Great Glasses

[Joe peshi]

Any word on how the court case is coming yet????

[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.