# Optical Forums > Canadian Discussion Forum >  Another Great Glasses article

## Ory

Lots of fluff, nothing new:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/

----------


## jddean

http://www.macleans.ca/business/wire...ent=b173683525

----------


## eyemanflying

This is old news. Same stuff, different flavour.

----------


## mike.elmes

can someone phone the association and get an update? Shouldn't there be fines accumulating still?

----------


## eyemanflying

> can someone phone the association and get an update? Shouldn't there be fines accumulating still?


The latest update in a nutshell...the Attorney General is the government body that has legal authority to close the remaining GG stores, collect the fines and put Bergez in a cell with Bubba.

When the AG was pressed to proceed and asked why this hasn't yet happened, they informed the COO and OOA that it would be the responsibility of the College of Opticians to fight and prosecute further and obviously at our expense. I'm sure our legal reserve fund is on fumes by now.

Can you believe it??? Our own government condoning the act of profiting from illegal business activities, supporting tax evasion and illegal dispensing of a controlled act? 

This is exactly what it is and there is no positive spin that can be put on this.

Thanks Mr. Harper and Mr. McGuinty, I'm so glad to see my legitimate tax dollars hard at work.:hammer:

http://www.ontario-opticians.com/Pub...Oct%202009.pdf

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

,,

----------


## optical maven

Could you be more specific?  Which companies for which equipment?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

,,

----------


## eyemanflying

Another change of heart???

----------


## mike.elmes

refracting optician, was this a way of bumping this thread  or do you have something to add?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

No change of heart . But maybe it is time you figured it out yourselves .

----------


## eyemanflying

Oh, we figured it out a long time ago.

----------


## NorthStar

> Could you be more specific?  Which companies for which equipment?


I think it is Eyelogic.  One of the past presidents of the OAC, Donald Smith, sits on its board of directors along with its Calgary ophthalmologist inventor, Dr. Dyer.  Mr. Smith was on the Eyelogic board even while he was president of the OAC.

http://investing.businessweek.com/re...asp?ric=EYEa.V
http://infoventure.tsx.com/TSXVentur...14&HC_FLAG1=on

This year the company has become involved in a lawsuit - allegedly a Ponzi scheme involving real estate.

Great Glasses uses Eyelogic and tried to use this fact as part of his defense that the act of refraction had been remotely delegated from Dr. Dyer.
"Later, Bergez submitted that the inventor of the Eyelogic machine, an Alberta doctor, was effectively prescribing eyewear each time the machine printed out" from:
http://www.lawtimesnews.com/20061229954/Headline-News/Optician-appealing-record-$1-million-contempt-fine

----------


## optical maven

I was also told that a previous president of the Ontario Opticians Association was a principal in Eyelogic.  Of course, having a vested interest in a company is never a motivating factor nor a conflict of interest.

----------


## NorthStar

Ryan Hoult, the CFO of Eyelogic, is the son of Dr. Susan Cooper, a past president of the College of Optometrists and director of the IOBP program at UW for foreign eye doctors to obtain licensure in Canada. 
Is this a good thing since the Eyelogic refracting system is the cornerstone in the opticians' lobby for stand alone refraction?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Ryan Hoult, the CFO of Eyelogic, is the son of Dr. Susan Cooper, a past president of the College of Optometrists and director of the IOBP program at UW for foreign eye doctors to obtain licensure in Canada. 
> Is this a good thing since the Eyelogic refracting system is the cornerstone in the opticians' lobby for stand alone refraction?


Well I am not sure just what your point is ? If I remember right :

(1) Wasn't it an ophthalmologist that developed the system ? The biggest market for the system is to sell it to opticians if refraction was ever approved . 
(2) Optometrists have certainly profited from the system by accepting fees for a fax back system of approving the RX and legitimizing the refraction data even though there is  no proper  doctor /  patient relationship . 
(3) The College of Optometry has had  no qualms  about violating the Charter of Rights and trying to prohibit Freedom of Association ,  so it is not surprising that there would be other conflicts.

Are you saying that optometrists & ophthalmologists are doing something wrong by profiting from developing & marketing equipment to their only market (opticians ) and profiting on the backs of opticians as they also sue them for using the machine s they were just sold ?  

Is it really an opticians lobby ? I am not so sure . Isn't it more likely that the lobby originates from the Bigger O's and the equipment manufacturer ?  Follow the path of the cash flow.

From an OEM stand point it makes sense to hire a "insider" in my opinion.

----------


## NorthStar

Likely could be it's own thread, but this discussion left off mentioning opticians on the Eyelogic board.
From a recent ad, they seem to be trying to hire optometrists likely as the delegating authority to legalize opticians refracting, and responsible for covering a number of stores:
 
Eyelogic Systems Inc. is a leading provider of advanced eye care systems
and solutions. We help people see clearly. Our business is expanding to
provide fully managed eye exam centres. Were currently searching for licensed OPTOMETRISTS in the Greater Toronto Area to travel to various locations to provide superior patient care. Tremendous earning potential with a guaranteed minimum. No investment. No overhead. We provide work locations, equipment, administration, and support. Forward your c.v. via fax 403-264-9740 or email

The only OD's who would associate themselves with this company would be ones who do not realize or do not care about the implications (and the money of course).  And they may be subject to liability issues as well if glasses are dispensed upon an optician's refraction without them seeing the patient first.

----------


## Oedema

> Likely could be it's own thread, but this discussion left off mentioning opticians on the Eyelogic board.
> From a recent ad, they seem to be trying to hire optometrists likely as the delegating authority to legalize opticians refracting, and responsible for covering a number of stores:
>  
> Eyelogic Systems Inc. is a leading provider of advanced eye care systems
> and solutions. We help people see clearly. Our business is expanding to
> provide fully managed eye exam centres. Were currently searching for licensed OPTOMETRISTS in the Greater Toronto Area to travel to various locations to provide superior patient care. Tremendous earning potential with a guaranteed minimum. No investment. No overhead. We provide work locations, equipment, administration, and support. Forward your c.v. via fax 403-264-9740 or email
> 
> The only OD's who would associate themselves with this company would be ones who do not realize or do not care about the implications (and the money of course).  And they may be subject to liability issues as well if glasses are dispensed upon an optician's refraction without them seeing the patient first.


And they might just be setting up practices where the tech/optician does the refraction, and the OD does a health exam....  at least thats what I hope their  thing is about...

And I wouldn't worry about them finding enough OD's.. the GTA is full of disgruntled OD's looking for anything better then they're doing now.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> And they might just be setting up practices where the tech/optician does the refraction, and the OD does a health exam.... at least thats what I hope their thing is about...
> 
> And I wouldn't worry about them finding enough OD's.. the GTA is full of disgruntled OD's looking for anything better then they're doing now.


 
Why are optometrists disgruntled ?

----------


## Oedema

> Why are optometrists disgruntled ?


Many of my friends are unimpressed with the general atmosphere of the practices they work in: staff issues, issues with senior doctor, fee structure, quality and availability of equipment (far too many practices in the GTA do not have proper visual field units), scheduling, etc.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Many of my friends are unimpressed with the general atmosphere of the practices they work in: staff issues, issues with senior doctor, fee structure, quality and availability of equipment (far too many practices in the GTA do not have proper visual field units), scheduling, etc.


 

Forgive my ignorance , but would it not make sense then to purchase an optometrist's parctise or an optician's practise and just be self employed ?

----------


## Oedema

> Forgive my ignorance , but would it not make sense then to purchase an optometrist's parctise or an optician's practise and just be self employed ?


If you know of any for sale... let me know!  Very few are.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> If you know of any for sale... let me know! Very few are.


 
You are in Chicago ? My circle probably doesn't extend into that area . There are opportunities in old established opticians who have a large patient base, that could use an optometric influence.

----------


## AnotherOD

There was a practice for sale in the north-end of Scarborough for about 3 years but found no buyer.  The office eventually closed as the OD moved on to another opportunity.

Would it be smart to buy/open a private optometry practice in the GTA under the current practice environment?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> There was a practice for sale in the north-end of Scarborough for about 3 years but found no buyer. The office eventually closed as the OD moved on to another opportunity.
> 
> Would it be smart to buy/open a private optometry practice in the GTA under the current practice climate?


 
Can you set your own exam  fees ?

----------


## AnotherOD

Yes.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Yes.


Then what is the problem ? You have been shown the USP . Do it .

----------


## Oedema

> Then what is the problem ? You have been shown the USP . Do it .


Problem is, if you're in a practice populated largely by either seniors or children... exam fees can't be set in most provinces, and they pay squat.

Right now I'm practicing in BC, but may be headed back east to Ontario in the future.  I guess i could update my locale. :)

----------


## kcount

> If you know of any for sale... let me know! Very few are.


where are you in Chicago?

----------


## kcount

> Problem is, if you're in a practice populated largely by either seniors or children... exam fees can't be set in most provinces, and they pay squat.
> 
> Right now I'm practicing in BC, but may be headed back east to Ontario in the future. I guess i could update my locale. :)


Ontario would be nice, may I suggest looking into Kitchener/Waterloo. College town so college kid's with mom and dads credit card.

----------


## Oedema

> Ontario would be nice, may I suggest looking into Kitchener/Waterloo. College town so college kid's with mom and dads credit card.


Been there, done that... Not as many college kids in KW get mom/dads credit card as you may think... my impression of my fellow students at the time was that they were almost all very frugal... except when it came to the EtOH...:cheers:

----------


## Ory

KW is way too overpopulated with ODs due to the presence of the school at UW.  People make friends with local ODs at the school and stick around.

----------


## optical maven

Just read on the COO web site that Bruce had his license revoked.  Does that make any difference to the functioning of Great Glasses?  Can the COO now close the chain or does it move dispensing one step closer to an unregulated business?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Just read on the COO web site that Bruce had his license revoked. Does that make any difference to the functioning of Great Glasses? Can the COO now close the chain or does it move dispensing one step closer to an unregulated business?


He did not abide by anyones rules or laws while he had a license so what possible diference could this make ? 

COO and the Attorney General and Deb Matthews at MOH just all look like fools now . 

Did anyone close any stores or seize any assets ?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

By revoking his license , on grounds that he is "ungovernable" the COO has admitted defeat and washed their hands of him. The stores are still open . Now it is a civil matter . 

Moral of the story , you can only regulate those that will abide by regulation.

----------


## AnotherOD

Wow!  That is just nuts.

So in other words, if you just defy regulations until the College gives up, then you are basically free to do as you please?

My goodness - aren't Colleges supposed to regulate the practice of their profession?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Wow! That is just nuts.
> 
> So in other words, if you just defy regulations until the College gives up, then you are basically free to do as you please?
> 
> My goodness - aren't Colleges supposed to regulate the practice of their profession?


 
Speaking of which , what is the matter with the College of Optometrists in this case ?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Wow! That is just nuts.
> 
> So in other words, if you just defy regulations until the College gives up, then you are basically free to do as you please?
> 
> My goodness - aren't Colleges supposed to regulate the practice of their profession?


 
It only works if you are first "judgment proof "

----------


## eyemanflying

> Speaking of which , what is the matter with the College of Optometrists in this case ?


I'm shocked to say the least that AnotherOD is supposedly an Ontario OD and seems like this is the first time he/she has heard of this case???

----------


## AnotherOD

> I'm shocked to say the least that AnotherOD is supposedly an Ontario OD and seems like this is the first time he/she has heard of this case???


Umm.  No.

I was responding to the fact that the Optician College has simply decided to revoke his registration, essentially deeming his actions outside of their jurisdiction.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Umm. No.
> 
> I was responding to the fact that the Optician College has simply decided to revoke his registration, essentially deeming his actions outside of their jurisdiction.


In my opinion, The College of Optometrists did no better than the College of Opticians  They are just as negligent,

In my opinion ,the Registrar and Past President of The College of Opticians and their lawyers were  negligent in their duties to protect the public .In my opinion they abandoned their duties and their own members . 

The members need to reign in their Registar, stop her travels outside of the Province of Ontario and cut her budgets . She needs to learn her position as an employee .  In my opinion, the Past President should resign from council . One of the northeren Secretariat's choices should also resign. After many years on Council, if a peson can not answer simple questions about budget expense amounting to 85,000.00 per year , then it is time that the membership and council cut out the dead wood. 

The membership has nothing to show for all the money and faith they invested in The Registrar, Past President  and the HUGE dollars they spent  on the  lawyers. No  results after 8 years should mean NO PAY . Their jobs should be on the FIRING line. They have become too complacent and non producing after years of living high on the hog on membership money. In my opinion, The Registrar & past President should resign. 

In my opinioin they have failed to warn the public . 

You are an optometrist , tell me what has the College of Optometrists done to warn the public and protect you as a member ?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

In my opinion, The membership themselves are also to blame . Very few  opticians in my opinon , even picked up the phone or wrote a letter to their MPPs , Chris Bentley the Attorney General, or Deb Matthews the Mnister of Health . Practically no members  show up at COO meetings to see the nonsense that goes on . Even fewer question their own Associations who never open their "Official Voices "  .  

Now just why is that ?  Why would members keep renewing their Association fees when the "Official Voice " has laryngitis ?

----------


## eyemanflying

> Umm. No.
> 
> I was responding to the fact that the Optician College has simply decided to revoke his registration, essentially deeming his actions outside of their jurisdiction.


Got ya.

----------


## armstrong

> I'm shocked to say the least that AnotherOD is supposedly an Ontario OD and seems like this is the first time he/she has heard of this case???


But to be fair, I'm certain there are at least a few news-ignorant ODs who are generally unaware of this case. But it must be noted BB is ultimately an optician - so that does make a difference. 

Then again, some ODs just live in their own bubble trying to make as much money as they can, and take no interest in the profession around them. I went to school with some of them (although they are in the distinct minority).

----------


## AnotherOD

> You are an optometrist , tell me what has the College of Optometrists done to warn the public and protect you as a member ?


I understand your argument (BB is violating optometric regulations as well as optician regulations) - and therefore the Optom College should have the mandate to take action.

That said, could the Optom College simply say that he's an optician, and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the Optician College? (not that they have, as they have been involved in the prosecution against BB)

I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but the Assoc of Optoms of Ontario attempted a civil suit against BB back in ~October or so.  The judge dismissed the case before it was even tried on technical grounds (that it should tried be in a different geographical district).

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> I understand your argument (BB is violating optometric regulations as well as optician regulations) - and therefore the Optom College should have the mandate to take action.
> 
> That said, could the Optom College simply say that he's an optician, and therefore is under the jurisdiction of the Optician College? (not that they have, as they have been involved in the prosecution against BB)
> 
> I'm not sure if you guys are aware, but the Assoc of Optoms of Ontario attempted a civil suit against BB back in ~October or so. The judge dismissed the case before it was even tried on technical grounds (that it should tried be in a different geographical district).


In my opinion, That is the very reason why heads need to roll and be chopped at the Association and College levels. An untrained person that represents themself in court is making mince meat out of the Colleges and their HIGH OVERPRICED LAWYERS !!! 


Our "leaders"  can't hire lawyers that understand what jurisdiction to file in and can't figure out who has jurisdiction to sue ? 

Give me a break. It is time to fire leaders that hire lawyers that don't know what they are doing . No results should equal NO PAY , NO JOB . Doesn't matter whether it is the College leaders or the College lawyers .  We might as well hire paralegals or represent ourselveves . We don't need to pay for Ivory Towers  .

----------


## AnotherOD

Point taken.

But if I'm not mistaken, he had a lawyer represent him in the civil suit.

He largely represented himself in the Optician College investigation in the early goings, then hired a lawyer later (played like a violin).

At least that's the impression I got.

But you have to admit, this person completely knows how to play the system.  He just keeps pushing and getting what he wants.  And no one is stopping him.  It's nuts.

----------


## AnotherOD

Just curious - does anyone know what the "unofficial" relationship between the two Colleges are?

I imagine the associations aren't collegial (a quick glance at the Ontario Optician's Assoc website would suggest this).

But what about the Colleges?  They worked together against BB sort of (on the dispensing part, not on the refracting part).

Is the optician registrar Lorne Kashin?  What is his level of like/dislike with the Ontario registrar?

I'm just curious since there is obviously professional friction between the two Os, but what about the actual personalities?

----------


## idispense

The OAC and OOA don't seem to say much . I would have to assume then that they support this business model.

----------


## eyemanflying

It's the old saying...if you don't act, you condone!

----------


## Ory

> Just curious - does anyone know what the "unofficial" relationship between the two Colleges are?
> 
> I imagine the associations aren't collegial (a quick glance at the Ontario Optician's Assoc website would suggest this).
> 
> But what about the Colleges?  They worked together against BB sort of (on the dispensing part, not on the refracting part).
> 
> Is the optician registrar Lorne Kashin?  What is his level of like/dislike with the Ontario registrar?
> 
> I'm just curious since there is obviously professional friction between the two Os, but what about the actual personalities?


I would guess not so friendly, especially as the college of opticians originally intervened _on Bergez's behalf_.

http://www.canlii.org/eliisa/highlig...nlii39086.html

I'm certainly less than impressed with their attempts to "protect the public"

----------


## optical maven

As has been said many times before, the College of Optometrists intervened because the College of Opticians did nothing.  The Opticians were angered that the Optometrists were treading on their turf.   If the optometrists had not pursued the case nothing would have been done.  But what is to be done now?  Other than the Hamilton Spectator, the media doesn't cover the story.   Optometrists pursued the case and won judgement.  The guy owes over $50,000,000 and still nothing is happening from the government that we can see.  He didn't pay his taxes and didn't pay Workman's Comp and still he is operation.  Obviously the government doesn't view this as very important stuff.  It is up to opticians to go to the stores with a sherriff and place a lock on their doors.  Can they do this?   Optometrists can't do any more than they have done.  The College of Opticians has to step up to the plate now.

----------


## AnotherOD

> I would guess not so friendly, especially as the college of opticians originally intervened _on Bergez's behalf_.


Wow.

[3] Bruce Bergez was the only party to respond to this application and was self-represented. The College of Opticians of Ontario (COC) intervened.

----------


## AnotherOD

> The College of Opticians has to step up to the plate now.


I think we can conclude with their recent decision, that they have chosen not to.

----------


## idispense

When a person brags about all the EyeLogic shares one owns , and the dividends that come from these , then that should tell you quite the story. I gues if the shares rise then one would be cashing in.   Lol

----------


## idispense

> I think we can conclude with their recent decision, that they have chosen not to.


A recent newspaper article in the London Free Press kinda indicated that Optometry was backing off some options and for some reason optometry faces were distinctly  missing at some London meetings too ! In fact it made one wonder just why that would be  ? Did someone discourage attendance ?

----------


## idispense

another article:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2.../13120066.html

----------


## AnotherOD

> When a person brags about all the EyeLogic shares one owns , and the dividends that come from these , then that should tell you quite the story. I gues if the shares rise then one would be cashing in.   Lol


Umm... care to elaborate?  Is the person you are referring to an optometrist or an optician?

----------


## idispense

So what would you do in this market ? Would you place your bets on Sunlife ? Greensheild ? Manulife ? Lux ? Eye Logic ? Coastal Contacts ? Which one do you think has the best near term prospects ? What would affect the value of each and cause one to go up or another to go down ?

Stocks go up and stocks go down. We have certainly all witnessed that in the past few years . If you believe in going short and stocks go down , or if you believe in only being long and stocks go up, then you could be cashin in .

----------


## optical maven

Err...  Yup...





> So what would you do in this market ? Would you place your bets on Sunlife ? Greensheild ? Manulife ? Lux ? Eye Logic ? Coastal Contacts ? Which one do you think has the best near term prospects ? What would affect the value of each and cause one to go up or another to go down ?
> 
> Stocks go up and stocks go down. We have certainly all witnessed that in the past few years . If you believe in going short and stocks go down , or if you believe in only being long and stocks go up, then you could be cashin in .

----------


## NorthStar

In addition to Don Smith, a number of high ranking opticians are rumoured to be shareholders in Eyelogic, and, thus, the reason for inaction on the OOA in the GG case. Howver, I am not sure if Eyelogic is a safe investment judging from the Shire lawsuit which alleges that Eyelogic is merely a front and is the major shareholder in a myriad of companies (171 according Eyelogic's 2009 annual report) in which Eyelogic collects fees for lining up investors for these other companies. 
http://sites.google.com/site/shireinvestor/Home
(3rd article in list _Amended Statement of Claim_..page 13-17 specifically addresses Eyelogic's role in this Ponzi-style scheme involving real estate developments that never materialized)
All the companies involved such as Olympia have the same CEO's/directors, with Rick Skauge as the central character. In fact, the 2 largest shareholders of Eyelogic - Target Capital (pulbicly traded like Eyelogic) and Tarman Inc. - are shell companies created and run by Rick Skauge and the same group of directors as Eyelogic. The CFO of Eyelogic is also the CFO or Target Capital, Ryan Hoult, who is the son of a past president of the College of Optometrists/director of IOBP at UW. Many connections, and players in this complicated maze of companies. I think this company would do anything to raise capital.
In reality, if the equipment was any good and had a decent return on investment, they would have been selling to optometrists, however, in their 2005 annual report, Eyelogic confirms that opticians are their primary market. I don't think they have even tried to market this equipment to optometrists. Eyelogic is a one-trick pony selling only one piece of equipment.

----------


## idispense

Cashin, cashout

----------


## Ory

Copied from the classifieds at opticalprism.ca:

Optometrists—Ontario Eyelogic Systems Inc. is a leading provider of advanced eye care systems and solutions. We help people see clearly. Our business is expanding to provide fully managed eye exam centres. We’re currently searching for licensed optometrists in the Greater Toronto Area to travel to various locations to provide superior patient care. Tremendous earning potential with a guaranteed minimum. No investment. No overhead. We provide work locations, equipment, administration, and support. Forward your CV via fax 403-264-9740 or email info@eyelogic.com

Looks like Eyelogic wants to cater to ODs;  at least unscrupulous unemployed ones...

----------


## AnotherOD

Is it certain they intend to use eyelogic for remote sight-testing?

----------


## idispense

Cater to OD's ? No,no ,no ! They want Od's to cater to their business model .

----------


## NorthStar

Eyelogic equipment has been used for remote eye testing in BC and Alberta in the past. Now Eyelogic has a contract with Loblaws in BC for their opticians to refract in that province. 
From Eyelogic's 2008 annual report:
_Beginning in January of this year, management held several meetings with the goal of evaluating our lack of success in penetrating the medical_ _market. We concluded the greatest obstacle we had to over come was the lack of acceptance of our product by optometrists who in large part do not_ _delegate the refraction process to technicians. The old paradigm is still the norm and will continue to be for quite some time._ _We then focused our meetings on how our existing technology and market position could be used to deliver the most value to customers and the public._ _We concluded that our Company should shift from just selling refraction technology to providing an entire eye examination service to optical stores._ _Optical stores survive by selling prescription eyewear. Although, most optical stores (including big box national opticals), do not have a direct link_ _to prescriptions. This market condition, along with our unique position in the marketplace, provides our Company with a remarkable opportunity._ _We have discussed our eye exam model with big box retailers and have received positive feedback._

----------


## NorthStar

From what I have heard, the deal for the OD is that they cover a few optical stores and are paid relatively well for a part-time gig (no overhead, travel expenses, keep exam fees, base salary).  However, it is clear the OD must allow the optical store to refract with the Eyelogic equipment, and the patient returns for the health part with the OD on the day he/she is scheduled to be there.  (I wonder when the patient has to pay for the split up exam - at the refraction part (free?) or when they actually see the eye doctor?)  On the other side the optical store does not have any upfront fees and it is pitched as a fee per patient ($40/patient?) - like the Optomap business model - but I imagine the store pays the entire monthly rent on the equipment regardless if any customers are refracted.  

Eyelogic is holding themselves out as the Trojan horse to opticians leading them in their quest for refraction with the perception that the optician will be protected from persecution by Eyelogic and their OD.  The OD or refracting MD (Eyelogic had ads out to them a few months before the OD ad) could end up being the patsy; it is their name being used for Rx authourity.  However, legally, it gets murky if the OD does have an "office" onsite with the onus on the patient to return.  So the store could possibly refract and dispense before there is even a doctor-patient relationship established, or if the patient does not return for the health part there would be no doctor-patient relationship; I doubt the Eyelogic would simply sit idle until the day the OD is scheduled.  The college of optometrists' rules normally would/should never allow this type of employment or forced delegation.  As well, there is no guarantee that an optician would do the refraction; like GG, in many locations, they have no optician.

Eyelogic would love to see more GG-type locations with opticians or technicians (it does not matter to them) refracting - their business model is counting on it.

----------


## Oedema

Eyelogic, as a company, has no long term value.  Their product is not in any way particularly unique, as they simply bundle an equipment package with their own software to control it all.  If they really wanted to cash out they should be licensing their software to equipment manufacturers.  As it stands they have little to no market penetration outside Canada, and even that is tenuous as any smart refracting optician would just buy a cheap used phoropter and forget about the expensive monthly payments to eyelogic.

Frankly I can't understand why more opticians with the eyelogic system haven't figured that out?

----------


## AnotherOD

Well - Eyelogic does allow a non-refractionist to perform the refraction.

So someone running a gig like BB would be able to make use of it.

----------


## eyemanflying

> Eyelogic, as a company, has no long term value. Their product is not in any way particularly unique, as they simply bundle an equipment package with their own software to control it all. If they really wanted to cash out they should be licensing their software to equipment manufacturers. As it stands they have little to no market penetration outside Canada, and even that is tenuous as any smart refracting optician would just buy a cheap used phoropter and forget about the expensive monthly payments to eyelogic.
> 
> Frankly I can't understand why more opticians with the eyelogic system haven't figured that out?


 
Because it's alot more accurate with near perfect results, requires little training; not to mention the use of phoropter technology was developed when dinosuars still roamed the earth. Hence the hefty price tag of time and convenience.

On a side note, in response to optometry, it's rather humerous that we are 100 years ahead of ourselves in the sense that we have already developed free form technology and digital surfacing accurate to a 1/100th of a diopter, yet we still perform refractions with a phoropter set accurate to only a .12th or .25th of a diopter and based on one's 'opinion' or 'judgement'??? 

Isn't the cart before the horse here???? The schools and universities really have to start investing in the technological advancement of optometry and it all starts at this level.

----------


## Oedema

> Because it's alot more accurate with near perfect results, requires little training; not to mention the use of phoropter technology was developed when dinosuars still roamed the earth. Hence the hefty price tag of time and convenience.
> 
> On a side note, in response to optometry, it's rather humerous that we are 100 years ahead of ourselves in the sense that we have already developed free form technology and digital surfacing accurate to a 1/100th of a diopter, yet we still perform refractions with a phoropter set accurate to only a .12th or .25th of a diopter and based on one's 'opinion' or 'judgement'??? 
> 
> Isn't the cart before the horse here???? The schools and universities really have to start investing in the technological advancement of optometry and it all starts at this level.


at the end of the day its still an old school phoropter, rendering it no more "accurate" than any other phoropter.  Yes, any idiot can operate an eyelogic unit, but the same can be said of a regular phoropter, it doesn't take much.  The eyelogic unit will fail at delivering a clear and COMFORTABLE refraction is much the same way that an inexperienced refractionist will.

If you think we're dragging our knuckles here performing refractions in 0.25 diopter increments, I invite you to spend a day doing those refractions.  You'll soon learn that most people can hardly tell the difference between a 1/4 diopter, and a good number of them don't even respond to 1/2 diopter changes!  The cart really is before the horse with technology because we really cant perform refractions to anywhere near the accuracy that a lens can be produced.

----------


## eyemanflying

> at the end of the day its still an old school phoropter, rendering it no more "accurate" than any other phoropter. Yes, any idiot can operate an eyelogic unit, but the same can be said of a regular phoropter, it doesn't take much. The eyelogic unit will fail at delivering a clear and COMFORTABLE refraction is much the same way that an inexperienced refractionist will.
> 
> If you think we're dragging our knuckles here performing refractions in 0.25 diopter increments, I invite you to spend a day doing those refractions. You'll soon learn that most people can hardly tell the difference between a 1/4 diopter, and a good number of them don't even respond to 1/2 diopter changes! The cart really is before the horse with technology because we really cant perform refractions to anywhere near the accuracy that a lens can be produced.


If people can barely notice a 0.50D difference, explain why then there are so many doctor's changes remakes genious? And the national average of remakes due to doctor's changes is a little bit less than 10%?  Definitely room for improvement.

----------


## Rob Brown

> at the end of the day its still an old school phoropter, rendering it no more "accurate" than any other phoropter. Yes, any idiot can operate an eyelogic unit, but the same can be said of a regular phoropter, it doesn't take much. The eyelogic unit will fail at delivering a clear and COMFORTABLE refraction is much the same way that an inexperienced refractionist will.
> 
> If you think we're dragging our knuckles here performing refractions in 0.25 diopter increments, I invite you to spend a day doing those refractions. You'll soon learn that most people can hardly tell the difference between a 1/4 diopter, and a good number of them don't even respond to 1/2 diopter changes! The cart really is before the horse with technology because we really cant perform refractions to anywhere near the accuracy that a lens can be produced.


Now, if we could combine experience with technology, the world would be a beautiful place. :)

----------


## Oedema

> If people can barely notice a 0.50D difference, explain why then there are so many doctor's changes remakes genious? And the national average of remakes due to doctor's changes is a little bit less than 10%?  Definitely room for improvement.


10%?  Seriously?  I certainly can't explain that.  I stick to my assertion that there are tons of people that can't discern a difference between a 1/2 diopter, at least not in the exam room anyways.

----------


## eyemanflying

> 10%? Seriously? I certainly can't explain that. I stick to my assertion that there are tons of people that can't discern a difference between a 1/2 diopter, at least not in the exam room anyways.


It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid.  We could definitely use some of that up here. :D

----------


## Ory

> It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid.  We could definitely use some of that up here. :D


No, he's right.  Patients are amazingly unobservant in the exam room.  It is routine to make 1/2D changes and get a very unsure response. 1/4D is downright painful most of the time.  Sure there are those extremely picky people out there, but they sure don't make up 10% of the population.  Where do you get that as the "national average" of remakes, because if that is so I am waaaaaay under that average.

I would be really curious to see the following scenario:  Every patient who comes in and requires a redo gets a brand new pair of lenses in _the exact same Rx._  How many would go away because there was a minor distortion in a lens or because that patient is convinced they "always have trouble with new glasses."  I really wonder how many redos are Rx related vs. some outside/secondary factor.

----------


## Oedema

> It must be that good ole Chicago Kool-Aid.  We could definitely use some of that up here. :D


Nah, now that I'm in BC.... Alcohol, mood altering Rx drugs, and BC bud, or some some combination thereof.  Damn west coast hippies!

----------


## eyemanflying

> No, he's right. Patients are amazingly unobservant in the exam room. It is routine to make 1/2D changes and get a very unsure response. 1/4D is downright painful most of the time. Sure there are those extremely picky people out there, but they sure don't make up 10% of the population. Where do you get that as the "national average" of remakes, because if that is so I am waaaaaay under that average.
> 
> I would be really curious to see the following scenario: Every patient who comes in and requires a redo gets a brand new pair of lenses in _the exact same Rx._ How many would go away because there was a minor distortion in a lens or because that patient is convinced they "always have trouble with new glasses." I really wonder how many redos are Rx related vs. some outside/secondary factor.


I agree and am convinced that there is usually an underlying reason that never surfaces. I remember in my ole retail days of processing a doctor's change and the customer would ask if it was ok to change the frame model at the same time and the Rx only changed 0.25D or a few degrees on the CYL! And back then I was young and inexperienced and would be scratching my head.

That national average I was referring to a few posts back includes remakes for all reasons; including doctor's changes which is probably only a small portion.

----------


## AnotherOD

Umm, speaking of the eyecare leadership... shouldn't there be any rules against high-ranking leaders having commercial interests in publicly traded companies like Eyelogic/Coastal etc.?  

These individuals are obviously are privy to certain amounts of possibly confidential information, which can be used to advance the business interests of these companies.

----------


## idispense

> Umm, speaking of the eyecare leadership... shouldn't there be any rules against high-ranking leaders having commercial interests in publicly traded companies like Eyelogic/Coastal etc.? 
> 
> These individuals are obviously are privy to certain amounts of possibly confidential information, which can be used to advance the business interests of these companies.


I am very surprised with optometry about this .

----------


## optical maven

So is the Great Glasses saga now dead?  Is he here to stay and  is there nothing anyone can do to stop him from breaking the law?  If so, it means anyone in Ontario can examine eyes and sell eyewear.  Is he paying his fines?  As the opticians' Canadian and Ontario associations say:  We are increasing people's choice.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> So is the Great Glasses saga now dead? Is he here to stay and is there nothing anyone can do to stop him from breaking the law? If so, it means anyone in Ontario can examine eyes and sell eyewear. Is he paying his fines? As the opticians' Canadian and Ontario associations say: We are increasing people's choice.


 If there is someone doing something about it, it surely is not who should have been doing it all along .

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

Ontario Opticians Smarten Up before it is too late . In BC anyone can dispense . Don't let that happen here . 

 ...Go to the College meetings and see for yourself . Your Future is worth it . 

... There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it.

----------


## LandLord

> Ontario Opticians Smarten Up before it is too late . In BC anyone can dispense . Don't let that happen here . 
> 
> ...Go to the College meetings and see for yourself . Your Future is worth it . 
> 
> ... There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it.


Which camps are you referring to?

----------


## Flybynight

> Which camps are you referring to?


"There are good people working to protect opticianry, but most of you are in the wrong camp and don't even know it."

Would you let me know in which camp I should pitch my tent. I'm not sure where to nail in the pegs or who I should camp with. All help would be appreciated.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

The first place to pitch your tent is at the College meetings so you can personally see the problem. it begins with your Registrar and the Councillors. You have to see it to believe it and just one meeting isn't enough. One will open your eyes, two meetings will confirm what you could not believe and 3 meetings will disgust you so much you will wonder who ever voted in those Councillors. It is very difficult to believe that one person is actually an employee and yet the employee is telling the bosses ( Councillors ) what to do . It is *** backwards . What is worse is that half the Councillors are wimps with no guts to fix what they must know is wrong . We must hope that MOH appoints a supervisor to straighten out these Councillors.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

We have to hope that a supervisor will be appointed because so far there is not enough opticians with balls enough to show up to the College meetings to see the truth. And 15 opticians would very seriously overcrowd the place that was supposeably just renovated at a huge cost . 

Councillors would not permit their own business to be run like the College is. Councillors  would not put up with insubordination in their own businesses. However, running the College is not their own business nor are they  spending their own money. It is your  money  that is running out the door like a leaky faucet turned on full . 

It is because opticians do not give two hoots about their future and Councillors know that optician members will not show up to meetings, that Councillors can run everything amok. They are not afraid because they know opticians don't have the guts and fortitude to stand up for right and wrong . If opticians would show up to meetings the BergerSleezer could have been stopped a long time ago. And some firings would have occurred a long time ago.

----------


## cleyes

Eyelogic probably invented for MD's so they could eliminate time consuming refractions done by "highly trained" techs, thereby increasing patient load.  If highly accurate with a low redo rate, I can see them running to buy... most of them hate refracting.  I have seen auto refractor printouts handed to patients as a valid Rx in NY, when these machines were just glorified retinoscopes.

----------


## NorthStar

AG finally taking action?  Seizing GG assets and jail time - should be interesting how this plays out.

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764181

----------


## LandLord

doubt he will go to jail, but even if he does go for a year, it's probably worth the millions to him

----------


## optical maven

If the Attorney General is involved it is now serious.  If they let this go unpunished it affects the whole RHPA and enforcement for any indiscretion of the act.  That is, someone who scales teeth (a contolled act) without a license can point to this case as precedent if nothing is done.  If there is no enforcement and subsequent consequence of the act, it is meaningless.

----------


## idispense

> If the Attorney General is involved it is now serious. If they let this go unpunished it affects the whole RHPA and enforcement for any indiscretion of the act. That is, someone who scales teeth (a contolled act) without a license can point to this case as precedent if nothing is done. If there is no enforcement and subsequent consequence of the act, it is meaningless.


 

Coastal Contacts is going  unchallenged in Ontario & Alberta, so the act is already meaningless . 

Only last year , a past  President refused to take action against an internet vendor operating out of the GTA.  What does that tell you ? 

At best we have a two tiered system. 

Joining the Society might be the only course of action . The Society has been proactive and outspoken. The other group has not  even shown up at COO meetings  recently .  

I have some doubts about the seriousness of the AG. GG would have known that eventually the AG would get involved and yet that did not stop him from coming this far and he has not taken flight. 

Coastal won in BC and did not get a reprimand or penalty. What's different here ?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

If you were pushing 60 ish , and had 58 million available to pay the fine, would you self represent yourself in court against the battery of seasoned and disciplined lawyers like the AG would have at his disposal and budget? Would you risk jail versus heading for a non-extraditable country like perhaps sunny Costa Rica ? 

Does this really add up ? Do you really think BB thinks he will lose ? Do you think BB is worried ?

In BC The Minister of Health over ruled  a Provincial Judge at the very last moment.  What is BB banking on ?

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> AG finally taking action? Seizing GG assets and jail time - should be interesting how this plays out.
> 
> http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/764181


 
What assets are going to be seized ?

----------


## AnotherOD

Given that what GG does would be perfectly legal in BC, does that take away some of the teeth of those in Ontario who are prosecuting him?

----------


## idispense

> Given that what GG does would be perfectly legal in BC, does that take away some of the teeth of those in Ontario who are prosecuting him?


 
The answer to that depends on whether you think , GG is being prosecuted or whether you believe the opposite is true,,, GG is prosecuting them .

----------


## idispense

A motion to close 4 stores only and/or put those 4 stores into receivership and to possibly commit 1 person to 2 years in jail and/or commit another person to 1 year in jail is not worth 58 million dollars. 

Now lets just think on this a minute . IF each of 4 stores had ( and I don't think they do)  2000 frames each then there would be 8000 frames total. Now if at wholesale, those frames were worth ( and they are not )  25.00 each , then the entire inventory is worth a whopping $ 200,000.00 . Now all of the premises, & equipment will be leased . So the net assets at wholesale , not at liquidation prices is 200,000.00 .

Now if you could spend 2 years in jail , keep 20 out of 24 stores , not pay 58 million in exchange for old frames not worth $ 200,000.00 and stillk keep the proceeds from all your stores , not pay 400,000.00 in out standing legal bills ,,,,, then tell me again who is prosecuting whom ?

----------


## LandLord

Maybe if he threatens to move his company to another province, the government will announce a chance to Ontario laws.

It worked for Coastal Contacts.

----------


## Chris Ryser

Obviously it has gotten all of you nowhere. It was interesting to follow the legal procedures which ended up in the sand with no action despite judgements rendered.

I would assume that the glasses sold in their various stores nrver even approach the quantity delivered into Ontario by the various on line sellers  who do not recognize borders or local state or provincial laws.

The 10 largest ones produce an estimated 20 to 25,000 pairs a day of which most of them are going to addresses in North America, which includes Canada. The second largest is Essilor owned by majority of their shares. So they could be a much larger threat than any of the Great Glasses ever were, so why is this subject not touched in this thread?

How long will it be until you have a branch of Frames Direct working right out of Toronto  ?

----------


## idispense

> Obviously it has gotten all of you nowhere. It was interesting to follow the legal procedures which ended up in the sand with no action despite judgements rendered.
> 
> I would assume that the glasses sold in their various stores nrver even approach the quantity delivered into Ontario by the various on line sellers who do not recognize borders or local state or provincial laws.
> 
> The 10 largest ones produce an estimated 20 to 25,000 pairs a day of which most of them are going to addresses in North America, which includes Canada. The second largest is Essilor owned by majority of their shares. So they could be a much larger threat than any of the Great Glasses ever were, so why is this subject not touched in this thread?
> 
> How long will it be until you have a branch of Frames Direct working right out of Toronto ?


Conversations with various  licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled "  or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "

It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .

----------


## idispense

> Conversations with various licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled " or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "
> 
> It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .


I mean no disrespect, but the fact of the matter is that licensing bodies are self governing and their boards are made up of old school opticians that were educated in opticianry pehaps 30 years ago. They are not educated in  governance or technology or even business and they know nothing about law and you would be lucky to  find a non-public member that knew anyhting about accounting. . 

I mean no disrespect when I say this either, the governing boards have no respect for new ideas. If they do not understand it, then they feel they are being challenged and they shut down . The most common tool they use everyday is still a PD ruler , a modified flashlight device called a PD scope and an ancient modified microscope called a B&L vertometer. 

Asking the existing regulatory bodies to deal with internet matters would be like asking one of them to point out the x,y encoder on the shaft of their patternless edger .

Again , I mean no disrespect, but they are out of their element and have no training that  would allow them to think out side of their box-o-graph .

----------


## idispense

> Conversations with various licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled " or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "
> 
> It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .


 


Basically, you will not find a regulatory body that will say " it doesn't matter where the sale is initiated, the fact is that internet seller is advertising a product in my regulated territory and that requires a licensed person to dispense in my territory " .  The regulatory bodies have already been preconditioned by .........,  to think it can not be fixed .

----------


## Flybynight

> I mean no disrespect, but the fact of the matter is that licensing bodies are self governing and their boards are made up of old school opticians that were educated in opticianry pehaps 30 years ago. They are not educated in  governance or technology or even business and they know nothing about law and you would be lucky to  find a non-public member that knew anyhting about accounting. . 
> 
> I mean no disrespect when I say this either, the governing boards have no respect for new ideas. If they do not understand it, then they feel they are being challenged and they shut down . The most common tool they use everyday is still a PD ruler , a modified flashlight device called a PD scope and an ancient modified microscope called a B&L vertometer. 
> 
> Asking the existing regulatory bodies to deal with internet matters would be like asking one of them to point out the x,y encoder on the shaft of their patternless edger .
> 
> Again , I mean no disrespect, but they are out of their element and have no training that  would allow them to think out side of their box-o-graph .


Of course you meant disrespect - your response to this post is as disingenuous as your responses to many  threads. Flame all you want, make up whatever c.... that comes to mind its a lot of fun to read and it"s a great game. But please spare us the " I mean no disrespect" s....! Lets face it, you post to further your own agenda and that of the organization you support. Your posts read mostly like a fairy tale and in some cases are out right hilarious. Hey - don't stop I get a good chuckle every time I read your stuff. Almost like the "Joke of the Day"

----------


## NorthStar

BB busted for speeding.  Too bad he wasn't going 1km more.  I wonder if he will pay this fine.  If not, in this case, action would be taken immediately - he would lose his license which probably would not stop him from driving...

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/767724

----------


## Oedema

What a surprise:




> The car is leased in the name of Bergez's wife, Joanne.

----------


## NorthStar

Probably realized he couldn't lease it in his dog's name.

----------


## AnotherOD

So he's in court today and tomorrow right?

"A two-day court hearing is scheduled for June 28 and 29 in Hamilton."

http://www.thespec.com/article/764181

----------


## idispense

Will there be any opticians there to show strength ? 45 Main St East in Hamilton . The Sopinka Court house  6 th floor .

----------


## idispense

If the Attorney General has 2 lawyers and The College of Optometry had 2 lawyers and the College of Opticians had 2 lawyers there and the Receiver had 1 then there would be 7 lawyers present to go up against 1 Offender . Now Mr Offender would probably self represent himself and not take an assistant with him as he does not need any assistance or baggage boys to carry the files. Now just supposing that lawyers charge out at 400.00 per hour for litigation. That means that the court case was posted to run at 10 AM and finish at 5 PM which is 7 hours . So 7 hours times 7 lawyers times 400.00 per hour = $ 19, 600.00 not including travel time . Only one lawyer could speak at a time so 6 would sit  idle for most of the day . Still that is over $ 20,000.00 of lawyering which has produced exactly nothing in the past eight years . Now a judges time must be included in the bill someplace . Hmmmm , a lot of money for no results.  

And the same will be spent again tomorrow ?

----------


## mike.elmes

yet another update....the end is near.
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/798356
Lets see what Bergez defence skills amount to.

----------


## NorthStar

_"...Under a proposed order submitted to the judge, the receiver would take control of Great Glasses stores, remove all of the automated eye-testing machines that have been used to provide prescriptions in violation of health regulations, and investigate the financial affairs of the stores to see if any of the outstanding fines can be recovered._
_If necessary, Marsello added, the stores could be sold in block to an operator prepared to follow the law."_

Hmmmm....opportunity for a chain of stores for bargain price...?  Any possible takers?

----------


## idispense

> _"...Under a proposed order submitted to the judge, the receiver would take control of Great Glasses stores, remove all of the automated eye-testing machines that have been used to provide prescriptions in violation of health regulations, and investigate the financial affairs of the stores to see if any of the outstanding fines can be recovered._
> _If necessary, Marsello added, the stores could be sold in block to an operator prepared to follow the law."_
> 
> Hmmmm....opportunity for a chain of stores for bargain price...? Any possible takers?


To let those stores continue in any format under any owner should never be allowed. They were built on the backs of legal opticians and legal optometrists. Their value should not be enhanced by their illegitamcy. Opticians and optometrists made the investment to bring them to court not the Attorney General. Why should optometrists and opticians allow it to continue for the interests of the Attorney General to collect money ? Optometry and Opticians will not recover anything from their millions in legal bills . The court system has been far to lenient . They can take their own hit just as we have .

The courts and the Attorney General should not profit on our backs .

----------


## Golfnorth

> To let those stores continue in any format under any owner should never be allowed. They were built on the backs of legal opticians and legal optometrists. Their value should not be enhanced by their illegitamcy. Opticians and optometrists made the investment to bring them to court not the Attorney General. Why should optometrists and opticians allow it to continue for the interests of the Attorney General to collect money ? Optometry and Opticians will not recover anything from their millions in legal bills . The court system has been far to lenient . They can take their own hit just as we have .
> 
> The courts and the Attorney General should not profit on our backs .


http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/799093

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Chris Ryser

Prescription law unclear, Bergez tells judge

 Hamilton Spectator File Photo 


The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 30, 2010) 
Customers who receive free eye tests at Great Glasses stores shouldn't consider themselves to have been prescribed eyewear because they already know they need glasses before they enter the store.
That was one of the arguments put forward yesterday by Great Glasses founder Bruce Bergez as he attempts to convince an Ontario Superior Court judge that he and his wife, Joanne, shouldn't be thrown in jail and stripped of their businesses for ongoing contempt of court......................


http://www.thespec.com/article/799093

----------


## uncut

Interesting reading!   Check out that newspaper's Special Reports Section.  Article called "Blindsided".   Nothing to do with the Great Glasses story, just optical interest.

----------


## Golfnorth

> Prescription law unclear, Bergez tells judge
> 
>  Hamilton Spectator File Photo 
> 
> 
> The Hamilton Spectator
> (Jun 30, 2010) 
> Customers who receive free eye tests at Great Glasses stores shouldn't consider themselves to have been prescribed eyewear because they already know they need glasses before they enter the store.
> That was one of the arguments put forward yesterday by Great Glasses founder Bruce Bergez as he attempts to convince an Ontario Superior Court judge that he and his wife, Joanne, shouldn't be thrown in jail and stripped of their businesses for ongoing contempt of court......................
> ...


Thank you so much for re-posting the link to the article that I did in the previous post.

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## Oedema

> Interesting reading!   Check out that newspaper's Special Reports Section.  Article called "Blindsided".   Nothing to do with the Great Glasses story, just optical interest.


I cannot believe a newspaper would publish an article like that... No integrity whatsoever.

----------


## Golfnorth

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/800383

----------


## NorthStar

With the obvious action to end his business about to take place, only now does he agree to throw in the towel, likely with a nice, fat bank account in the Cayman's.

----------


## Golfnorth

From The Society of Eyecare Professionals; 
On Friday July 2nd at 2:00 pm, Ontario Supreme Court Justice James Turnbull announced
his decision in the ongoing saga of the Great Glasses chain and Mr. Bruce Bergez. Mr.
Bergez was *found guilty of both civil and criminal contempt*. The judge appointed
Receiver Deloitte and Touche to take charge of all the stores on Monday July 5, 2010.
Sentencing is delayed until August 23rd so the court appointed receiver can report back
with the findings. There is a possibility that Bruce Bergez and his wife will be jailed
August 23rd, 2010.
Ontarios Ministry of the Attorney General, the College of Optometrists and the College of
Opticians recommended that Bergez and his wife be imprisoned for two years and one
year respectively. They also requested that a receiver be appointed to take control of the
Great Glasses stores with no opportunity for the Bergezes to regain control.
Mr. Bergez has been violating the Ontario Health Regulations since 2003. In 2006, the
Bergezes and their companies were fined $1 million dollars and $50,000 a day for eachday they were not in compliance. Since then, the fines have accumulated to $60 million.

----------


## Shwing

Further, Bruce and his wife were sent to jail today.  No word on bail or how long they'll be in...

----------


## mike.elmes

hey Ian, where did you find the the info on the jail time?

----------


## one-eyed-jack

There's been no sentence handed down where jail time is concerned. 

"_Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, College of Optometrists and College of Opticians jointly requested Bergez and his wife be imprisoned for two years and one year respectively. They also requested the appointment of the receiver.

The judge requested the parties to return August 23 to hear motions regarding potential sentences for contempt._ "

http://thespec.ca/News/Local/article/800383

----------


## AnotherOD

Article for July 3.

http://thespec.ca/News/Local/article/801067

----------


## Golfnorth

OK people....let's hope they were required to surrender their passports.
I would like to see Bruce get "married" in jail. lol

Regards,
Golfnorth

----------


## uncut

In Canada, the possibilty is that they will get "house arrest" and spend their time at home.  I would rather see them serve out their sentence by having to work @ Wallyworld for two years!

----------


## uncut

On second thought....that would be cruel.

----------


## AnotherOD

Hot off the press.

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...ue-franchisees

----------


## edKENdance

> Hot off the press.
> 
> http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...ue-franchisees


 
HAH!  Nice

----------


## idispense

Lies upon lies upon more lies .

----------


## NorthStar

Are the franchisees trying to save their skin now, or were they actually duped/forced?  Is so, they should be suing Bergez as well, but that would be futile as there will not be any money.  Bergez will claim his is broke, even if he does jail, he will have his millions in an offshore bank account, if he is smart enough.

----------


## Refractingoptician.com

> Are the franchisees trying to save their skin now, or were they actually duped/forced? Is so, they should be suing Bergez as well, but that would be futile as there will not be any money. Bergez will claim his is broke, even if he does jail, he will have his millions in an offshore bank account, if he is smart enough.


 
Are you trying to say that these adults did not know the difference between right and wrong and they could not read either to know that what they were doing was illegal ? 

Are you trying to say that they did not read all the newspaper articles about Bruce or are you trying to say that when frame salesmen told them it was illegal they did not understand english ? 


I would think jail would be a good place for all of them.

----------


## NorthStar

I agree they likely knew or at least suspected that they were doing something illegal - but lucrative, perhaps with assurances from Bergez that it was all BS.  All they had to do was Google the issue, and I can't beleive that any normal person would buy a franchise without checking it out first.  I wonder how the franchise owners came to buy a franchise in the first place if they were not opticians?  Did Bergez advertise franchises available?

Their actions now are like are just trying to hang it all on Bergez now that he was found guilty.  They likely did not start organizing this action until after his guilty verdict this summer.

----------


## one-eyed-jack

Guess what day today is?

http://www.thespec.com/news/local/ar...ntencing-today

----------


## uncut

Justice delayed!  Bubba will have to wait till Oct. 1 for his new GF.   Sigh.

----------


## LandLord

Receivership proceedings underway

http://www.deloitte.com/assets/Dcom-...Rec_081910.pdf

----------


## uncut

Justice arrives on Friday!

----------


## gordmac

Hey if they sell off the assets you could pick up an Auto-refractor pretty cheap and start all over again where he left off. The association is probably out of cash to cover more legal expenses.
 I am going to the court Friday to see what is going to happen.

----------


## gochi

How many opticians support great glasses? (keep in mind you are helping optometry and opthalmology, by supporting GG)

----------


## NorthStar

GG has not helped any eyecare profession, and did not even hire any opticians (until very recently, but only as a result of finalizing court action).  How do you think GG has helped eye doctors???  They did not hire any eye doctors either, and performed illegal sight testing.
Are you new in this "other eyecare-related field" or Ontario?  This case has been going on a long time, and has created much discussion on a few threads here.

----------


## uncut

> Hey if they sell off the assets you could pick up an Auto-refractor pretty cheap and start all over again where he left off. The association is probably out of cash to cover more legal expenses.
> *I am going to the court Friday to see what is going to happen*.


Great!  Please post as soon as possible, afterwards.

Any opinions on sentencing possibilities, anyone?  I am thinking "house arrest"/restitution.

----------

