People might find this of interest - scroll down a bit
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marvin-...anada+Politics
People might find this of interest - scroll down a bit
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/marvin-...anada+Politics
Would be nice to know what this is all about. So I checked and found the following:
Local optician outraged a psychiatrist diagnosed him without meeting him
'He has a medical file on me; I've never met the man': Jay Hakim complains about third-party psych evaluation
By Kelly Bennett, CBC NewsPosted: Aug 25, 2016 5:30 PM ETLast Updated: Aug 25, 2016 5:30 PM ET
source:============>
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...-him-1.3734309
If that is it, we would understand what it is all about.
If that is the case he should relax, as this whole thing becomes unimportant soon enough, as the optical retail business in Ontario gets deregulated in the very near future.
November 30, 201612:40 pm,
Web Producer Global News
“It’s strange that the trade organizations opposing these changes have, without exception, long supported the independence and wisdom of the OLRB. They have decades of respected expertise. Let’s continue to trust them with this important public responsibility.”
The amendments, if approved, would impact more than 200,000 certified trades professionals in the province.
Trade associations say changes will also benefit businesses by allowing cheaper, unskilled labour to do complex and potentially dangerous work without certification.
First off, I'm not the plaintiff and I really doubt if the plaintiff needs any support. This is a matter that is before the courts and the court will decide. In the appearances in court so far, the court has been very critical of the college and the plaintiff has won each time including having won a significant amount in costs. The College is facing an enormous liability that will be passed down to the members in even higher fees. Assuming deregulation which I doubt, the College is still a legal entity that is on the hook for its bad behaviour.
Thank you for your posts Revelation.
This thread is the only way to communicate our professional opinions in Canada instantly, and that can be read by anybody that has some interest in it.
In my opinion it is underused by many, that should also participate and use this superb means of instant communication. If you ever check who is on OptiBoard now, you will see at any time, day or night, that there are a few search engines going through the posted messages.
If you doubt a coming deregulation, just think that it has already happened in BC and Quebec very silently, but has opened the territory for online sales that grow larger by the year.
Each pair of glasses they sell has not been sold through the conventional channels and these online sellers advertise on any website they can find the space to do it.
Racial slurs are not trivial in the 21st century even if you think they are. However, this case is about 3 counts of defamation and conspiracy. In defamation, the plaintiff does not have to do anything but the defendant has to prove that what was said is true. Conspiracy to remove elected officials is major. Take some time and read the decision by the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onhparb/...nlii10798.html
The COO hired a psychiatrist secretly to review selected e-mails and come up with a diagnosis. HPARB ruled that the defendant had to be told, that the information given to the psychiatrist had to include information directly from the plaintiff, and that when he wrote a letter with his pretend diagnosis, it became a medical record and he could not show it to anyone without permission from the defendant. By doing so, he not only defamed the defendant himself but he violated his privacy under the Protection to Privacy Laws of Ontario.
This is not a simple case that will be dismissed with a small payment awarded by the court. There will be an enormous payout.
Oddly, for someone not supposedly related to such case, you are certainly emotionally attached to it.
You are incorrect; there will never be a large payout, except for the lawyer's final invoice.
People have done way worse in past history without any repercussion, reprimand or pay out. It just won't happen.
Dispensing registration regulation was made voluntary here in BC in April 2010, some seven (7) years ago and no other Canadian province has yet followed suit. So enough of this 'deregulation is coming, deregulation is coming', unless you have insider government information which I very much doubt.
See Quebec judgement at:
http://www.optiboard.com/forums/show...sion-yesterday
I am passionate about justice and what the COO did was reprehensible and justice is required. The amount of money is not the point but rather a finding that results in correcting what was done to two elected members of the College. You, on the other hand, seem to only think about the money and do not seem the least bit interested in the fact that a public body committed a wrong and needs to be taken to task for that. Sad, really sad.
That is the disadvantage or advantage of public forums on the internet, where you can make posts under a pseudonymous and fictitious identity, and not be legally responsible for them, depending on your own personal view.
That is why I chose to use my own correct identity, when I joined OptiBoard, to prevent myself from knowingly making any offensive claims without having a valid backup to support them.
Most post that deal with a possible touching subject are read by more people, than than just the ones that are registered to make posts, on this forum, and you always have to keep that in mind.
I make a daily update of my website, usually at night, to keep my rankings up where I like them to be.
So yesterday night I had a new and frustrating experience, never seen before.
There was an e-mail from somebody I never heard of saying: " Chris your website is down".
I checked it, and it was not, so I just continued doing my job, updating it as usual.
When I was done, I pressed the button to upload the changes it would not start the processing and download at the server. Loads of different error messages for the following 3 hours of frustration. This had never happened in many years of working on it. Many phone calls later I finally found a solution.
When I went on the servers website I changed my password just to make sure in case somebody had tampered with my site, which was actually the case.
Whoever it was, had changed the password registered in my computer to start the download process of my website to the server, and even had the guts to send me a warning e-mail under a fake name.
[QUOTE=Lab Insight;534399]Oddly, for someone not supposedly related to such case, you are certainly emotionally attached to it.
whats your interest, you seem so emotionally attached to this case
This is an interesting thread and I want to contribute $0.02. I'll also state that I'm not a troll or one of the parties in disguise. I have no vested interest in the outcome of the lawsuit(s) and do not know of the goings-on of this matter other than reading this thread, reading the link, and having come across this "topic" here online previously in very distant passing.
I'll put out there that I wouldn't want to be psychiatrist in this matter. HPARB deemed his assessment to be a medical record, and that medical record was then widely shared (as I understand, from what is shared in this thread). In this age of technology and hence sensitivity to matters of privacy and identity theft, that is a massive breach of protocol and patient privacy. That doctor has a big problem on his hands. I can't see anything but a serious public disciplinary decision made against him.
The health Colleges in Ontario are self-regulating, and thus HPARB decisions don't actually "overrule" or make "binding" decisions - they can only refer cases back to the Colleges, at which point the Colleges are instructed to re-deliberate/investigate the matter using HPARB's newly suggested guidance. The point is, due to the overwhelming self-regulatory nature of the health Colleges, HPARB re-referrals are not done lightly and are quite rare. If you look around online, you'll see serious cases of patients dying at the hands of doctors and nurses for really questionable care, and yet none of those cases get referred back. So if HPARB tells a College to re-do a case, it means something in the initial judgement was really overlooked. This psych is in big trouble. I'd go far as to say he has put himself, personally, at risk of a civil defamation suit by the plaintiffs (Jay Hakim?). The plaintiff would have HPARB's declaration that the evaluation was a medical one, and given that he and the doctor had never met - then yes I think defamation is more than an appropriate claim against the doctor. How this ties into the College I can't comment on, but obviously they are implicated.
Again, just my $0.02 from reading this thread. But yeah, I wouldn't like to be in the psych's shoes right now.
[QUOTE=Lab Insight;534391]As Chris mentioned, deregulation is highly probable within the next few years.
and you will no longer be on the executive at coo
Sounds like this guy has single handedly stood up for opticians rights and human rights everywhere, he's put his money where his mouth is and never backed down and taken on the COO, the CPSO, The Minister of Health and how many lawyers ?
Maybe be its time Opticians thought about the courage it takes to do that. Ontario opticians should give some thought to what this guy has been put through while your license fees have funded this outrage.
Exactly my point, well said. All funded by the members and no progress to date. Good for Jay for standing up and challenging them.
The sad reality is the 5 year statute to settle is fast approaching and may end up being thrown out before it ever reaches a decision or settlement out of court.
Dragging heals to delay is a classic tactic. Sure hope his lawyer is pro-bono.
FYI, the users 'white' and 'paul244' are, in fact, the same person and have violated the forum rules by registering and posting on more than one account.
OptiBoard Administrator
----
OptiBoard has been proudly serving the Eyecare Community since 1995.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks