www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/local-optician-outraged-a-psychiatrist/diagnosed-him-without-meeting-him-1.3734309
sorry having problems
please go to www.cbc.ca hamilton ----- go to news you will find article
www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/local-optician-outraged-a-psychiatrist/diagnosed-him-without-meeting-him-1.3734309
sorry having problems
please go to www.cbc.ca hamilton ----- go to news you will find article
Last edited by norman.kane; 08-29-2016 at 12:02 AM.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...-him-1.3734309Originally Posted by norman.kane
Lawyers are getting rich....
Gotta love that our college spent money on a psychiatrist due to this case. More of our money going down the drain
Sounds like they have found new lows to reach down to.
It's despicable that the members would allow this to happen to fellow members.
School burned through cash on a therapist because of this case. A greater amount of our cash going down the channel
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 ?
i agree with idispense
That blunder will help his claim. Sure hope his lawyer is being paid pro bono.
A non-confidence motion would only be permissible if it is written in our bylaws.
Regards,
Golfnorth
This optician should be outraged at everyone involved, including the College of Opticians, the College of Physicians and Surgeons and the review boards. When you read this and the other lawsuit you have to really shake your head in disbelieve of the treatment he's been subjected to.
Agree with idispense. All of this is shocking but this is only a preliminary. The College went to court to try to have the main case thrown out and lost. the judge agreed there were grounds. Then the College got dinged for $6000 for refusing to turn over documents. Now this and more to come. Ultimately, the college will lose and what will come out of this case will be a blockbuster
Do you have a link to that court case so we can read the transcript ? It would fill in some gaps to read the judges thoughts on the case as well as keep membership informed of facts.
Sadly I don't as I think you have to request them from the court but people should ask council what happened when they tried to have the claim by Jay and Chris thrown out of court. And they should ask council why the college caved in just before a motion for disclosure was heard and gave the documents over. And what happened when Jay went to court and asked for costs over that undefended motion. He got $6000.
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.
That said, what's defamation worth as a payout when nobody even knows who the claimants are? They're certainly not Kardashian status.
Look for the links right here on Optiboard.
Concur with idispense. Every one of this is stunning yet this is just a preparatory. The College went to court to attempt to have the principle case tossed out and lost. the judge concurred there were grounds.
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
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.
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.
This has absolutely nothing to do with being a fan or not. It has to do with justice and what is right. Jay and Chris have both been defamed by the college and some of its officials. In addition, Jay was subjected to the college wasting the members money to try to get dirt on him by giving his e-mails to a shrink who likely charged good bucks to come up with absurdities. Even if I was not a fan of Jay (and I am not) I would protest this action by the college for wasting the members money. Why are you defending them? Why are you not protesting all of this? I suspect you lack the insight that you claim to have.
Simply put nobody cares, including its members. If they did, this whole thing would have already been settled a long time ago.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks