Court Rejects Great Glasses Appeal Bid

**Golfnorth** · 10-11-2008, 06:30 AM

Court rejects Great Glasses appeal bid TheSpec.com - Local - Court rejects Great Glasses appeal bid
Panel upholds contempt fine of at least $34m

Steve Buist
The Hamilton Spectator

(Oct 11, 2008)
Ontario's Court of Appeal has handed the founder of the Great Glasses empire a crushing defeat that could eventually come with a price tag of at least $34 million.
In a scathing decision released yesterday, the three-justice panel completely rejected an appeal by Dundas optician Bruce Bergez, his wife, Joanne, and three of their Great Glasses companies.
"This is a case of flagrant, protracted and deliberate disobedience of a court order to comply with a statute regulating the conduct of a health profession," the justices stated in dismissing the Bergez appeal in its entirety.
Bergez was seeking to overturn a November 2006 finding of contempt in Hamilton court that led to the largest fine for a civil contempt case in Canadian history.
Bergez, his wife and the three companies had been fined $1 million and a further $50,000 a day for every day since that they haven't been in compliance with Ontario legislation that governs the prescribing and dispensing of eyeglasses and contact lenses.
The outstanding fines dating back to November 2006 now total approximately $34 million.
Eyeglasses and contact lenses must be dispensed by a registered optician based on a prescription supplied either by an optometrist or a physician.
Great Glasses had been ordered to abide by Ontario's health regulations and to stop dispensing eyeglasses based on eye tests conducted on a computerized machine without a proper prescription. The stores were also ordered to post notices that customers must have a proper prescription from an optometrist or physician.
"We cannot suffer the sacrifice of the rule of law to the lure of lucre," the Court of Appeal decision states.
"It seems obvious that the appellants, especially Bruce Bergez, have no intention of complying," the justices added, noting that the penalty imposed was appropriate in light of "the appellants' intransigent and unremitting refusal to obey the law."
The three justices believed that Bergez was well aware he was flouting the regulations.
"He continues to operate his business as he sees fit, in open contravention of governing legislation and in plain defiance of a court order," the justices stated.
"Bruce Bergez ignored the restrictions imposed upon his own competence in the public interest and redrew the boundaries to suit his own crass commercial purposes."
The Court of Appeal also had harsh words for Great Glasses' practice of dispensing eyeglasses based on readings generated by a machine.
"Those who enter a Great Glasses store without a prescription for corrective lenses from either an optometrist or an ophthalmologist may well leave the store with corrective lenses," the decision states, "but they leave as prescriptionless as they entered."
The lawyer for Ontario's College of Opticians, which joined forces with the College of Optometrists to pursue the case against Great Glasses, said both colleges are pleased with the result.
"I think the decision is very clear and we would hope and expect that Mr. Bergez will comply with the court order," Robert Cosman said.
Bergez' lawyer, Louis Frapporti, said his clients were disappointed with the result and they will review the decision to determine their next step.
The last option available is for Bergez to seek an appeal with the Supreme Court of Canada.
Bergez has 60 days to file an application asking the country's highest court for leave to appeal.
If he seeks to take his case to the Supreme Court, he can also apply to have the monetary penalties set aside until the Supreme Court rules.
If Bergez doesn't seek a Supreme Court appeal, the province can begin taking steps to collect the outstanding fine.
The Court of Appeal also ordered Bergez and the other appellants to pay the College of Optometrists $40,000 in legal costs.
Bergez has already filed a separate appeal on the issue of the $50,000-a-day in fines that have been accumulating since 2006. That appeal will be heard in January.
Bergez has been suspended from practising as an optician since November 2006 by the College of Opticians.
A discipline hearing for Bergez is scheduled for Oct. 28.
sbuist@thespec.com
905-526-3226

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/448936

**Jacqui** · 10-11-2008, 08:43 AM

Good, I'm glad the court did something that will possibly stop this.

**eyemanflying** · 10-11-2008, 09:28 AM

Things are finally progressing and is long overdue. This character takes first place in 'the dumbest moron to ever to work in the optical industry' award.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-11-2008, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Jacqui

Good, I'm glad the court did something that will possibly stop this.

They did nothing to stop it . They twiddled their fingers for months and months and delayed and delayed . This decision is in relation to a hearing that occurred a long time ago . They could have issued this decision the next day . They enabled him to stay in business longer . He is not out of business . It is still in appeal and could easily drag on for another couple years . The College also cancelled their hearing to deal with him on October 9 and 10 . Nothing was accomplished . It is just the end of another delay , to be followed by another appeal and the setting of another postponed date to deal with what should have been done a long time ago. Some people want their "day in court" he is getting his "years in court " , while others pay .

The article states that one appeal hearing is in January ..so that one will take time to postpone & hear. Then after that hearing, it may take close to another year for the decision to be released . There is also another 60 days for an appeal to be launched to the Supreme court . That will have to be scheduled , postponed , heard and the appropriate long waiting time for a decision to be released .

No further ahead , just one step deleted ,

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-11-2008, 11:14 AM

Originally Posted by eyemanflying

Things are finally progressing and is long overdue. This character takes first place in 'the dumbest moron to ever to work in the optical industry' award.

He may be the smartest .

**Golfnorth** · 10-11-2008, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Gary

They did nothing to stop it . They twiddled their fingers for months and months and delayed and delayed . This decision is in relation to a hearing that occurred a long time ago . They could have issued this decision the next day . They enabled him to stay in business longer . He is not out of business . It is still in appeal and could easily drag on for another couple years . The College also cancelled their hearing to deal with him on October 9 and 10 . Nothing was accomplished . It is just the end of another delay , to be followed by another appeal and the setting of another postponed date to deal with what should have been done a long time ago. Some people want their "day in court" he is getting his "years in court " , while others pay .

The article states that one appeal hearing is in January ..so that one will take time to postpone & hear. Then after that hearing, it may take close to another year for the decision to be released . There is also another 60 days for an appeal to be launched to the Supreme court . That will have to be scheduled , postponed , heard and the appropriate long waiting time for a decision to be released .

No further ahead , just one step deleted ,

I agree that it may take a couple of years for him to run out the appeals process and run out of higher courts to hear his appeals. At that time if he has his passport he will be on a plane and leave others to clean up his mess.

Regards,
Golfnorth

**obxeyeguy** · 10-11-2008, 08:17 PM

Originally Posted by Gary

He may be the smartest .

Plus 1 to that.

**eyemanflying** · 10-13-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by Gary

He may be the smartest .

I highly doubt it Gary, don't let your mind get clouded from this...he's still the dumbest moron from the optical industry, period.

It is certain though, with a great lawyer, anyone can appear smart in the justice system.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-13-2008, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by eyemanflying

I highly doubt it Gary, don't let your mind get clouded from this...he's still the dumbest moron from the optical industry, period.

It is certain though, with a great lawyer, anyone can appear smart in the justice system.

You are forgetting, he represented himself for the most part. And he was up against the lawyers that two wealthy Colleges paid for . He had 3 stores many years ago when this stuff first started in court . He now has 23 stores .

What was your point about great lawyers ?

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-13-2008, 07:37 PM

Have either of the Colleges actually recieved any of the court cost judgments that were awarded to them ?

**LandLord** · 10-13-2008, 08:49 PM

To make money illegally takes an immoral character, not an intelligent mind.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-13-2008, 10:57 PM

Originally Posted by LandLord

To make money illegally takes an immoral character, not an intelligent mind.

Developing a plan and implementing that plan 23 times requires intelligence .

**eyemanflying** · 10-14-2008, 04:21 AM

Originally Posted by Gary

You are forgetting, he represented himself for the most part. And he was up against the lawyers that two wealthy Colleges paid for . He had 3 stores many years ago when this stuff first started in court . He now has 23 stores .

What was your point about great lawyers ?

He has a good lawyer now, that's my point.

**eyemanflying** · 10-14-2008, 04:38 AM

Originally Posted by Gary

Developing a plan and implementing that plan 23 times requires intelligence .

Gary, if this is your idea of intelligence, then you need to read a biography or two to learn what the definition of intelligence is. Start with Ted Rogers'; his was just released last week. Now there's an intelligent man and still continues to be at his great age.

If Bergez was a murderer, he would be already be through the system and locked up. But, mark my words, he will end up guilty. The court justice system just takes so long on these cases, and the optical industry has never had such a monster.

Scheisters, embezzlers and individuals with corrupt business ethics always get caught, so they're not really that smart in the long run are they? Just ask Conrad Black.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-14-2008, 07:34 AM

Originally Posted by eyemanflying

Gary, if this is your idea of intelligence, then you need to read a biography or two to learn what the definition of intelligence is. Start with Ted Rogers'; his was just released last week. Now there's an intelligent man and still continues to be at his great age.

If Bergez was a murderer, he would be already be through the system and locked up. But, mark my words, he will end up guilty. The court justice system just takes so long on these cases, and the optical industry has never had such a monster.

Scheisters, embezzlers and individuals with corrupt business ethics always get caught, so they're not really that smart in the long run are they? Just ask Conrad Black.

I agree with you eyeman, BUT , how intelligent are the laws that do not put teeth behind them ? Are those laws being changed to prevent another from duplicating this scene ?

IF someone took over those stores and did a legal corporate name change we would start all over again . OR someone right now could do an immediate start up with the same concept . Where is the intelligent stop to this ?
?

**LandLord** · 10-14-2008, 08:09 AM

Intelligence is figuring out how to be successful without breaking the law. The Bergez way is the lazy way.

**eyemanflying** · 10-14-2008, 03:37 PM

Originally Posted by Gary

I agree with you eyeman, BUT , how intelligent are the laws that do not put teeth behind them ? Are those laws being changed to prevent another from duplicating this scene ?

IF someone took over those stores and did a legal corporate name change we would start all over again . OR someone right now could do an immediate start up with the same concept . Where is the intelligent stop to this ?
?

I agree with you but you're asking the wrong person...I'm not a lawyer. Ask this question to our lovely COO and their legal department. If you get an answer, I will be shocked as hell.

**optical maven** · 10-15-2008, 08:37 AM

To me, it looks like the law has worked. What recourse does society have if a person simply flouts the law. If a drunk driver continues to drive, even after their license is suspended, and after they have spent time in jail, what does society do? Bergez will eventually pay his fines, and probably close his stores. Hopefully, the next person who tries the same thing, will think twice before repeating the same offence. There is still a court case, initiated by the Ontario Association of Optometrists, being heard in Newmarket, against individuals running these stores. They will also lose and pay a penalty.

**tmorse** · 10-15-2008, 09:40 PM

Originally Posted by LandLord

To make money illegally takes an immoral character, not an intelligent mind.

I would suggest that it takes BOTH!!:D

**LandLord** · 10-15-2008, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by tmorse

I would suggest that it takes BOTH!!:D

You'll change your mind after I take your wallet at gunpoint.

**Golfnorth** · 10-16-2008, 05:27 AM

Originally Posted by optical maven

To me, it looks like the law has worked. What recourse does society have if a person simply flouts the law. If a drunk driver continues to drive, even after their license is suspended, and after they have spent time in jail, what does society do? Bergez will eventually pay his fines, and probably close his stores. Hopefully, the next person who tries the same thing, will think twice before repeating the same offence. There is still a court case, initiated by the Ontario Association of Optometrists, being heard in Newmarket, against individuals running these stores. They will also lose and pay a penalty.

If you honestly believe that Bergez will pay his fines I would like to have some of whatever you've been smoking.

Regards,
Golfnorth

**optical maven** · 10-16-2008, 08:12 AM

When fines like this are levied, the quilty party has no way of hiding from the fine. There was an audit done when this began to include all of his assests. He will lose all of those. Even if he declares personal bankruptcy, his assests will be seized. I am sure that he does not have $34 million, or whatever the final fine will be. His legal bills must be in the 10's of 1000's by now. I'm sure his lawyers don't work for free. If he doesn't pay, he'll go to jail.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-16-2008, 10:18 AM

Originally Posted by optical maven

When fines like this are levied, the quilty party has no way of hiding from the fine. There was an audit done when this began to include all of his assests. He will lose all of those. Even if he declares personal bankruptcy, his assests will be seized. I am sure that he does not have $34 million, or whatever the final fine will be. His legal bills must be in the 10's of 1000's by now. I'm sure his lawyers don't work for free. If he doesn't pay, he'll go to jail.

And if you are sure that he does not have 34 million , then what is the point of the fines ? And if an audit was done to find his assets , then what did that turn up ?

Are you really saying he has nothing to lose ?

Who has been taking the losses ?

**optical maven** · 10-16-2008, 12:11 PM

I would think he has everything to lose. He will lose his house, his cars, his business. If he owes 34 million, but they only collect 10 million, so what.
Another interesting question relates to the rest of the people illegally running the other stores. They are all in contravention of the RHPA. It lists 13 controlled acts. None of the controlled acts are given greater importance than another act. So if someone practices dentistry, or someone dispenses glasses, each act has the same importance under the law. So if the courts do not penalize the offender aggresively, and follow through with the judgement, then the law has no teeth. So a person scaling teeth in their basement might look at this judgment and simply regard the fine as a cost of doing business and continue contavening the act.
That's why I think the court will follow through with the penalty.

**Refractingoptician.com** · 10-16-2008, 03:48 PM

You can only seize assets if they belong to the party you have the judgement against . IF THAT PARTY DOES NOT OWN ANYTHING THEN YOU REALLY CAN'T SEIZE ANYTHING . So your judgement is not worth anything .

If things like cars and edgng equipment are leased, then how is a court judgement going to attach to those items ?

You can make a fine large enough so that it can not be considered a "licensing fee or cost of doing business" . That is true , BUT, it is only relevant if there is an equivalent dollar value in assets to back it up . If the total value of the assets is diddly squat , then the true "licensing fee" is only the cost of the assets that could potentially be lost .

Therfore, there is no detriment no matter how large the fine is . It might as well be 2 BILLION dollars !!

The size of the fine sounds ominous and scary but it does not neccesarily mean anything !

Even if the edgers were owned .. what are 23 used edgers worth ? What are used acrylic dispaly rods worth ? If each store had 1000 frames and there are 23 stores , then what are 23,000 frames worth in liquidation ? Is there even a half million there in liquidation ?

Can you attach any value to a business on a going concern basis ? Is there good will ?

And have you considered that a judgement might only be against a small number of stores , not all of them ? How many stores does the suit cover ? Are some stores franchised ?