College Successful in Contempt of Court Action
Pursuant to a contempt of court action initiated by the College, the owners of the Great Glasses franchise (Mr. Bruce Bergez et al) have been ordered to pay a fine of $50,000 a day for every day after November 24, 2006 (the date of the decision of a previous contempt of court action), up to and including October 10, 2007 (the date this latest decision was published). This results in a fine of more than $15 million. A previous order remains in place prohibiting Great Glasses from dispensing eyeglasses or contact lenses without a prescription from an optometrist or a physician.
Background
The College has been involved in this case for a long time. In 2003, the we were successful in obtaining a court order requiring the owners of Great Glasses to cease dispensing spectacles on the basis of Eyelogic® test results and without a valid prescription. With evidence that the prohibited activity had continued, the College initiated a contempt of court action.
The matter was heard on October 25 and October 26, 2006 and the judgment in the case was released on November 24, 2006. In that judgment, Justice Crane of the Superior Court found that the advertising by Great Glasses was "a gross deception on the public, putting his [Mr. Bergez's] customers at risk of their health, done solely for the commercial profit of the respondents" and that the business conduct of Mr. Bergez was "highly provocative, arrogant and egregious".
Justice Crane imposed a fine of $1,000,000 on Mr. Bergez et al and ordered Mr. Bergez to purge their contempt by posting signs in their stores advising customers that they must have a prescription from an optometrist or physician, and that glasses and contact lenses cannot be dispensed on the basis of the Eyelogic® test performed at their stores. The College was awarded costs.
On December 8, 2006, Mr. Bergez appealed Justice Crane’s decision. Upon filing the appeal, the provision ordering the payment of money (the $1 million fine) is automatically stayed, however the non-monetary orders must still be complied with.
Recent Action
After determining that Great Glasses stores continued to dispense eyewear without a valid prescription from an optometrist or a physician, the College filed a new contempt of court action alleging that Mr. Bergez had not complied with Justice Crane’s decision. The case was heard the last week in August by Justice Fedak of the Superior Court. In his decision, published on October 10, 2007, Justice Fedak found that “Bruce Bergez failed to purge his contempt by personally ensuring that dispensing only be done in accordance with a prescription from an optometrist or a physician as mandated by the Judgment of Justice Crane.” This decision has been appealed.
Public awareness regarding the risks of unauthorized prescribing has increased as a result of well-informed reporting on the part of the Hamilton Spectator. The following articles are posted here with the permission of The Hamilton Spectator:
