Thank you for this, that is profoundly of interest.

Salient points summary for others:

• Extrajudicial Body regulates Medical Professionals in Canada
• Rule exists with Zero-Tolerance implementation aiming to punish sexual assault
  • Rule forbids: "Any Sexual Act performed on a Patient"
  • "Patient" = "Anyone who receives Treatment"
  • "Treatment" = "Any use of the professional's licensed talents"
• Wrinkle emerges when you presume a talent that is incidental to everyday life
  • example: A Person who is a Doctor takes his Wife's temperature. Doctor and "Patient" have sex at any point in history or the future. Violation with zero-tolerance resulting in Doctor's expulsion from practicing anywhere.
• This rule's shortcoming has been recognized and challenged, and Upheld multiple times in the past with the rationale: "No court would prosecute under such frivolous circumstances, so there is no problem with the rule and it will stand"
• Present situation:
  • Husband and Wife practice massage on each other.
  • Husband is reported by a disinterested 3rd Party to regulatory board for violation of the previously described rule.
  • Husband's dues to organization are seized to hire an investigative lawyer who gets all the "facts" while charging him mercilessly for his own persecution.
  • Wife tells them all to pound sand and refuses to testify or press any charge
  • Tribunal finds Husband guilty as described and he is expelled from the medical profession.
• Aftermath:
  • Due to financial difficulty Husband and Wife divorce
  • Due to despondency Husband refuses to pursue additional remedy and fades away from the proceedings
  • Law firm who would have championed him are left with no ability to further challenge without a complainant and the Rule still stands

A travesty all around. Extra facts: The "Tribunal" were all women with no law expertise who hired a lawyer to explain their own proceedings and rules to them, and who informed them that their rules were clear (if stupid). The "disinterested 3rd Party" was also a woman who was concerned for her own complicitness in the "sexual assault" if she didn't report the Husband of her own volition after their casual conversation. Basically Soviet rules: incriminate your neighbor or you are guilty of their (theoretical) crimes.