or abusive client behaviour professionally, the regulatory system provides no structural safeguards, no clear pathways for trauma-informed discharge, and no sector-specific guidance for managing violence or intimidation. This places the burden of safety entirely on individual practitioners and creates conditions that put both practitioners and patients at risk.

Criminal Code Changes Highlight the Regulatory Disconnect

In December 2021, Parliament passed Bill C-3, amending the Criminal Code of Canada to create specific offences for intimidation of health-care workers and obstruction of access to health services. These amendments reflect federal recognition that health-care workers face real risks of intimidation, threats, and violence, and that legal protections are necessary to ensure safe access to care and safe working conditions.

At the same time, however, these protections were not meaningfully integrated into Massage Therapy regulation. Most Massage Therapy care occurs in non-hospital, non-institutional, private practice settings, where enforcement and protective mechanisms remain unclear. The absence of a coordinated regulatory or legislative framework leaves RMTs navigating serious safety risks without adequate support, despite clear federal acknowledgement that such risks constitute a public-interest concern.

Limits of Regulatory Fixes Alone

This petition originally called for the creation of a Patient Code of Conduct under the RHPA, as well as amendments to the RHPA. With further policy analysis, it has become clear that regulatory reform alone is insufficient, and amendments to the RHPA are unnecessary. While recent CMTO updates now permit RMTs to discharge abusive clients without notice and refer them to the public register, this approach:

• shifts risk to other practitioners
• does not prevent repeat abusive behaviour
• does not address trauma or safety impacts on practitioners
• does not create system-wide prevention or accountability

Regulatory standards cannot substitute for legislated occupational safety protections. Without clear legislative authority, Colleges are left attempting to manage criminal, safety, and human-rights issues through professional standards that were never designed to carry that burden.

What This Petition Now Calls For

This petition will now call for legislative and policy action that reflects the realities of modern health-care delivery and aligns with the public-interest obligations of the RHPA:

• Legislative recognition of sexualized and abusive client behaviour as a systemic occupational hazard across regulated health professions.
• Potential expansion of Criminal Code Bill C-3 protections into non-hospital, clinic-based, and private practice settings through provincial mechanisms.
• Sector-specific safety frameworks for Massage Therapy, comparable to those that exist in other regulated health professions.
• Trauma-informed discharge protocols and practitioner supports that do not simply transfer risk to other providers.
• Regulatory accountability, including transparent governance, financial stewardship, and adherence to the RHPA’s public-interest mandate.
• Education, funding, and infrastructure for trauma-informed discharge protocols, peer support programs, and practitioner-focused counselling services, recognizing the cumulative harm caused by workplace sexual misconduct.

Why This Is a Public-Interest Issue

A regulatory system cannot fully protect patients if it does not also protect the conditions under which safe care occurs. Practitioner safety is not separate from public protection—it is foundational to it.

Practitioners—especially women, 2SLGBTQIA+ individuals, and those living with PTSD or other disabilities—deserve legal protection, structural support, and regulatory clarity when patient boundaries are crossed. Silence, fragmentation, and reliance on individual resilience are not acceptable substitutes for public-interest governance.

Despite sustained efforts to raise these issues through professional and regulatory channels, advocacy without systemic reform has taken a significant toll. I continue this work alongside community partners to develop peer-support, education, and recovery resources—but meaningful change requires legislative leadership.

Help show the Ministry of Health that regulatory silence is not enough.
We need real protection rooted in law, accountability, compassion, and safety—for patients and practitioners alike.