Another Great Glasses article

**idispense** · 05-10-2010, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

Conversations with various licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled " or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "

It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .

I mean no disrespect, but the fact of the matter is that licensing bodies are self governing and their boards are made up of old school opticians that were educated in opticianry pehaps 30 years ago. They are not educated in governance or technology or even business and they know nothing about law and you would be lucky to find a non-public member that knew anyhting about accounting. .

I mean no disrespect when I say this either, the governing boards have no respect for new ideas. If they do not understand it, then they feel they are being challenged and they shut down . The most common tool they use everyday is still a PD ruler , a modified flashlight device called a PD scope and an ancient modified microscope called a B&L vertometer.

Asking the existing regulatory bodies to deal with internet matters would be like asking one of them to point out the x,y encoder on the shaft of their patternless edger .

Again , I mean no disrespect, but they are out of their element and have no training that would allow them to think out side of their box-o-graph .

**idispense** · 05-10-2010, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

Conversations with various licensing bodies will bring you this answer : " The internet can not be controlled " or " What jurisdiction does the sale take place in ? Does it take place at the customer location or the place the order was shipped from ? "

It is much easier for antiquated licensing bodies to only concern themselves with the "on-paper" registrants that they think they can control .

Basically, you will not find a regulatory body that will say " it doesn't matter where the sale is initiated, the fact is that internet seller is advertising a product in my regulated territory and that requires a licensed person to dispense in my territory " . The regulatory bodies have already been preconditioned by ........., to think it can not be fixed .

**Flybynight** · 05-10-2010, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by idispense

I mean no disrespect, but the fact of the matter is that licensing bodies are self governing and their boards are made up of old school opticians that were educated in opticianry pehaps 30 years ago. They are not educated in governance or technology or even business and they know nothing about law and you would be lucky to find a non-public member that knew anyhting about accounting. .

I mean no disrespect when I say this either, the governing boards have no respect for new ideas. If they do not understand it, then they feel they are being challenged and they shut down . The most common tool they use everyday is still a PD ruler , a modified flashlight device called a PD scope and an ancient modified microscope called a B&L vertometer.

Asking the existing regulatory bodies to deal with internet matters would be like asking one of them to point out the x,y encoder on the shaft of their patternless edger .

Again , I mean no disrespect, but they are out of their element and have no training that would allow them to think out side of their box-o-graph .

Of course you meant disrespect - your response to this post is as disingenuous as your responses to many threads. Flame all you want, make up whatever c.... that comes to mind its a lot of fun to read and it"s a great game. But please spare us the " I mean no disrespect" s....! Lets face it, you post to further your own agenda and that of the organization you support. Your posts read mostly like a fairy tale and in some cases are out right hilarious. Hey - don't stop I get a good chuckle every time I read your stuff. Almost like the "Joke of the Day"

**NorthStar** · 05-13-2010, 09:07 AM

BB busted for speeding. Too bad he wasn't going 1km more. I wonder if he will pay this fine. If not, in this case, action would be taken immediately - he would lose his license which probably would not stop him from driving...

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/767724

**Oedema** · 05-13-2010, 10:21 AM

What a surprise:

The car is leased in the name of Bergez's wife, Joanne.

**NorthStar** · 05-13-2010, 02:29 PM

Probably realized he couldn't lease it in his dog's name.

**AnotherOD** · 06-28-2010, 01:36 PM

So he's in court today and tomorrow right?

"A two-day court hearing is scheduled for June 28 and 29 in Hamilton."

http://www.thespec.com/article/764181

**idispense** · 06-28-2010, 09:21 PM

Will there be any opticians there to show strength ? 45 Main St East in Hamilton . The Sopinka Court house 6 th floor .

**idispense** · 06-28-2010, 09:31 PM

If the Attorney General has 2 lawyers and The College of Optometry had 2 lawyers and the College of Opticians had 2 lawyers there and the Receiver had 1 then there would be 7 lawyers present to go up against 1 Offender . Now Mr Offender would probably self represent himself and not take an assistant with him as he does not need any assistance or baggage boys to carry the files. Now just supposing that lawyers charge out at 400.00 per hour for litigation. That means that the court case was posted to run at 10 AM and finish at 5 PM which is 7 hours . So 7 hours times 7 lawyers times 400.00 per hour = $ 19, 600.00 not including travel time . Only one lawyer could speak at a time so 6 would sit idle for most of the day . Still that is over $ 20,000.00 of lawyering which has produced exactly nothing in the past eight years . Now a judges time must be included in the bill someplace . Hmmmm , a lot of money for no results.

And the same will be spent again tomorrow ?

**mike.elmes** · 06-29-2010, 11:18 AM

yet another update....the end is near.
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/798356
Lets see what Bergez defence skills amount to.

**NorthStar** · 06-29-2010, 12:21 PM

"...Under a proposed order submitted to the judge, the receiver would take control of Great Glasses stores, remove all of the automated eye-testing machines that have been used to provide prescriptions in violation of health regulations, and investigate the financial affairs of the stores to see if any of the outstanding fines can be recovered.
If necessary, Marsello added, the stores could be sold in block to an operator prepared to follow the law."

Hmmmm....opportunity for a chain of stores for bargain price...? Any possible takers?

**idispense** · 06-29-2010, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by NorthStar

"...Under a proposed order submitted to the judge, the receiver would take control of Great Glasses stores, remove all of the automated eye-testing machines that have been used to provide prescriptions in violation of health regulations, and investigate the financial affairs of the stores to see if any of the outstanding fines can be recovered.
If necessary, Marsello added, the stores could be sold in block to an operator prepared to follow the law."

Hmmmm....opportunity for a chain of stores for bargain price...? Any possible takers?

To let those stores continue in any format under any owner should never be allowed. They were built on the backs of legal opticians and legal optometrists. Their value should not be enhanced by their illegitamcy. Opticians and optometrists made the investment to bring them to court not the Attorney General. Why should optometrists and opticians allow it to continue for the interests of the Attorney General to collect money ? Optometry and Opticians will not recover anything from their millions in legal bills . The court system has been far to lenient . They can take their own hit just as we have .

The courts and the Attorney General should not profit on our backs .

**Golfnorth** · 06-30-2010, 05:51 AM

Originally Posted by idispense

To let those stores continue in any format under any owner should never be allowed. They were built on the backs of legal opticians and legal optometrists. Their value should not be enhanced by their illegitamcy. Opticians and optometrists made the investment to bring them to court not the Attorney General. Why should optometrists and opticians allow it to continue for the interests of the Attorney General to collect money ? Optometry and Opticians will not recover anything from their millions in legal bills . The court system has been far to lenient . They can take their own hit just as we have .

The courts and the Attorney General should not profit on our backs .

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/799093

Regards,
Golfnorth

**Chris Ryser** · 07-01-2010, 06:02 AM

Prescription law unclear, Bergez tells judge

Hamilton Spectator File Photo

The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 30, 2010)
Customers who receive free eye tests at Great Glasses stores shouldn't consider themselves to have been prescribed eyewear because they already know they need glasses before they enter the store.
That was one of the arguments put forward yesterday by Great Glasses founder Bruce Bergez as he attempts to convince an Ontario Superior Court judge that he and his wife, Joanne, shouldn't be thrown in jail and stripped of their businesses for ongoing contempt of court......................

http://www.thespec.com/article/799093

**uncut** · 07-01-2010, 06:12 AM

Interesting reading! Check out that newspaper's Special Reports Section. Article called "Blindsided". Nothing to do with the Great Glasses story, just optical interest.

**Golfnorth** · 07-01-2010, 02:22 PM

Originally Posted by Chris Ryser

Prescription law unclear, Bergez tells judge

Hamilton Spectator File Photo

The Hamilton Spectator
(Jun 30, 2010)
Customers who receive free eye tests at Great Glasses stores shouldn't consider themselves to have been prescribed eyewear because they already know they need glasses before they enter the store.
That was one of the arguments put forward yesterday by Great Glasses founder Bruce Bergez as he attempts to convince an Ontario Superior Court judge that he and his wife, Joanne, shouldn't be thrown in jail and stripped of their businesses for ongoing contempt of court......................

http://www.thespec.com/article/799093

Thank you so much for re-posting the link to the article that I did in the previous post.

Regards,
Golfnorth

**Oedema** · 07-01-2010, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by uncut

Interesting reading! Check out that newspaper's Special Reports Section. Article called "Blindsided". Nothing to do with the Great Glasses story, just optical interest.

I cannot believe a newspaper would publish an article like that... No integrity whatsoever.

**Golfnorth** · 07-02-2010, 05:30 AM

http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/800383

**NorthStar** · 07-02-2010, 07:48 AM

With the obvious action to end his business about to take place, only now does he agree to throw in the towel, likely with a nice, fat bank account in the Cayman's.

**Golfnorth** · 07-02-2010, 05:09 PM

From The Society of Eyecare Professionals;

On Friday July 2nd at 2:00 pm, Ontario Supreme Court Justice James Turnbull announced
his decision in the ongoing saga of the Great Glasses chain and Mr. Bruce Bergez. Mr.
Bergez was found guilty of both civil and criminal contempt. The judge appointed
Receiver Deloitte and Touche to take charge of all the stores on Monday July 5, 2010.
Sentencing is delayed until August 23rd so the court appointed receiver can report back
with the findings. There is a possibility that Bruce Bergez and his wife will be jailed
August 23rd, 2010.
Ontario’s Ministry of the Attorney General, the College of Optometrists and the College of
Opticians recommended that Bergez and his wife be imprisoned for two years and one
year respectively. They also requested that a receiver be appointed to take control of the
Great Glasses stores with no opportunity for the Bergezes to regain control.
Mr. Bergez has been violating the Ontario Health Regulations since 2003. In 2006, the
Bergezes and their companies were fined $1 million dollars and $50,000 a day for each

day they were not in compliance. Since then, the fines have accumulated to $60 million.

**Shwing** · 07-02-2010, 07:00 PM

Further, Bruce and his wife were sent to jail today. No word on bail or how long they'll be in...

**mike.elmes** · 07-02-2010, 07:47 PM

hey Ian, where did you find the the info on the jail time?

**one-eyed-jack** · 07-02-2010, 11:37 PM

There's been no sentence handed down where jail time is concerned.

"Ontario's Ministry of the Attorney General, College of Optometrists and College of Opticians jointly requested Bergez and his wife be imprisoned for two years and one year respectively. They also requested the appointment of the receiver.

The judge requested the parties to return August 23 to hear motions regarding potential sentences for contempt. "

http://thespec.ca/News/Local/article/800383