No Contest Plea but appeals decision

[Refractingoptician.com]

Can anyone explain this :

http://www.coptont.org/DISCIPLINE/discipline.asp# read the one numbered - 202

How can there be an appeal of a decision if the plea was "no contest" ?

[Oedema]

I guess he doesn't want to pay the 5 grand???

But did you see the one where Bergez tried to argue that his certificate of registration should be reinstated in the interest of protecting the public b/c all the great glasses locations do not have any RO's on staff... So naturally he should be restored so that he himself can serve as RO to all locations....:hammer:

I think this guy is now just having too much fun screwing around with everyone.

[Refractingoptician.com]

I guess he doesn't want to pay the 5 grand???

But did you see the one where Bergez tried to argue that his certificate of registration should be reinstated in the interest of protecting the public b/c all the great glasses locations do not have any RO's on staff... So naturally he should be restored so that he himself can serve as RO to all locations....:hammer:

I think this guy is now just having too much fun screwing around with everyone.

And in that one the Discipline committee disposes of it by saying they have "no jurisdiction " because the charges arose from an executive council .

If that is the case then how did the charges arise in the other case ? Who is screwin with who ?

The only thing that is clear is that "we " is the ones being screwed.

[eyemanflying]

What a joke. Not that I'm a fan of BB, but, you have to admit for someone that is not a qualified lawyer, he is sure doing an outstanding job of providing legal representation for himself and delaying this whole thing.

The actual COO itself and their 'legal' qualified counsel can't manage to get the job done.

It's actually quite humourous, but unfortunately at our expense.

Once it's over, (if ever) the COO should offer BB a job as part of their legal counsel!

:hammer:

[Refractingoptician.com]

What a joke. Not that I'm a fan of BB, but, you have to admit for someone that is not a qualified lawyer, he is sure doing an outstanding job of providing legal representation for himself and delaying this whole thing.

The actual COO itself and their 'legal' qualified counsel can't manage to get the job done.

It's actually quite humourous, but unfortunately at our expense.

Once it's over, (if ever) the COO should offer BB a job as part of their legal counsel!

:hammer:

How is $ 5000.00 a detriment ?

[Refractingoptician.com]

What a joke. Not that I'm a fan of BB, but, you have to admit for someone that is not a qualified lawyer, he is sure doing an outstanding job of providing legal representation for himself and delaying this whole thing.

The actual COO itself and their 'legal' qualified counsel can't manage to get the job done.

It's actually quite humourous, but unfortunately at our expense.

Once it's over, (if ever) the COO should offer BB a job as part of their legal counsel!

:hammer:

so they run claims though another company ? did the customers know that ? if the customers did not know that then is that misrepresentation ? or what would it be called ?

$ 5000.00 ? is that a detriment ?

[Oedema]

They ran the claims through false company names, names of companies that don't ever exist. Why? Probably b/c all the insurers have caught on and started denying GG's claims....

$5,000 is hardly enough. I'm sure he must have been compensated quite well if he really was supposed to be the only optician in the chain... thats ALOT of potential liability, or so you would think... guess not.:(

[Refractingoptician.com]

They ran the claims through false company names, names of companies that don't ever exist. Why? Probably b/c all the insurers have caught on and started denying GG's claims....

$5,000 is hardly enough. I'm sure he must have been compensated quite well if he really was supposed to be the only optician in the chain... thats ALOT of potential liability, or so you would think... guess not.:(

By the way , $ 5000.00 is not a penalty it is " costs of the proceedings "
and also by the way WTF are we financing him & giving him terms to pay the costs ?????




" shall pay to the College within 30 days of this order costs of the discipline proceeding fixed in the amount of $5,000.00 and that payment shall be made by the delivery to the College within 15 days of five (5) post-dated cheques, each for $1,000.00, dated March 12, April 12, May 12, June 12, July 12, 2009; and

[Refractingoptician.com]

By the way , $ 5000.00 is not a penalty it is " costs of the proceedings "
and also by the way WTF are we financing him & giving him terms to pay the costs ?????




" shall pay to the College within 30 days of this order costs of the discipline proceeding fixed in the amount of $5,000.00 and that payment shall be made by the delivery to the College within 15 days of five (5) post-dated cheques, each for $1,000.00, dated March 12, April 12, May 12, June 12, July 12, 2009; and

I just can't believe we are financing this and without interest !!!!!!!!!!!

Has any Ontario Optician ever had to pay the late fee for renewing their license ? Did they show you any mercy on your late renewal ?

And yet we are financing this and worse we are financing it with out interest !!!!!!