re: college of opticians of ontario

[Golfnorth]

I find it interesting that an ophthalmologist from Miami John Nelson just joined this group and his first comment is in regard to the College of Opticians of Ontario and the subject of this thread. Also there are two posters.....Revelation and revelation all of whom share the same views as idispense and revelation just joined us as well.
Does idispense really have to invent posters to agree with himself to try to sway opinion on this board?
Just my observations...................

[Revelation]

Don't be so sure the college will lose. Even if one party has substantial evidence, judges have been known to go the other way. It's 50/50 odds. What the college should do is just issue an apology, cut a cheque for $50K and settle this quietly through a NDA. That's all it is really worth.

The legal action against the college is for 3 counts of defamation plus conspiracy. Defamation in Canada is unique. There is a reverse onus which means that Jay and Chris do not have to prove they were defamed but the college and those who it is alleged defamed them have to prove that what they said is true. And in two of the accounts of defamation, their are independent witnesses who said what the parties said was said. You cannot call someone an Iranian terrorist unless you can prove it is true.

[revlation]

I find it interesting that an ophthalmologist from Miami John Nelson just joined this group and his first comment is in regard to the College of Opticians of Ontario and the subject of this thread. Also there are two posters.....Revelation and revelation all of whom share the same views as idispense and revelation just joined us as well.
Does idispense really have to invent posters to agree with himself to try to sway opinion on this board?
Just my observations...................

i am no poster of idispense nor a clone of his

[Golfnorth]

Maybe members should do a non confidence vote then could re-elect a totally new group.

How did they justify this ? What section of law allowed them to proceed without his knowledge or informing him about his rights ?
What happened to his right to privacy ?

A non-confidence motion would only be permissible if it is written in our bylaws.

Regards,
Golfnorth

[Lab Insight]

The legal action against the college is for 3 counts of defamation plus conspiracy. Defamation in Canada is unique. There is a reverse onus which means that Jay and Chris do not have to prove they were defamed but the college and those who it is alleged defamed them have to prove that what they said is true. And in two of the accounts of defamation, their are independent witnesses who said what the parties said was said. You cannot call someone an Iranian terrorist unless you can prove it is true.

That said, what's defamation worth as a payout when nobody even knows who the claimants are? They're certainly not Kardashian status.

[revlation]

That said, what's defamation worth as a payout when nobody even knows who the claimants are? They're certainly not Kardashian status.

Lab Insight are you a Kardashian status?
he is from a well known family in the eyecare profession

[Revelation]

Lab Insight are you a Kardashian status?
he is from a well known family in the eyecare profession

Partly right if that had been done 4 years ago. If you get a notice of action as the college did then the sensible thing to do is to contact the lawyer and resolve it before it goes too far - an apology and some money to cover legal costs. But the college ignored the notice of action, ignored the statement of claim and went to court to try to have it tossed and then has been refusing to provide proper disclosure. All that has cost everyone money. Now there are 3 claims of defamation for two people. Lets say that after 4 or more years, the payout is $50 k for each claims times 2. That's $300,000 plus of course you pay legal costs that could be maybe $100,000 each so you are up to half a million dollars not counting the conspiracy which is even more. Stupid stupid and stupid!

[idispense]

In my opinion , this would appear to be more about right and wrong, not money.

Money is only the remedy that is possible now.


Isn't it time to focus on the real issue: (1) Were his rights violated ? (2) What is a reasonable remedy to restore this man's rights ?

This is about a person who stood up to be counted and stood up for opticians when opticians wouldn't even show up at meetings themselves. This is about a man twice elected by members who placed their faith in him.

It's about a man pushing back to defend himself against the odds of membership money. This is about his belief that his rights were being abused and his reputation being seriously damaged.

I suggest reading the comment section in yahoo news about this case. It might refocus your thoughts on the seriousness of this issue.

I also suggest re reading the article itself and focusing on this section of that article:

"Near the end of Wednesday's hearing, one of the three non-medical, independent panelists noted to the parties that at the time the diagnosis was written, the policy of the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario on undertaking a third-party report read: "It is imperative that physicians discuss their role in the reports process … with the third party and the patient or examinee."
Asked by CBC News whether it has a Canadian equivalent to the Goldwater rule, the Canadian Psychiatric Association provided its ethical position statement on courtroom testimony, which states in part:
"Whenever possible, psychiatrists should testify ... as to the mental state of a particular person only if they have examined that person or made significant attempts to do so."
The statement goes on: "They may review records and critique a diagnosis but should not make a diagnosis without an examination of the person."

[Lab Insight]

Lab Insight are you a Kardashian status?
he is from a well known family in the eyecare profession

I've never heard of them. Golfnorth must be correct...posting under identical names and one answers the other playing devil's advocate. Very original.

[Lab Insight]

Partly right if that had been done 4 years ago. If you get a notice of action as the college did then the sensible thing to do is to contact the lawyer and resolve it before it goes too far - an apology and some money to cover legal costs. But the college ignored the notice of action, ignored the statement of claim and went to court to try to have it tossed and then has been refusing to provide proper disclosure. All that has cost everyone money. Now there are 3 claims of defamation for two people. Lets say that after 4 or more years, the payout is $50 k for each claims times 2. That's $300,000 plus of course you pay legal costs that could be maybe $100,000 each so you are up to half a million dollars not counting the conspiracy which is even more. Stupid stupid and stupid!

Even stupider is to continue the suit and escalate the case to win zilch! Like my first post said, just making the lawyers richer.

[idispense]

In my opinion, when a man has the courage of his own conviction and is willing to back it up with his own dollars, that's the man I'll vote for, and that's the man that some members voted for.

He didn't get on council for personal monetary gain, nor did he launch a lawsuit to seperate members from their dollars. He doesn't operate from a conflict of interest.

He never thought Canada would be run like another third world country, he thought there were morals and ethics in this country and people's humanitarian rights were protected. In my opinion that's why he is standing his ground.

[norman.kane]

I find it interesting that an ophthalmologist from Miami John Nelson just joined this group and his first comment is in regard to the College of Opticians of Ontario and the subject of this thread. Also there are two posters.....Revelation and revelation all of whom share the same views as idispense and revelation just joined us as well.
Does idispense really have to invent posters to agree with himself to try to sway opinion on this board?
Just my observations...................

Miami John Nelson contributed 2 posts and here it was the second post
secondly there are 2 poster one is Revelation and another poster revlation, different spelling
being a member of the college of opticians of ontario, i highly recommend you have your eyes examined

[idispense]

Even stupider is to continue the suit and escalate the case to win zilch! Like my first post said, just making the lawyers richer.

Equate it to mere dollars if you wish, but if you do then you are the bigger loser.

If he wins against the College of Physicians and their review board and wins against the Dr as well as the College then it's a win for all Canadians and their humanitarian rights as well as opticians.

What would be a huge loss and disservice to optician members would be to do as you suggest -- settle for 50,000.00 and a Non Disclosure Agreement -- that would hide everything from full disclosure and accountability to the membership, and after all it's their rights and their money.

If membership was smart they'd disassociate the council from membership funding and they'd equalize the playing field as well as start funding this previous council member to protect his rights.

Membership has a right to transparency, accountability and a voice in this matter.

[Lab Insight]

Miami John Nelson contributed 2 posts and here it was the second post
secondly there are 2 poster one is Revelation and another poster revlation, different spelling
being a member of the college of opticians of ontario, i highly recommend you have your eyes examined

I find this whole discussion rather humorous to be honest. Revelation is his biggest fan back to 2014, that's obvious. Even funnier is the three latest aka's Norman Kane, Revlation and John Nelson are all brand new registrants and first time posters, and yet they choose this very boring stale topic to comment on as their first??? I was born at night but it wasn't last night.

Perhaps the shrink was right and can also diagnose multiple personality poster at no charge.

[idispense]

Lab:
Thanks for your Insight.

Have you ever wondered what a shrink's diagnosis of the author of Harry Pottter would be prior to her becoming famous, had he only read her letters and communications to her publisher, without knowing or meeting either or knowing the context of her writings about people walking through walls and flying on brooms ?

In the days of candles, before electricity, how would a shrink diagnose the notes and thoughts of Edison?

In the days of Columbus when the world was thought to be flat, how would a shrink diagnose the notes and communications from Columbus without having the knowledge Columbus had ?

Why don't we use membership funds to hire 2 shrink's , one a fresh graduate and one from the 1920's , to dissect from notes only, the minds of the POKEMON engineers ?


Do you really want shrinks for hire postulating from a biased position and reaching conclusion based on info supplied from only one side in a legal battle ?

Detract and deviate from the issue if you wish, but this newspaper article brings to light how optician membership funds are being used to upset the balance in a David vs Goliath battle. It's time membership put their foot down and dog eared some of their funds to support the other side in this battle. They might learn more.