Regulator Announcement Regarding Tim Brooks
Tim Brooks, License #001430
Overview
The Complaints Committee of the Nova Scotia Regulator of Physiotherapy convened to consider a complaint dated September 8, 2025, filed by a client against Tim Brooks, PT.
In the letter of complaint, the client stated that Mr. Brooks engaged in inappropriate comments and conduct with them.
Summary of Investigation
The Complaint
In the letter of complaint, the client stated:
- They went to see Mr. Brooks in May and June 2024 for physiotherapy services;
- During one visit, Mr. Brooks let the client sit and wait in his office while he scrolled through their Instagram photos at length, which made them feel irritated and uncomfortable;
- The client became anxious when Mr. Brooks started sending them direct messages with inappropriate videos;
- One video Mr. Brooks sent was a close-up of a hamster’s genitalia. The client found the video lewd and disrespectful;
- Brooks sent another strange video of a very drunk Irish man slurring his words. The client did not find it funny, but rather weird, inappropriate, and disturbing; and
- Prior to blocking Mr. Brooks on Instagram, the client sent a message to Mr. Brooks stating:
“Sorry Tim. I find these videos/messages inappropriate, and as your client, a little disturbing. Please stop messaging me.”
Mr. Brooks’ Response to the Complaint
In his response to the complaint, Mr. Brooks stated:
- he offers his “sincerest apology” to the client and the Regulator for his recent actions and “inappropriate conduct” that lead to the complaint;
- he now recognizes how his actions failed to meet the ethical standards required;
- he deeply regrets crossing boundaries and acknowledges the discomfort and confusion it caused;
- he takes full responsibility for what occurred;
- the Instagram memes he sent were inappropriate;
- during one of his treatments with the client, he inquired about their Instagram;
- he saw a “funny meme/video on Instagram” and forwarded it to the client. The video showed a hamster’s testicles swinging while running on a wheel;
- he saw a “funny Irish meme/video on Instagram” and forwarded it to the client. The video contained inappropriate language;
- he again reached out over Instagram and forwarded along a “funny Will Farrell meme/video” that involved a joke about hanging testicles. It was “obviously poor judgment and an inappropriate way to make contact, and only days later, as soon as the client responded asking me to stop messaging them and stop sending videos, I acknowledged my error to them, apologized immediately, and said I would end contact.”
Analysis and Decision
The statutory mandate of the Regulator is to protect the public from harm and serve and promote the public interest. This mandate is set out at subsection 6(1) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, as follows:
Objects
6(1) The objects of each regulatory body established under this Act are to
(a) protect the public from harm;
(b) serve and promote the public interest;
(c) subject to the public interest, preserve the integrity of its profession; and
(d) maintain public confidence in the ability of the regulatory body to regulate its profession.
The Regulator achieves its public interest mandate, in part, through its regulatory processes, including its professional conduct process.
As part of the professional conduct process, the Regulator has the responsibility to investigate matters that may constitute professional misconduct, conduct unbecoming the profession, incompetence, or incapacity of a physiotherapist.
Upon conclusion of an investigation, the Complaints Committee must consider all of the information before it and decide the appropriate course of action. The Committee has several options available to it. Among other things, the Committee may dismiss or informally resolve the complaint, issue a caution to the registrant, reprimand the registrant with the registrant’s consent, or refer the matter for a hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee.
While the Complaints Committee does not make findings of fact, it notes that Mr. Brooks admits to the allegations of crossing professional boundaries with his client.
It appears to the Complaints Committee that Mr. Brooks’ conduct fell below the Regulator’s Boundary Violations standard of practice. Pursuant to this standard, a physiotherapist must maintain boundaries appropriate to the therapeutic relationship in all interactions. Adding the client to Instagram to send non-therapeutic messages is not conduct that maintains professional boundaries.
However, the most concerning aspect of Mr. Brooks’ admitted conduct is the content of the memes he sent to the client. Mr. Brooks recognizes that the content of the memes was inappropriate.
It appears to the Complaints Committee that Mr. Brooks engaged in behaviour of a sexual nature. Indeed, his conduct may constitute sexual misconduct. This is because sexual misconduct involves communications that could be reasonably interpreted by the client as sexual.
Pursuant to the Regulator’s Standard of Practice on Sexual Misconduct, “sexual misconduct” is defined as follows:
Sexual misconduct is any actual, threatened, or attempted sexualized behavior or remarks by a registrant towards a client or in a client’s presence, including but not limited to, the following acts or omissions by the registrant:
[…]
1.1.3 Any behaviour, communication, gestures, or expressions that could be reasonably interpreted by the client as sexual.
[…]
1.1.9 Showing a client sexually explicit materials.
The client states that one video Mr. Brooks sent to them was a close-up of a hamster’s genitalia, which they found lewd and disrespectful. Mr. Brooks acknowledges that he sent a video to the client showing a hamster’s testicles swinging while running on a wheel. Mr. Brooks states that he also sent the client a “funny Will Farrell meme/video” that involved a joke about hanging testicles.
Due to the sexualized nature of the content of Mr. Brooks’ communications to his client, the Complaints Committee is satisfied that Mr. Brooks’ conduct, if proven, constitutes professional misconduct. A licensing sanction and remediation are warranted in this matter. Further, the Committee is satisfied there is a reasonable likelihood of proving the allegations of professional misconduct at a hearing before a Professional Conduct Committee.
The Complaints Committee notes that imposing a licensing sanction is imperative, not only to maintain the public’s confidence in the profession, but also to reinforce the Regulator’s ability to enforce its standards. Additionally, issuing a sanction serves as a deterrent to the profession by sending a clear message that this kind of misconduct will not be tolerated, thereby protecting the integrity of the profession.
The Complaints Committee turned its mind to the appropriate licensing sanction in the circumstances. The Committee is satisfied its concerns are serious. The physiotherapist – client relationship is guided by the values and principles of the profession. A physiotherapist’s role extends beyond service to a client - it embodies compassion, integrity, and trustworthiness. A physiotherapist undertakes to act in the best interests of their client with the utmost care and goodwill.
The physiotherapist – client relationship is characterized by an imbalance of power in favour of the physiotherapist. The physiotherapist is in the controlling position, while clients are often in vulnerable positions and must never be exploited.
Sexual misconduct of any sort does not align with any of the core principles of the physiotherapy profession. It is wholly inconsistent with both professional and societal values. While any incident of sexual misconduct is unacceptable, Mr. Brooks’ conduct did not involve sexualized physical contact between him and his client.
Further, the Complaints Committee recognizes several mitigating factors in this matter, including the following:
- Brooks admitted his conduct;
- Brooks apologized and expressed remorse; and
- Brooks does not have a professional conduct history.
In consideration of the mitigating factors in this case, the Complaints Committee does not believe that a hearing before the Professional Conduct Committee is necessary in order to protect the public from harm. Rather, the Complaints Committee is of the view that a reprimand and remedial education are appropriate licensing sanctions in the circumstances.
Pursuant to section 84(1)(f) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Complaints Committee reprimands Mr. Brooks for crossing professional boundaries with his client, including by engaging in sexual misconduct by sending videos containing sexualized conduct to them, contrary to the Regulator’s Standard of Practice on Sexual Misconduct.
As noted, the Complaints Committee also determines that remedial education is required to prevent similar conduct from occurring in the future. Pursuant to section 84(1)(g) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Committee orders remedial education in the form of the following conditions on Mr. Brooks’ licence:
- Within 90 days of Mr. Brooks’ acceptance of the Complaints Committee’s decision, Mr. Brooks shall successfully complete CPEP’s Probe: Ethics & Boundaries Program, at his own expense;
- Successful completion requires Mr. Brooks to complete the program with an unconditional pass;
- The Regulator may share details of this matter with the program administrator in order to facilitate Mr. Brooks’ participation in the program;
- Brooks will authorize the program administrator to send his results directly to the Regulator; and
- In the event Mr. Brooks does not complete the program with an unconditional pass within 90 days of his acceptance of the Complaints Committee’s decision, Mr. Brooks’ licence will be suspended until such time as the program administrator provides proof of an unconditional pass to the Regulator.
The Regulator has incurred significant costs in investigating and processing this complaint. Pursuant to section 84(4) of the Regulated Health Professions Act, the Complaints Committee orders Mr. Brooks to pay $1,000 in costs to the Regulator within 90 days of his acceptance of the Complaints Committee’s decision. This amount represents a very small percentage of the Regulator’s total costs.
Dated March 31, 2026