Former massage therapist waged 'campaign of retribution' over negative Google review, college finds

FILE: A massage table is seen in this undated photo. (Shutterstock)

A recent disciplinary decision from the College of Massage Therapists of British Columbia shows how a dispute over masking and a negative Google review snowballed into a "campaign of retribution" against a would-be patient and a pattern of insults and derision of college staff.

Jeremy Jakobsze is a former registrant with the college. He resigned his registration in November 2022, but was a registered massage therapist when he engaged in the misconduct described in the CMTBC decision. 

On June 3, 2020, he had a meeting with a prospective patient, whose name is redacted in the decision and is referred to only as "A.A." in a summary of the case on the CMTBC website. 

While A.A. had an appointment to receive massage therapy, the decision indicates, she did not bring a mask to the appointment, and left without treatment.

On the same day as the appointment, A.A. submitted a complaint to the college about Jakobsze's behaviour, alleging that he had been "verbally aggressive with her and refused to treat her due to her failure to wear a mask."

She also posted a one-star Google review detailing her experience. Jakobsze posted a response in which he disagreed with her version of events, according to the misconduct decision.

He also sent her an email indicating that she would be charged $120 for the appointment, even though she was not treated. The decision indicates she sent a reply in which she apologized for not bringing a mask to the appointment and reiterated her perspective on their interaction. She also refused to pay the $120.

'CAMPAIGN OF RETRIBUTION'

The day after the appointment, June 4, 2020, Jakobsze filed a complaint with the regulatory body for A.A.'s profession, alleging that her actions at the appointment and her posting of the one-star review constituted professional misconduct.

Jakobsze's complaint also accused A.A. of various Criminal Code offences, including:

• Trespassing, for entering the clinic without a mask
• Negligence, for “intentionally not bringing” a mask to the appointment
• Theft, for “$120 in lost income and stealing time from other patients”
• "Gender-based harassment" because she “fraudulently references fear of being physically assaulted based on my sex and physical size”
• And "inciting harassment” for “posting a sexist and fraudulent one-star Google business review”

A.A.'s profession is not named in the CMTBC decision, though it's clear from context that she worked or still works in a medical field governed by the Health Professions Act.

The regulatory body for A.A.'s profession dismissed Jakobsze's complaint in July 2020.

Two days after he filed the complaint with the regulatory body, Jakobsze also contacted the RCMP's Ridge Meadows detachment, urging them to press charges against A.A. for the same alleged Criminal Code offences.

"During his communications with the RCMP, the respondent also alleged that the (regulatory body) was 'inept,' 'crooked' and 'corrupt,'" the decision reads.

Mounties concluded that the threshold for the alleged offences was not met, and the case was not a criminal matter, according to the decision.

Jakobsze also contacted A.A.'s employer to suggest that she had mental health problems, and appealed the regulatory body's dismissal of his complaint to the Health Professions Review Board.

All of this, the CMTBC discipline committee panel found, amounted to a "campaign of retribution" against A.A. that sought to "punish" her for her negative Google review.

"Engaging in a campaign of retribution against a prospective patient as the respondent did, would reasonably be considered by members of the profession to be dishonourable, disgraceful and unprofessional," the panel wrote. "It is a marked departure from the standard expected of a registered massage therapist."

INSULTING COLLEGE OFFICIALS

Other misconduct allegations against Jakobsze stemmed from his interactions with CMTBC staff as they attempted to investigate A.A.'s complaint and his conduct.

When contacted by an investigator requesting an interview in August 2020, Jakobsze responded that having the complaint reach the interview stage was "asinine."

"I will not attend an interview regarding this matter," he wrote, as quoted in the decision.

"Especially not with an investigator that does not come prepared or show the proper amount of professionalism during said interviews … This is not a refusal to co-operate, but a refusal to be investigated by an unprofessional investigators (sic) assigned by the CMTBC."

Similarly, when contacted by the college's director of inquiry and discipline in November 2020, Jakobsze responded by "lashing out in a highly offensive manner," according to the decision.

He wrote, among other things, that the director clearly had a "vendetta" against him and was "harassing" him and his family for her own "sexist motives."

"You are unfit to carry out your duties," his correspondence concluded, according to the decision.

"I will see to it that you are removed from your position."

After that response, the college's registrar and chief executive officer intervened in the email exchange to tell Jakobsze his comments were "inappropriate," "offensive" and "simply unacceptable," according to the decision.

The registrar suggested that Jakobsze should apologize.

"Instead of apologizing, the respondent responded to the college’s registrar by asserting that the director of inquiry and discipline was 'negligent' or 'delayed' and 'needs to be removed from her position,'" the decision reads. "He also suggested that the Registrar should get his 'head straight.'"

Again, the discipline committee panel found that Jakobsze's conduct did not comply with the professional standards of the CMTBC.

REGISTRANT'S 22-PAGE RESPONSE

Jakobsze did not participate in the hearing, but did email the panel a 22-page document titled "Discipline Hearing Response" a few days before it was scheduled to begin.

The panel's decision describes the document as "not admissible" and notes that Jakobsze should have attended the hearing to give testimony under oath and allow for cross-examination.

It also notes that his response to the misconduct allegations focused largely on "factual disputes and allegations of bad faith and untruthfulness" in A.A.'s original complaint.

The panel found these submissions "totally irrelevant" to the allegations of misconduct against Jakobsze, which were not related to A.A.'s original complaint, but rather to his campaign of retribution against her and his unprofessional comments toward college staff.

Those allegations, the panel found, were proven to the requisite standard.

It asked Jakobsze and the CMTBC to make submissions on an appropriate penalty and costs in the case within 21 days.