Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 37

Thread: Clearly Statement following Quebec Court of Appeals decision yesterday.

  1. #1
    OptiBoard Apprentice
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    At large
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    13

    Clearly Statement following Quebec Court of Appeals decision yesterday.

    Leading Canadian online eyewear retailer, Clearly,will continue to offer online optical retail sales to consumers in Québec.After a ruling by the province’s Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16, 2016, in acase initiated by the Ordre des Optométristes du Québec, Clearly’s mission toprovide better vision for consumers in Québec will continue unabated.
    “This is an important decision for eyewear consumers in Québec,” says ClearlyCEO, Roy Hessel, “and another step towards our goal of making vision careaccessible worldwide. Clearly remains committed to working along with eye careprofessionals (ECPs) across Canada to deliver eye health information and promotethe importance of eye examinations, as more and more consumers are seekinginformation online to educate themselves about eye health and relatedconcerns,” added Hessel.
    Clearly has been keen to engage in dialogue with optometrists and opticiansacross Canada to find areas of collaboration and provide better products totheir customers. The company shares its passion for promoting vision as auniversal right with ECPs. Clearly will continue promoting regular eye examsthrough qualified ECPs and instilling the importance of eye health alongsidetheir product offering.
    Clearly is well-known in Canada for accessibility, affordability and quality.Recently they have also been focused on their quality of service. This includesin-house opticians in their call centre available to answer questions anddetermine what’s best for the vision of the consumer. This is built on thecompany’s foundation that every employee is a Vision Ambassador, trainedspecifically to provide the best customer service, product knowledge andunderstanding of the importance of eye health.

  2. #2
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Redhot Jumper you can now purchase glasses legally on the internet in this Province

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyhorse View Post

    Leading Canadian online eyewear retailer, Clearly,will continue to offer online optical retail sales to consumers in Québec.After a ruling by the province’s Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16, 2016, in acase initiated by the Ordre des Optométristes du Québec, Clearly’s mission toprovide better vision for consumers in Québec will continue unabated.

    One more step forward for online opticals, and the optometrists in Quebec, one of the strongest eyecare organizations in Canada has lost out to Essilor the owners of Clearly (the largest on-line optical in North America and selling world wide.).

    So now the province of Quebec has become as of now, a free for all optical retail market.

    If you can now purchase glasses legally on the internet in this Province, also the optical stores run by licensed opticians will soon be out of fashion because, the equivalent of non licensed
    people will be able and allowed to sell glasses directly to the public.

    We are all back to the middle ages of who is stronger will win in this age of high technology.
    Last edited by Chris Ryser; 06-16-2016 at 07:11 AM.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  3. #3
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    176
    Boycott Essilor

  4. #4
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper Boycott Essilor ........................

    Quote Originally Posted by optical maven View Post

    Boycott Essilor

    Totally impossible. You should have done that half a generation ago, a time when everybody admired them.

    Today they own over 400 other optical corporations world wide, and are the largest optical retailer, also world wide, with their on-line companies now reaching around the globe.

    Essilor is the new commercial Napoleon Bonaparte who was a military general who became the first emperor of France. His drive for military expansion changed the world, and so is Essilor.

    Essilor International Compagnie Generale D’Optique SA is an ophthalmic optics company. The Company designs, manufactures and markets a range of lenses to improve and protect eyesight. It also develops and markets equipment for prescription laboratories, and instruments and services for eye care professionals. It operates through three segments: Lenses and Optical Instruments, Equipment, and Sunglasses & Readers. It is a North American provider of non-prescription reading glasses. It also sells non-prescription sunglasses. It has approximately 32 plants, over 490 prescription laboratories, edging facilities and local distribution centers, and over five research and development centers across the world. The Company designs, manufactures and customizes corrective lenses. The Company provides a range of lenses for correcting myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism and presbyopia. The Company’s flagship brands include Varilux, Crizal, Transitions, Eyezen, Xperio, Foster Grant, Bolon and Costa.

    see at: =====>
    http://www.risersandfallers.com/2016...gn-gnl-dopq-sa
    Last edited by Chris Ryser; 06-20-2016 at 03:30 AM.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  5. #5
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Oakville
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    770
    [QUOTE=Chris Ryser;525334]Totally impossible. You should have done that half a generation ago, a time when everybody admired them.

    Of course boycotting E is possible. I have done it and many others have as well. Every day ECP's reach their breaking point and take a stand.
    To say that it's impossible to boycott E is silly. If you're trying to say that it won't make a difference, well that's another story but ECP's have to do
    what's right for them and what aligns with their personal belief system.

    Regards,
    Golfnorth

  6. #6
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Redhot Jumper

    Quote Originally Posted by Golfnorth View Post

    To say that it's impossible to boycott E is silly. If you're trying to say that it won't make a difference, well that's another story but ECP's have to do what's right for them and what aligns with their personal belief system.
    They are all out to downsize your profession into a service industry to correct and service the retail products they are selling directly to the consumer for less.

    North America is their testing ground and so far they have well succeeded, and progressed to expand successfully on most of the the other continents.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  7. #7
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper After a ruling by the province’s Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16, 2016..

    Quote Originally Posted by crazyhorse View Post

    Leading Canadian online eyewear retailer, Clearly,will continue to offer online optical retail sales to consumers in Québec. After a ruling by the province’s Court of Appeals on Monday, May 16, 2016, in a case initiated by the Ordre des Optométristes du Québec, Clearly’s mission to provide better vision for consumers in Québec will continue unabated.


    This thread has just about been dying with very little interest by Optiboard members showing.

    Here the government has allowed the so called illegal sale of eyeglass prescriptions online, which will help to let the online businesses reach their goal of 27 to 30 million pairs sold this calendar year, while the optical retailers remain silent and show no interest in this matter, while losing these sales at an ever increasing speed.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  8. #8
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,508
    What's in the judge's decision is of importance, not Clearly's statement. Only the judge's logic and legal rationale for the decision matters. That is not discussed here.

  9. #9
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper

    Quote Originally Posted by idispense View Post

    What's in the judge's decision is of importance, not Clearly's statement. Only the judge's logic and legal rationale for the decision matters. That is not discussed here.
    CANADA
    PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
    REGISTRY MONTREAL
    NOT : 500-09-024950-156
    (500-17-055516-101)
    DATE: May 16, 2016
    CORAM: THE HONOURABLE Francois Doyon JA
    LORNE GIROUX, JCA
    MANON Savard, JCA
    ORDER OF QUEBEC OPTOMETRISTS
    CALLER - Applicant
    c.
    COASTAL CONTACTS INC.
    9130-4329 QUÉBEC INC. (Doing business under the name of Progex MANAGEMENT)
    RESPONDENTS - Defendants
    and
    Oktane DESIGN INC.
    THIRD PARTY - Impleading

    Hearing date: February 22, 2016

    Read the whole judgement translated into English at:
    http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2016/2016qcca837/2016qcca837.html
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  10. #10
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    988
    This judgment decision link is in the French language, not English. Have you an English link?

  11. #11
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Redhot Jumper I do not think it has a translated version, but......

    Quote Originally Posted by tmorse View Post

    This judgment decision link is in the French language, not English. Have you an English link?
    No I do not have that, and I do not think it has a translated version, this is Quebec as Quebec can be.

    However I brought the French version on the screen and had it translated by Google. It took about 10 seconds at no charge.

    I could have posted it on OptiBoard but it is all too long to do it. Just have it translated the same way as I did.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  12. #12
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Here is part of it ..................................

    Hearing date: February 22, 2016

    [ 4 ] The appellant appeals against a judgment delivered on 3 December 2014 the Superior Court, District of Montreal (Honourable Paul Mayer)[1] , dismissing his motion for declaratory judgment seeking a declaration that the respondents violate the Optometry Act [2] and theProfessional Code[3] on the grounds that they exert optometry without being registered with the College of Optometrists selling ophthalmic lenses in Quebec through their websites.
    1 Facts

    [ 5 ] An investigator acting for the appellant a prescription by a Quebec optometrist after an exam. From the website of the respondent Coastal Contacts Inc.. [Coastal], he ordered contact lenses and glasses with prescription lenses from the latter by providing the order obtained Optometrist Quebec[4] .

    [ 6 ] Coastal is a Vancouver company that has no establishment in Québec. The appellant does not allege that Coastal operates in contravention with the laws in British Columbia in the sale of ophthalmic lenses [5] .

    [ 7 ] Coastal forwarded to the investigator electronic confirmation of his request and then made ​​him deliver contact lenses and eyeglasses to the address he had given in Montreal [6] .

    [ 8 ] The respondent Management Progex [Progex] is a commercial company with headquarters and establishment in Quebec that owns the domain names www.verredecontact.com and www.lunettesarabais.com . It is related to Coastal by a service contract under which it links its Web sites to those of Coastal. It directs people interested in the property advertised on its site to the Coastal sites [7] .

    [ 9 ] An investigator for the appellant ordered contact lenses and glasses Coastal with whom he had been redirected from the site of Progex [8] .

    [ 10 ] The appellant applied to the Superior Court a declaration that both Coastal Progex that contravene the LSO through their websites claiming to have the right to exercise a professional activity reserved to the members of the Order of optometrists Quebec or acting so as to give reason to believe they are allowed to do this. He alleges that the sale of ophthalmic lenses is an act reserved for optometrists under Articles 16 and 25 of the LSO and opticians under the Dispensing Opticians Act [9] .

    2- The trial judgment

    [ 11 ] The judge of the Superior Court dismissed the motion for declaratory judgment of the caller. It identifies the issue as being whether Article 16 of the LSO , which defines the practice of optometry and bounds along the exclusive exercise area members of the Order prohibits sale of ophthalmic lenses by a person located outside the province of Quebec residents [10] . He first notes that the "purchase" or "sale" of ophthalmic lenses is actually a contract with both the characteristics of a service contract and those of a lens sales contract strictly speaking[11] .

    [ 12 ] The judge determines that in this case the sales contract was concluded in British Columbia under the Section 1387 C.cQ . since the offering, Coastal, received acceptance of its offer in Vancouver. This is the law of British Columbia to be applied by the competent court to decide any dispute related to the contract [12] .

    [ 13 ] Recalling that the aim of the LSO is to protect the public by ensuring that professionals who practice optometry are adequately trained and meet minimum standards of professional practice, the judge considers the acts constituting the practice of optometry and are reserved for members of the Order. Such acts are those which fall under the "Services" portion of the contract between the optometrist and his client. As for acts relating to the sale of ophthalmic lenses, this reserve seems to have a less clear link with protection of the public that the 'services' portion and seems rather aim to confer an economic monopoly professionals. For the trial judge, these economic and public protection objectives are distinct and separable [13] .

    [ 14 ] Having established that the true purpose of the LSO is a leader of valid provincial jurisdiction, because the regulation of professional orders relates to jurisdiction over property and civil rights in the province, the judge concluded the LSO is valid and applicable to all situations within the province [14] .
    [ 15 ] It can not, however, apply only to a situation that presents a real and substantial connection to the province. In this case, the Order to apply the LSO to a mixed contract sales and service. However, professional services are rendered on the territory of British Columbia and Quebec law considers that the sale was completed there. The only link with Quebec is that the customer has received the finished product.The judge therefore concluded that the situation in this case does not present the real and substantial connection with Quebec that would give reason to the Order [15] .

    [ 16 ] Finally, even if such a link existed, the judge believes that a number of arguments based on relevant constitutional principles [16]preclude the application of the law of Quebec. First, nothing in the LSO indicates a clear intention to give this Act reach the College wants to give him. Furthermore, the existence in British Columbia professional corporation charged with a mission similar to that of the Order ensures that the public is protected by standards of practice and a remedy exists in malpractice cases. Finally, the principles of economic integration set out in Article 121 of the Constitution Act, 1867 [17] in favor of an interpretation of the provision in question, which is limited to the territory of Quebec [18] .
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  13. #13
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    next .............................

    [ 17 ] As for Progex, although the Quebec Coastal customer is through advertising on the site Progex, sales still works on the site of Coastal and conditions described therein. The judge described the advertising Progex as an "act for the sale" would give a far too wide to theLSO . Moreover, the ethical obligations of members of the College of Optometrists on advertising do not apply to Coastal nor Progex [19]
    3- Analysis
    [ 18 ] The first argument of appellant concerns the interpretation of Article 16 LSO :



    16. constitutes the practice of optometry any act other than the use of drugs whose purpose and vision that relates to eye examination, analysis of their function and evaluation of visual problems, and orthoptics, prescription, fitting, adjustment, sale and replacement of ophthalmic lenses. 16. The practice of optometry is an act qui, except the use of medication, deals with vision and is related to examination or functional analysis of the eyes and assessment of visual disorders, as well as Orthoptics, prescription, fitting, adjustment, sale and replacement of ophthalmic lenses.
    3.1 Any act ... which is to sell ...

    [ 19 ] The appellant argues that as regards the sale of ophthalmic lenses, should read Article 16 as stating: "constitutes the practice of optometry any act [...] that is to [... ] the sale of ophthalmic lenses. "

    [ 20 ] Under this interpretation, even if the sale of ophthalmic lenses in this case in Vancouver in application of Article 1387 C.cQ ., A determination by the trial judge [20] that the appellant presents not in question, the Article 16 L.SO . covers any act whose purpose is the sale of ophthalmic lenses.

    [21] In support of this interpretation, the appellant relies in particular on Article 8 of the LSOO :

    8. constitutes the practice of the profession of dispensing optician any act that aims to fit, adjust, replace or sell an ophthalmic lens. 8. Every act qui HAS icts as object the fitting, adjusting, replacement or sale of Any ophthalmic lens deriving their the practice of the profession of dispensing optician.
    [ 22 ] He argues that these laws must be interpreted in the same way. If Article 16 of the LSO was not meant any act whose purpose is the sale of ophthalmic lenses, it follows that the exclusive scope of practice of optometrists would be less extensive than that of dispensing opticians in respect of reserved acts which are common, a result that could not have intended the legislature.

    [ 23 ] The proposed interpretation and allows the caller to distinguish this Court's decision in Case Pharmaceutical Association of the Province of Quebec v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd. .[21] . In that case regarding a catalog sales of pharmaceutical products by the respondent, an Ontario corporation, the Court decided, by a majority, that the sale had occurred in Ontario. It was therefore not subject to section 21 of theQuebec Pharmacy Act[22] which prohibited the sale of drugs listed in the Annex by another a doctor or a licensed pharmacy. The appellant also points out that more recent judgment of this Court in Order of Pharmacists of Quebec v. Meditrust Pharmacy Services Inc .[23] , arrived at a different result by invoking the formulation of a later version of the Pharmacy Act[24] which defined the practice of pharmacy to "[...] any act that is to [...] to sell [...] a drug or poison." I will return.

    [ 22 ] He argues that these laws must be interpreted in the same way. If Article 16 of the LSO was not meant any act whose purpose is the sale of ophthalmic lenses, it follows that the exclusive scope of practice of optometrists would be less extensive than that of dispensing opticians in respect of reserved acts which are common, a result that could not have intended the legislature.

    [ 23 ] The proposed interpretation and allows the caller to distinguish this Court's decision in Case Pharmaceutical Association of the Province of Quebec v. T. Eaton Co. Ltd. .[21] . In that case regarding a catalog sales of pharmaceutical products by the respondent, an Ontario corporation, the Court decided, by a majority, that the sale had occurred in Ontario. It was therefore not subject to section 21 of theQuebec Pharmacy Act[22] which prohibited the sale of drugs listed in the Annex by another a doctor or a licensed pharmacy. The appellant also points out that more recent judgment of this Court in Order of Pharmacists of Quebec v. Meditrust Pharmacy Services Inc .[23] , arrived at a different result by invoking the formulation of a later version of the Pharmacy Act[24] which defined the practice of pharmacy to "[...] any act that is to [...] to sell [...] a drug or poison." I will return.

    [ 24 ] Thus, according to this interpretation of the caller wishing that Article 16 LSO is any act whose purpose is the sale of ophthalmic lenses, the record would show a series of acts "aimed sale" that place in Quebec, even if the contract itself intervened in British Columbia.The caller and mentions the order placement, payment, receipt of the order confirmation sent by Coastal and delivery of ophthalmic lenses.

    [ 25 ] As noted by the respondents, the appellant jurisdiction over its members and, by necessary implication, those who usurp the functions of its members by asking professional acts reserved for them. If the purpose of its existence is that of the protection of the public as he proclaims himself, he has no jurisdiction over the public purchaser of ophthalmic lenses. Or, in this case, the placement of the order, the payment and receipt of the confirmation are acts done in Quebec by the buyer and not by Coastal. Only delivery in Quebec is an act carried out in Quebec by Coastal in which the appellant criticizes the illegal practice of optometry in Quebec.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  14. #14
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    next ...........................

    [ 26 ] Moreover, the resemblance invoked by the appellant between the wording of Article 16 of the LSO and that of Article 8 of the LSOOdoes not support its argument that makes abstraction of particular phrases which, in Article 16 of the LSO, separate the words on which it would base its reasoning.

    [ 27 ] A literal interpretation of Article 16 LSO does not allow itself to draw the conclusion that it is possible to break up the sale of ophthalmic lenses in a multiplicity of separate acts. This literal interpretation can not lead to the conclusion, as would the caller, that each of these acts, such as advertising, transportation or delivery, must be considered as part of the exclusive scope of practice of its members.

    3.2 Distribution

    [ 28 ] As a second plea, the appellant argues that the word "sale" in Article 16 LSO has a meaning broader than that of the single sales contract under the Civil Code of Québec . Considering the objective of the LSO , which is to protect the public as prescribed in the Article 23of the Professional Code [25] The appellant argues that the word "sale" of the Article 16 LSO is the professional activity "[...] of controlling distribution to the public of a regulated product [...]" [26] .

    [ 29 ] This argument allows the caller to bypass the difficulty is that the sale was completed in Vancouver and that delivery of the glasses is the only act that took place on the territory of Quebec. The appellant thus claims an ophthalmic lens distribution monopoly in Quebec to members of the College of Optometrists. However, it is a monopoly that he should share with opticians since Article 8 of the LSOO uses the same vocabulary [27] .

    [ 30 ] In support of this interpretation that the word "sale" in section 16 LSO has a wider meaning than just sales contract according to theCCQ ., The caller invokes certain jurisprudential authorities, he said, allow to rule in this case the application of the judgment Eaton [28] .

    [ 31 ] The caller first cites the judgment of the Supreme Court in Celgene Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General)[29] . This case involved judicial review of an order of the Prices Review Board Patented Medicine directing the appellant to provide information so that it can investigate the sale price, past or present, of a patented drug on the Canadian market.
    [ 32 ] Although under the principles of commercial law the sale of the drug took place in New Jersey, the Supreme Court ruled that the broader interpretation adopted by the Council was justified. Consequently, according to the Supreme Court, the legislative history and the consumer protection objective of the Council supported the conclusion that the invoice applicable laws gave him jurisdiction over sales by the appellant to Canadians of Thalomid . In the exercise of its mandate, in fact, the Council attached great importance to consumer protection to ensure that the holder of a patent does not abuse its monopoly to the detriment of Canadian patients and their insurers .

    [ 33 ] I note immediately that, in the judgment Celgene , if the appellant was its sales from the US, delivered to Canadian doctors and was paid in US dollars by courier or mail to its offices New Jersey, however, she had obtained a Canadian patent for Thalomid under the Patent Act [30] . the Council had rightly invoked the granting of this patent by the appellant six days earlier to advise that he could now require it requested information as it thus became subject to the Canadian system [31] .
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  15. #15
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    next ................

    [ 40 ] On appeal by the College of Pharmacists, the Court, in a majority judgment, issued the order of interlocutory injunction requested.

    [ 41 ] In his reasons, Justice Brossard, one of the judges constituting the majority, first criticizes the trial judge for not having taken into consideration in its assessment of the damage and the balance of convenience, that the College operates under the authority of theProfessional Code and the pharmacy Act an order of mission and public interest has been delegated by the state, that of control and monitor the 'practice of pharmacy in Quebec. We must therefore consider the harm likely to be caused to public order and not to the College of Pharmacists. Moreover, for the balance of convenience must be compared, on the one hand those of a commercial company that alleges no specific if the injunction was granted and, secondly, those that fall under interest and public order [35] . It recalls that under the professional legislation of Quebec, it is the responsibility of the caller to control the exercise of the profession in order to ensure public protection [36] .

    [ 42 ] Brossard JA also noted that the appellant had established order by a clear and indisputable right that the respondent, by advertising in Quebec, had acted to suggest that it was authorized to practice pharmacy in Quebec . She had no such right at the time of the judgment because, in Quebec, the exercise of the pharmacy profession was reserved for an individual [37] .

    [ 43 ] Regarding the request for an interlocutory order prohibiting the sale or deliver a drug in Quebec, Brossard JA, unlike Rothman JA, dissenting, concluded that the College of Pharmacists has established an appearance of right about the fact that delivering a drug in Quebec, the respondent has committed an act "[...] that is to [...] to sell [...] medicine" within the meaning of Article 17 of the Act pharmacy , as it stood at the time:

    17. constitutes the practice of pharmacy any act that aims to prepare or sale in execution or not a prescription drug or poison [38] .

    [ 44 ] I consider useful to cite the reasons of Brossard J. on this issue:

    67 The appellant and the Attorney General in question will obviously further. They argue that not only the respondent is a way to suggest that it is authorized to exercise the profession of pharmacy in Quebec but in fact she is practicing in Québec within the meaning of Article 17 of the pharmacy Act , which it is prohibited under the first paragraph of the aforementioned Article 35 of the Act and the Article 32 of theProfessional Code .

    68 is prohibited "any act which is intended to prepare or sell ...". Obviously I accept the principle, as stated by the trial judge and by my colleague, the Pharmacy Act can have no extra-territorial application and should therefore be implicitly read the words "Quebec" in prohibited statement above. I also agree, as a matter of fact, the respondent's arguments to the effect that it poses no act in Quebec aimed the preparation of a drug pursuant to a prescription. What about sales?
    69 The respondent argues that the sale as such is completed in New Brunswick, the place of residence of the seller, where is received and accepted the "command", whether by telephone, fax, or regular mail and the payment, the Quebec prescription itself constituting the equivalent of a "purchase order". The argument is serious and certainly can not, at this stage, be rejected out of hand even if neither the trial judge nor my colleague discuss it directly.

    70 That said, and as a matter of fact, however, it is not disputed that the delivery of the drug occurs in Quebec. We do not matter in this case, in the event of a border customers who simply would buy and take delivery of the drug in the foreign province. However, as the caller pleads with force, and rightly in my opinion, delivery is one of the two essential elements of any sale, the first obligation of the seller and therefore the respondent and any act necessary for the sale to be, if not legally, at least factually completed ( 1716 items , 1717 , 1720 and1722 C.cQ . ). In that sense, the appellant submits, the delivery constitutes an act "which is to sell ... ... a medicinal product" within the meaning of Article 17 . With respect for the contrary opinion, I can not conclude at this stage that the appellant "did not establish a semblance of law" and has "a dubious law in this case" as mentioned by the trial judge and as seems to confirm my colleague.
    71 I opinerais rather the contrary.

    72 In fact, the only thing that prevents me to conclude at this stage of the debate, the appellant would have established a clear and indisputable right, results from the need to strictly interpret a provision such as Article 17 of the pharmacy Act , which provides a professional monopoly ( Pauze v. Gauvin 1953 CanLII 65 (SCC) , [1954] SCR 15 , Laporte v. College of pharmacists of Quebec [1976] 1 SCR 10110 N.R. 602 , Order of pharmacists of Quebec v. professional Corporation of physicians of Quebec veterinarians 1991 CanLII 3901 (QC CA) , [1991] 344 RJQ CA, pharmaceutical Association of the province of Quebec v. T. Eaton & Co. 193 150 482 BR Que.). This decision is all the more relevant in the present case, there was also question of the extraterritorial application of the Pharmacy Act of the time in a case of sale of certain drugs, catalog . Our court decided, by a majority, that the pharmaceutical law could prevent such sales by catalog which concluded outside of Quebec. The law at the time did not, however, the words "any act that object for ...".
    73 It is not for us, at this stage, to decide the merits of the substantive dispute and decide whether the words "any act that aims to ..." are, notwithstanding the lack of rigor of terms, a rather broad to include delivery of the drug or if, conversely, such delivery, as argued by the respondent, is only an accessory to the sale, subsequent to it, and therefore can not be equated with an act which aims to sell. That is the issue at the bottom.74 However, I am of opinion that the appellant established a prima facie case at this stage of the debate, at least a prima facie right to justify the court to analyze, in detail, the harm and the balance of convenience. [39 ]

    [ 45 ] In sum, if the appellant had established a prima facie case a prima facie case, the purpose of the call was not unlike the present case, the determination of the existence of this right. Brossard JA then discussed the question of injury to the appellant, the College of Pharmacists, including legal prejudice resulting from the continuing violation of the law that would ultimately be considered applicable to the respondent by a judgment on the merits . He believes that the Order is injured in fact since the commitments made ​​by the respondent in first instance to mitigate risks related to a sale of medicines by mail are not capable of execution. It also decides that benchmarking works in favor of the Order [40] . In the end, he concludes that there is reason to grant the appeal and issue an order of interlocutory injunction requested by the Order.

    [ 46] The judge also Otis decides it isappropriate to grant the appeal and grant the requested injunction. However, as revealed in the followingparagraphs of his reasons, it was much more reserved than Judge Brossardregarding the question of the violation by the Respondent of the provisions of section 17 of the Pharmacy Act as amended it was worded at the time:

    100In the present case, the question whether Articles 17 and 35 of the Pharmacy Act combined with the Article32 of the ProfessionalCode havethe effect of preventing the respondent (1) make an advertising, Quebec,suggesting that it is authorized to practice the profession of pharmacist and y(2) to exercise the profession of pharmacy by enacting instruments aimed thepreparation of a drug pursuant to a prescription convinces me at stage of apreliminary study, we are in the presence of "a serious issue" ( RJR - MacDonaldInc. v. Canada ( Attorney General ), [1994] 1994CanLII 117 (SCC) , 1 SCR 311 , 348 . 1994-28671 [1994] 1 SCR 311, REJB 1194-2 8671 164 160 NR Q.AC 241 , 111 DLR (4th) 385, p 348 RCS)..

    101 The comprehensivereview of the background is not desirable in this case. It should be left to the trial judgethe task of examining, in detail and in the light of the evidence, the questionof public law which involves complex considerations that it is not appropriateto resolve at this stage of proceedings. Weare not in the presence of this case the result of the interlocutoryapplication effect amount to a final resolution of the action "( RJR - MacDonaldInc. v. Canada ( PG .), Supra, p 348 RCS) or this caserare, where the issue to be solved "comes in the form of a question of lawaltogether, which can be finally settled by a judge hearing anapplication" ( Manitoba ( PG ) v. Metropolitan Stores Ltd. , supra, at p. 133 RCS).102 In light of thereview of irreparable harm and balance of convenience examined in terms of thepublic interest, I retain the proposals expressed by Mr. Justice André Brossardas well as the conclusions drawn in relation to issuing an interlocutory injunction.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  16. #16
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    next.........

    103 The appellant relies, in the context of its request for an interlocutory injunction, public protection mission entrusted to it by thePharmacy Act and the Professional Code . The free movement of medicines, without any professional control in Quebec, pose, immediate, problems related to the health of the Quebec population (no direct and personal communication with the pharmacist, possible incompatibility prescriptions, use of non-controlling drugs or information, etc.). The guarantees offered by the respondent are low in regard to the protection of public health that the legislature intended to ensure by implementing, in particular, professional control system to regulate the practice of pharmacy in Quebec.

    104 Consequently, I believe it appropriate to grant the appeal and issue an interlocutory injunction in the terms proposed by Mr. Justice André Brossard. [41]

    Continue at:

    http://www.canlii.org/fr/qc/qcca/doc/2016/2016qcca837/2016qcca837.html

    and translate with Google
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  17. #17
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,508
    Is the long and short of it, that the Internet vendor won the right to appeal a previous case that they lost ?

    And further, is the long and short of it that the Optician/optometrists regulatory bodes are losing because they failed to properly word their regulations within their Acts ? Did 3 appeal judges not point this out to the bodies in BC on appeal ? What steps did any regulatory body take to read that case and change their wording ?

  18. #18
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper

    Quote Originally Posted by idispense View Post

    Is the long and short of it, that the Internet vendor won the right to appeal a previous case that they lost ?

    And further, is the long and short of it that the Optician/optometrists regulatory bodes are losing because they failed to properly word their regulations within their Acts ? Did 3 appeal judges not point this out to the bodies in BC on appeal ? What steps did any regulatory body take to read that case and change their wording ?



    The long and short of it is that Essilor's Coastal / renamed Clearly internet optical, can not be prohibited from officially selling and advertising their glasses in the Province of Quebec.

    There is now another Internet optical out of Montreal that was even partially financed by Quebec Government grants and is flourishing even right into the USA. See: http://bonlook.com


    Next in line will be the Province of Ontario. Canada will then become a free for all in the optical retail.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  19. #19
    Master OptiBoarder rbaker's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Newberry, FL
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    4,019
    Quote Originally Posted by Chris Ryser View Post
    The long and short of it is that Essilor's Coastal / renamed Clearly internet optical, can not be prohibited from officially selling and advertising their glasses in the Province of Quebec.

    There is now another Internet optical out of Montreal that was even partially financed by Quebec Government grants and is flourishing even right into the USA. See: http://bonlook.com


    Next in line will be the Province of Ontario. Canada will then become a free for all in the optical retail.
    And here:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gt_KmnimQAE

  20. #20
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper also the Canadian Government has chipped in to finance this online eyeglass seller...

    Quote Originally Posted by rbaker View Post


    .................looking at the video I just learned something new, that also the Canadian Government has chipped in to finance this online eyeglass seller. Provincial and Federal governments give a hoot about the private market.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  21. #21
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Vancouver, BC CANADA
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    988
    This Quebec court case is compelling and with the Canadian federal and Quebec provincial governments endorsing Internet selling in Quebec, it looks like Internet Sales in Quebec is a done deal. Government would now never endorse blocking internet sales by restricting delivery of the product through courier or postal system regulations.
    No wonder Ontario regulators are loath to bring the Internet Sales matter to their Ontario courts.

  22. #22
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In Flux
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,508
    To compete the Internet boys are lean and they have cut the fat out, where can opticians and optometry cut fat ?

  23. #23
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper The fat is the markup, ..........................

    Quote Originally Posted by idispense View Post

    To compete the Internet boys are lean and they have cut the fat out, where can opticians and optometry cut fat ?

    The fat is the markup, that is high in the conventional optical retail, the world over, but that also includes all the after service at no charge.

    The internet sellers take a fair profit on their products but offer no after service whatsoever.

    All the conventional optical retail industry has to do is separate product sales and services and charge for them separately, instead of bundling them together.

    Frame + Lenses + Markup 30 to 40% = selling price

    Professional Service charges = your time and value

    With above system you could actually compete directly with the internet sellers for the basic product and get paid for the extra service you provide.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

  24. #24
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Occupation
    Optometrist
    Posts
    144
    Warby Parker just opened a B&M store in Toronto.

  25. #25
    Manuf. Lens Surface Treatments OptiBoard Gold Supporter
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Dorval, a suburb of Montreal in a park like environment on Lake St.Louis.
    Occupation
    Other Optical Manufacturer or Vendor
    Posts
    21,366

    Blue Jumper Warby Parker just opened a B&M store in Toronto.............................

    Quote Originally Posted by NorthStar View Post

    Warby Parker just opened a B&M store in Toronto.

    So now they have a physical location in Toronto were the non believers can look at the actual pair of frames.

    Warby Parker is now the number 2 in Website popularity and attracting viewers, outperforming any other optical websites.
    Last edited by Chris Ryser; 08-13-2016 at 10:32 AM.
    Chris Ryser
    ________________________________________
    DLO. NA.IC.I.T.PO

    http://optochemicals.com............................. http://arcoatings.com

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Appeals Court Extends Deadline for Utah State Attorneys in Contact Lens Pricing
    By Chris Ryser in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-17-2015, 09:12 AM
  2. BC-Court of Appeal decision about online CL
    By Comma in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 11-10-2009, 12:09 AM
  3. No Contest Plea but appeals decision
    By Refractingoptician.com in forum Canadian Discussion Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 07-21-2009, 11:31 PM
  4. Supreme Court Decision
    By Fezz in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 07-03-2008, 09:41 AM
  5. Supreme Court Decision: Bong Hits for Jesus
    By 1968 in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-02-2007, 10:30 AM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
OptiBoard is proudly sponsored by:
Younger Optics, Carl Zeiss Vision Inc., Vision Equipment, Optitech USA and The Optical Group