Oh brother...

[Leslie]

Ali Khan has put together a group for Ontario Opticians called The Society of Eye Care Professionals. This group plans to tackle the new delegation laws, illegal dispensing, and the mutual reconition act to allow a student enrolled at any opticianry school in Canada to practice in Ontario. This group sounds like they will do more than the College or the Association. I'm sure if you call this number 905-731-6022 they would be happy to send you a registration form.

[mike.elmes]

Is this group trying to complete what the Canadian Opticians Association started??

[Truth]

--

[Golfnorth]

Leslie, THE REAL THREAT to Ontario opticians AND OD’s is this “society of eye care professionals that’s popped up in the last few days. This “society” is run by Mr. Khan who if you didn’t know also runs the “Academy” of ophthalmic education and also runs the “Khan group” and he was the chairman of the former board of ophthalmic dispenser until 1985 and was instrumental in implementing the mandatory continuing education for opticians (education is a good thing, but follow the path that this has taken him).

To elaborate, he’s a huge fundraiser for the PC party in Ontario, which may not seem like much to anyone but follow the progress of his career for a moment. Back in the ‘80’s he was the chairman of the board, which gave him endless opportunity to “rub” elbows with the politico’s at Queens Parks (remember the “big blue machine” that ran Ontario until 1985). Like the PC party, he fell off the map for a few years until 1995 (same year as the Mike Harris “common sense revolution” came into power) when his “Khan Group” started offering educational courses to opticians across the province.

Since then his “Khan Group/Academy” has offered continuing education to opticians, his only competition, the provincial & national Associations. I say associations because the “Academy” is now providing continuing education to OD’s as well.

He’s also had a beef with the College of Opticians of Ontario for some time now, look back at the newsletter that was published earlier this year. If you’ve ever attended an “Academy” education day you’re probably on the mailing list and would have received this newsletter in the mail, newsletter was more of a slag on the College and not so much a newsletter.

But wait, it gets better. If you go on the Ontario Association of Optometrist website (www.optom.on.ca), it’s hard to find it, but his son Farooq is a director on the OD’s association. Wait there’s more, now go to the College of Opticians of Ontario website (www.coptont.org), and look up the current council members, his other son Fazal is on the College council. So dad is criticizing decisions that the his own son had a hand in crafting(?) as well as competing again his other sons organization for continuing education dollars. Continuing education that was mandated by the board, when you-know-who was the chairman.

Here comes the punch-in-the-mouth. Go to the “Academy” website (www.aoece.com) and look up the faculty, both of his sons are board members, never mind that the entire board of the “Academy” is completely family, no that’s not a concern at all.

So lets recap for a moment, you have the former chairman of the board who implemented continuing education 20 years ago now running a business who’s sole business is providing continuing education and his only competitors are the OD’s association (which his son serves on as a director) and the opticians association. Also, he’s blatantly criticized the College infinitely about everything under the sun (a College which has one of his sons on the board) and now he’s started a “Society of Eye Care Professionals” which will be the “voice of opticians in Ontario.”

Notice the words “Eye Care Professionals.” Not optician, “Eye Care Professionals.” My friends this is what its come down too. Within a few years you will see the “society” attempt to expand its memberships base to include not only opticians, but OD’s as well. This is something that not a lot of us have been paying attention to, but we should. Why, because this is his endgame. A “society” that represents opticians & OD’s, not so much an association or College, but an amalgamation of the two. How you ask, look to our neighbours to the south for the answer. In the US, opticians and OD’s are regulated for the most through professional trade society/boards that have no status as health care providers but are on par with trades people for the most part.

You’ll see in a few years if/when the next PC party governs Ontario that the issue of deregulation will come forward yet again, same as it has for the past 20 years. Its no coincidence that deregulation rears its ugly head every time the PC party is in power. THINK ABOUT IT. Who’s whispering this idea of deregulation in the politicians ear? The difference this time is that there will be a new player on the field claiming to be the unified “voice of opticians & OD’s,” a player who will make the proposal that his organization is not only a feasible “society” but also a capable regulator of OD’s and opticians. The catch, neither one of the professions OD’s or opticians will be seen as health care providers, but will be looked upon as trades people governs, regulated and controlled by their “society” a “society” solely owned & operated by one man, his sons and their cronies.

The worst part of this whole thing is that the funds the “society” will use to promote deregulate will come from “society” membership fees paid by ill-informed members of both professions.

The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing. - Socrates

So you believe that the "Scoiety of Eyecare Professionals" will want deregulation? Why would that be so? Wouldn't Ali Khan want to keep things regulated so he could continue to offer his continuing educational seminars?

Regards,
Golfnorth

[Truth]

Doesn't matter if the professions are deregulated continuing education is a cornerstone of any profession, regualted or not. Accountant, mechanics, councillors, teachers, most professions have continuing education in some form or another.

The difference is that the "society" will benefit twofold, one from the education dollars, two from the membership fees.

Go to any of the US society/regulator websites, they provide their own education to their own members. You think that's a good thing? The "society" could/will charge whatever it wants for education, nevermind membership fees. The "society" could dictate how much education you need and how much you'll have to pay for it. And where would the money go? Back to the professions? I don't think so, it would go to the board of directors and the CEO's of the "society."

Worst part, there wouldn't be any legislation governing the "society." At least now if the College does something wrong you can complain to the Ministry of Health that the College has violated its bylaws, policies, regulations etc. What recourse will you have if the "society" or its board does something wrong.

Cheers

[Ory]

Just received a phone call; Bruce Bergez was convicted. There will be a large article in the Hamilton Spectator tomorrow with all the details.

[DrummerBoy]

Yeah, I got that phone call too.

He was fined $1,000,000
He has to post a record of all his illegal activities in all his stores
No eyelogic in any of his stores

He must comply with the RHPA, if he doesn't it is a $50 000 a day fine. All stores must have licensed professionals on duty to be open. If anyone has a store in there area they should report it.

WHOOOOHOOOOOO

[Excalibur]

[87]On the evidence of the Record, I make the following findings:
·That the three respondent Great Glasses stores have had average gross revenues from the time of the subject Judgment to the present of not less than $190,000.00 per month, ($2.28 million per year). The gross revenues may well have been significantly greater – see Beaudry affidavit, para. 15.
·That approximately 80 per cent of the gross revenue is earned from customers who are dispensed eyewear without having a prescription.
·That the business volume of Great Glasses at the respondent stores has been at an annual increase and that the profit margin is at a minimum 50 per cent of gross revenue.
·That the calculation of the impugned income is not less than $900,000.00 per year ($2,280,000 x 80% x 50%) times three and a half years from the Judgment to the present, yielding approximately a sum of $3,000,000.00 as rounded. In addition, Mr. Bergez has now sold 14 franchises. The building of the franchise business has been over a period of time between the time of the Judgment to the present. I accept the evidence that in addition to a very substantial purchase fee of a franchise, the franchisee pays to the franchisor, whom I have found to be Mr. Bergez, seven percent of gross sales. I therefore impute a relatively modest gross revenue of each franchise store at $50,000.00 per month or $600,000.00 per year, yielding an annual royalty fee at seven percent, to be $42,000.00 per year. Given the progressive building of the franchise empire, I assess to Mr. Bergez, royalty income for one year and accordingly I make the sum to be ($42,000.00 x 14 x one year) ≠ $600,000.00 as rounded.
[88]I conclude that the respondents, Mr. and Mrs. Bergez, have obtained through unlawful business activity of the enterprises known as Great Glasses, not less than $3,600,000.00 in revenues. It is appropriate and a just result that they be required to disgorge the profit by way of a fine. Generous allowance is made for the costs of doing business, including income tax.
[89]I impose a fine of $1,000,000.00. This Court orders the respondent, Bruce Bergez, to pay the aforesaid fine of $1,000,000.00, by cheque or other financial instrument, payable to the Minister of Finance of Ontario by deposit with the Registrar of the Superior Court, located on the first floor of the John Sopinka Court House, within 14 days of the date of this judgment.
[90]Following the 14 days, should the fine not be paid as above ordered, enforcement will be by the Attorney General of Ontario pursuant to s. 143(2) of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990 C.43, as against each respondent, jointly and severally, including warrants for committal to each of Bruce Bergez and Joanne Marie Bergez. The Registrar will deliver a copy of this Order to the Director of Provincial Offences Act and Strategic Planning, 2nd Floor, 720 Bay Street, Toronto, Ontario.
[91]I further order that the corporations SHS Optical Ltd., Dundurn Optical Ltd. and Plains Road Optical Ltd. and Ontario Optical Development Corp., all corporations controlled by the named respondents Bergez, are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the aforesaid fine.
[92]The respondents, Bruce Bergez and Joanne Marie Bergez, will jointly and severally be accountable to this Court to purge their contempt by forthwith doing the following:
(i)The respondents shall permanently post a prominent sign in all of their stores, in a form to be approved by the Court, stating that customers must have a prescription from an optometrist or a physician before Great Glasses can dispense subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eyeglasses and that these items cannot be dispensed on the basis of the Eyelogic test performed by Great Glasses.
(ii)The respondents shall run a prominent notice in the Hamilton Spectator once a week for four weeks, in a form to be approved by the Court, to the same effect as the notice requested in subparagraph (i) above.
(iii)The respondents shall permanently refrain from advertising in any form to the public in such a way as to lead the public to believe that subnormal vision devices, contact lenses or eyeglasses can be dispensed to them on the basis of the eye tests performed by Great Glasses and all Great Glasses advertisements shall contain a specific prominent statement that glasses cannot be dispensed on the basis of the Great Glasses eye tests and that customers must have a prescription from an optometrist or a physician.
(iv)The respondents shall give to any person who has purchased a Great Glasses franchise or who inquires about purchasing such a franchise:
(a)a true copy of the Judgment; and
(b)a true copy of the contempt order issued by this Court.
(v)The respondents shall insert into all their franchise agreements a specific term that the franchise operation must be operated in strict accordance with the Judgment.
(vi)The respondent, Bruce Bergez, shall personally ensure through the institution of appropriate business practices, mode of business and instructions, that dispensing of subnormal eyewear is in accordance with a prescription written by an optometrist or qualified physician specifically for that patient and for the time of dispensing.
[93]The applicant is granted leave to motion this Court for such Orders as may be required to carry out these mandatory Orders.
[94]In order that the respondents comply with the Judgment, going forward there will be a fine of $50,000.00 for each and every day that the respondents are not in compliance with the Judgment.

[Ory]

Full text of the decision can be found here:

link

[ConcernedPatient]

Wow, all I can say is that this is about time.

As a past employee (not independant contractor) of this company, it is finally nice to see this case come to a close.

I truly hope deep down, that they close this clown down for good.

It has been a while since I worked for this company, but man you may want to re-think who you all get your frames from.

Here is a letter I sent to lens suppliers last week
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Centennial Optical and Optik K and R,


Seeing you are a supplier to Great Glasses stores, you may not be aware that they operating illegally at this moment.

None of their locations have a Registered Optician in their stores, and the so called Optician who gives a blanket delegation has had his license suspended.

Therefore in reality you should not be supplying optical goods to these locations period.

I am writing as a concerned patient, and believe me, if something goes wrong with my glasses or contacts, I know who to contact.

Read article below from College of Opticians Website

Interim Suspension

On November 16, 2006, the certificate of registration of Bruce Bergez R.O. C-1192 was suspended by order of the Executive Committee under section 37 of the Health Professions Procedural Code. The suspension is effective immediately and will remain in place until the matter of the allegations of professional misconduct against Mr. Bergez are disposed of by a panel of the Discipline Committee of the College.



I think that if anyone falls victim to health issues relating the these people still operating, a class action law suit should arise, and consist of the colleges and suppliers for allowing them to continue to stay in operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am sorry I did not join this forum sooner, but the time has come, this joker will not comply with this judgement, they will continue their eye testing as always (if he doesnt skip the country)


Suppliers for lenses include:
Global Eyewear, Centennial Optical, I'N'Vision, Imperial

Frame Suppliers Include:
Vista Eye Wear
Global Eyewear (Armani, Nike etc)
Wei Mei (Armani)
Keideso
On Guard Safety
Vision O
Gogetr
Fashion Excellence

I bet tomorrow you will find every single store open, and I would suggest finding a way to close them down, they will continue testing eyes, guarnteed

Best part of this is, I just saw this jackass driving a new Audi SUV the other day, cannot believe people have paid for his lifestyles.

Hope this was an interesting read.

Concerned Patient
aka Former Employee....Bruce, your going down Buster

[Refractingoptician.com]

[[

[ConcernedPatient]

they hire off the street, which doesnt say much for me, but just the same. he told us no need to worry about WSIB, but time will tell, just a matter of time before the doors close for good. funny thing, the eye testing training is a joke, anyone can push buttons, lots of redos over this system, eye testing will continue, he likes the attention, needs to go to jail, if memory serves me right at a "round table" meeting he called it derugulated health care in ontario, whatever that means, i guess he thinks eye tests are deregulated or something......shut them down

[Refractingoptician.com]

]]

[ConcernedPatient]

Optik K and R emailed me back saying they were in the process of giving them until Dec 1, to prove they have someone on premise to dispense and need to prove who it is, and provide their name and license, in the email they said they would send each store the letter. No manual, they use a an employee as a mobile trainer. They lost Cooper Vision and Ciba Vision as suppliers this past summer, doesnt like to pay his bills, cant even sell acuvue (johnson and johnson products)

[Refractingoptician.com]

[[

[RuleTheWorld]

[Golfnorth]

Do you really think this case has come to a close?
Do you really think that that their doors will be closed?
Perhaps you should spend less time writing to suppliers and following the "jack ***" around in his SUV, and more time in the unemployment line....

Your last post was not very nice. The poster in question appears to be a professional concerned optician. He/she was not following him around....it was just a chance meeting.

[Excalibur]

although the defendant has a right to appeal, the likelihood that the two judge's decisions (2003 and 2006) will be overturned are next to zero. This whole charade is coming to close -- and not soon enough. :bbg:

[Refractingoptician.com]

[[

[ConcernedPatient]

i just heard from a friend of mine who still works with these people, that apparently everything is business as normal due to an appeal, they think the order is stayed.

[ConcernedPatient]

i have tried the unemployment route, not eligable, they have every avenue covered in this illegal operation

[ConcernedPatient]

he should teach marketing, he is/was a very smart man, brilliant to speak with, amazing how big of a hole was dug though, sad sad sad, great life lesson

[Refractingoptician.com]

[[

[Excalibur]

he should look at hiring opticians, but how sound is his business model? As part of the justice's findings it was determined that a majority of orders 'dispensed' at these locations was without a valid prescription.

[Refractingoptician.com]

[[