An Ontario Superior Court judge has denied an attempt by the founders of a controversial alternative pain treatment practice to halt a lawsuit launched by three former students.
Hazel Graves, Stephanie Menard and Nathalie McGlade-Lee were close to completing their programs in June 2017 at the Canadian Institute of Correactology when the dispute arose. They say they were expelled for breaching a confidentiality agreement when they consulted a lawyer regarding the enrolment and licence agreement they had to sign when they joined the program.
Correactology, according to the institute's website, is “a method of treating people who are sick or in pain by changing the density of the body’s cellular network, in a specific order.”
“The theory behind it is that disease and pain result from a shift in the density of the body’s cellular network, and that this can be improved by applying manual stimuli to the body’s surface to change cellular density and obtain 'Optimum Operating Density,' ” court transcripts say.
Tuition for the 3 1/2-year program is $50,000, and graduates must agree to give the institute 30 per cent of their gross revenues once they open a practice, “paid on a daily basis.”
It was founded in 2002 by two brothers from Sudbury, Michael and Allan Lapointe. They're named in the lawsuit, along with directors Angele Lapointe, Karen Boczek and Julie Bedard. Also named are Michael Lapointe and Louis Lapointe, who are named as directors of the Canadian Association of Correactology. Court transcripts say everyone named in the suit is related either by blood or marriage.
While not well known in the medical community, a McGill University look at Correactology in May of this year concluded it has all the hallmarks of a pseudoscience, including a fierce resistance to having their methods peer reviewed by scientists and medical doctors.
Collège Boréal began offering courses in the program in 2016, but now has stopped accepting students, according to a recent CBC News story. But there are several Correactology clinics in Ontario, and the website says there are plans to open one in Chelmsford next month.
While the institute gives successful graduates a diploma, it is not registered as a private college. However, the three expelled students say they were told “the practice of Correactology was very lucrative,” and they would be able to run their own Correactology business once they graduated.
After they were expelled, two of them attended a meeting with the brothers, as well as Louise and Angele Lapointe. They say they were warned not to bring lawyers.
“Ms. Graves and Ms. Menard allege that they were subject to threats and abusive interrogative tactics,” the transcript says. “They were told that other students would receive a drastic reduction in licensing fees, but that they would not because they had breached the confidentiality agreement.”
They sued in September 2017, alleging, among other things, that “the entire system of diplomas and certification offered by the defendants is a sham, and a fraudulent and illegal scheme. The plaintiffs further allege that the defendants are operating an unregistered private career college.”
Lawyers for the Correactology groups moved to stop the lawsuit, arguing that the agreements the former students signed included language stipulating that arbitration would be used to settle any disputes, rather than a lawsuit.
However, the judge in the case, the Hon. Sandra Nishikawa, ruled the language in the arbitration agreement the students signed also says that “this agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of Ontario, Canada and each party hereby submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of Ontario.” That created ambiguity over how binding the arbitration agreement is on the former students, she ruled.
Since the former students had no role in drafting any of the agreements they signed, and were unable to negotiate its terms, the judge ruled that past legal rulings meant “ambiguity with respect to the arbitration clause should be interpreted in favour of the plaintiffs.
“Because of the ambiguity, it would not be clear to prospective students of the institute that they would not have recourse to the courts in the event of a dispute.
"The essence of the dispute between the parties is the alleged fraud, misrepresentation, and breaches of the (law governing franchise agreements) and the (Private Career Colleges Act). The dispute is only tangentially related to the agreements, which the plaintiffs allege form part of the defendants’ fraudulent scheme.”
The judge also ruled that the Correactology Institute operates in a similar fashion to a private college, even though it is not registered as one, and tells graduates they will be licensed to treat “patients,” even though it is not governed by Ontario's Regulated Health Professions Act.
“Either way, the matters in dispute raise significant concerns about the legality of the defendants’ business,” Nishikawa wrote. “The invalidity of the arbitration clauses is not a mere allegation, but a serious issue, since the entire arrangement may be illegal or invalid.”
She refused to stop the lawsuit, and awarded the former students court costs of $6,587, payable within 30 days.
