Lawyers for Newmarket and a local alternative massage parlour are squaring off over municipal efforts to shut down the business .
An appeal hearing got underway between Top Health Centre and the town Jan. 19. The business is appealing its licence application being denied under the town’s 2021 massage parlour bylaw. The bylaw added new restrictions to alternative massage businesses to close ones allegedly selling sexual services.
The appeals committee heard five hours of testimony and cross-examination of Newmarket bylaw officer Nathan Irvine. The town’s lawyer, Howard Levitt, opened by saying that Top Health Centre knowingly disobeyed the town’s personal wellness establishment bylaw.
“A bylaw which opposed harm to your community in Newmarket and to the public at large,” Levitt said. “The evidence we will present will demonstrate that Top Health Centre failed to comply with the bylaw and significantly acted against the bylaw’s fundamental purpose, primarily by offering sexual services.”
The committee adjourned until Feb. 23 without the cross-examination of Irvine completed. The town’s appeals committee has not made any decisions on either side of the argument.
Both Top Health Centre and VMT RMT Wellness Centre are appealing the denial of their business licences under the bylaw that added regulations for alternative massage businesses, such as education at accredited institutions for workers and floor plans. But it has garnered opposition from advocacy organizations who have said the bylaw unfairly targets Asian workers.
Levitt asked Irvine about the process that led to the bylaw department denying Top Health Centre's licence. Irvine said the centre’s application was not satisfactory, as the workers did not have accredited education for the massages being offered, such as osteopathy. Attempts to connect with the business to correct the application did not lead to fixes, Irvine said, and eventually resulted in instruction for Top Health to halt all operations.
Further, Irvine said bylaw staff found an ad for sexual services on the escort website LeoList. The ad references Top Health’s address and was taken as evidence that the business was selling sexual services. That was also in contravention of the bylaw and led to the licence being denied, Irvine said.
But Top Health’s lawyer, Marcus McCann, who opted against an opening argument, pushed back on the evidence of sexual services. He said the town does not have any direct link showing Top Health posted that ad or had an account on LeoList. His questioning showed the phone number in the ad was not linked to Top Health at any other location.
He asked Irvine if the town had followed up with Top Health about the ad after they uncovered it.
“No, we did not,” Irvine said. “It wouldn’t be helpful to get misinformation from the person who would potentially deny saying it was their advertisement.”
The ad was later removed from the website, which Irvine said is evidence that Top Health made the advertisement and was responding to the denial of a business licence.
McCann also questioned if other services that are not massage could have continued even after the town rejected the application and asked Top Health to stop operations. Although Irvine indicated that other non-massage services may have been able to continue after a letter sent in April, they needed to stop entirely after a later letter sent in the summer. Irvine said bylaw staff went on site and found the business still operating after being told to halt, contravening the bylaw.
Education was also a point of discussion. Several local massage parlour workers have received accreditation recently through a York University course that was town-approved for its bylaw.
But Levitt and Irvine said that course is now getting scrutinized because Butterfly, an Asian and migrant sex workers support network that has continuously opposed the town bylaw, helped with the course. Levitt expressed that as an issue due to Butterfly’s sex work connection.
But Levitt said in his opening that whether the workers subsequently met education requirements should not necessarily determine the case.
“They (Top Health) did not act with honesty and integrity as to the bylaw, since they continued to operate their business without a business licence,” Irvine said.
No decisions on the appeal have yet been made. The hearing will continue Feb. 23.
