Opticians Defence Lawyer
In Canada, professionals including opticians are obligated meet rigorous educational, licensing, and regulatory standards that are set by their respective provinces. Each province independently regulates its professionals, as a way to ensure adherence to local requirements. In Ontario, the College of Opticians of Ontario (COO) is responsible for overseeing the practice of opticianry. This kind of oversight helps us ensure that the members of the profession continuously maintain the highest standards of professional knowledge and integrity, thereby delivering a high level of care to patients. It also helps ensure that these professionals engage in the practice of lifelong learning and updating their knowledge base as well as skills.
The COO enforces the Opticianry Act, 1991, which requires that opticians receive proper education from accredited institutions, engage in ongoing education, and comply with the established regulations. The primary objective is to protect the public from professional misconduct. Consequently, the COO accepts and investigates formal complaints against licensed opticians, imposing penalties when necessary to address unethical behaviour.
Our firm has a track record in providing competent criminal and regulatory defence. Often, we resolve cases without formal disciplinary actions or sanctions from regulatory bodies. We have successfully defended a wide range of professionals, including doctors, dentists, nurses, accountants, psychotherapists, pharmacists, and psychologists among others.
- CP24: Civil Sexual Assault Lawsuit at St. Michael’s in Toronto.
- Global News Morning Show: Sentencing Arguments in Assault case of Dafonte Miller.
- Breakfast Television: Role of Mental Health in Court Proceedings.
- Global News National: Bruce McArthur will not serve consecutive sentences.
- CBC Radio: Interview with Mayor John Tory and Jordan Donich on CBC Radio.
- CTV News National: Handgun ban supported by majority of Canadians: Nanos survey.
- Global News: How difficult is it to get a legal handgun in Canada.
- CP24: Sentencing Hearing for Chair Girl.
How are Opticians Regulated?
Opticians in Ontario are regulated under the Opticianry Act, 1991, which is enforced by the COO. This statute delineates various regulations for the practice of opticianry, including registration, quality assurance, inspections, professional misconduct, and examination requirements. To ensure high-quality standards, the Act mandates regular self-assessments, continuing education, and professional development for opticians, along with routine inspections of their practices.
The Opticianry Act, 1991 also specifies registration requirements, detailing the classes of registration, necessary examinations, educational prerequisites, and the annual renewal of registration certificates. Additionally, it sets out the various procedures for suspending and reinstating memberships. The Act enumerates 29 acts or omissions that would be considered professional misconduct.
What Types of Acts or Omissions may Lead to a Finding of Professional Misconduct?
Patients might choose to lodge formal complaints against opticians for any number of reasons. The complaints normally come from negative experiences or injuries. Common reasons for someone to file a complaint might involve the optician violating conditions of registration, breaching professional standards, client abuse, conflicts of interest, making false statements, misuse of professional titles, record falsification, and violations of the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991. These kinds of acts often lead to significant consequences for the optician involved. Immediate consultation with qualified legal counsel is crucial upon receiving a complaint.
Professional Regulation in Canada
The Complaint Process
Opticians owe a duty of care to their patients, and failure to uphold this duty might result in formal complaints filed with the COO under the Opticianry Act, 1991. Any member of the public can file a complaint through the COO website. Complaints must be detailed and include the names of the optician and any relevant individuals, alongside the complainant’s contact information, unless it poses a safety risk. There is no time limit for filing a complaint.
What Happens when a Complaint is Filed?
Upon receiving a complaint, the COO opens a file and acknowledges the complainant and the optician within 14 days. The optician must respond formally within 30 days. The Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee reviews the file to decide if further investigation is needed. This process may involve clarifying complaints, interviewing witnesses, inspecting records, and collecting additional information. The Committee’s deliberations are confidential, and neither party appears before it.
A finding of professional misconduct can severely impact an optician’s practice. Hence, seeking legal counsel promptly upon receipt of a complaint is advised.
Understanding Workplace Investigations
What Penalties can Opticians Face as a Result of a Complaint?
Following a thorough investigation, the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee decides on the resolution. Options range from closing the file if no misconduct is found, issuing formal cautions, mandating remedial education, referring the case to the Discipline Committee, or conducting incapacity inquiries.
If the Discipline Committee determines that there was misconduct, it might choose to suspend or revoke the optician’s license, impose practice limitations, levy fines, or issue formal reprimands. These decisions are publicly available be read on the COO website, and both the optician and the complainant can appeal the decision if dissatisfied.
How to Defend a Formal Complaint made to the Ontario College of Opticians
Defending against a complaint with the regulatory college depends largely on the specific claims and facts of the case. It is highly recommended too immediately consult with a knowledgeable legal counsel is required. In some cases, the claims may be false or do not constitute misbehaviour, which would enable the optician to claim that they have indeed complied with regulations when they formally reply to the College. Alternatively, a defence might entail the optician proving compliance with the standard of care and fulfilling the duty owed to the patient.
Recent Law
S. S. v T. S., 2019 CanLII 82818 (ON HPARB)
Here, the Health Professions Appeal and Review Board upheld the decision of the Inquiries, Complaints and Reports Committee of the College of Opticians of Ontario to take no further action regarding a complaint by S. S. against optician T. S.
The complainant, S. S. had purchased eyeglasses from City Optical and believed he was receiving Essilor Prevencia lenses with a particular blue block coating. The complainant, however, claimed he was given cheaper lenses without the specified coating. Despite attempts to resolve the issue, such as offering him a partial refund, S. S. was ultimately dissatisfied. As such, he requested a full refund, which was later rejected by the company.
An independent expert confirmed the presence of blue block coating on the lenses, though they showed some damage. The Board ultimately held that the investigation was thorough and the Committee’s decision reasonable, since it relied on expert opinion and the thorough review of evidence. The decision to take no further action was upheld, finding no grounds for further disciplinary measures.
N.P. v N.S., 2019 CanLII 15253
The Health Professions Appeal and Review Board evaluated a ruling from the Inquiries, Complaints, and Reports Committee of the College of Opticians of Ontario, following a grievance filed by N.S. against optician N.P. N.S. had purchased progressive eyeglasses from Vision Express, which N.P. owns, and subsequently experienced discomfort and vision problems. Despite multiple lab adjustments, the issues persisted. N.S. also accused N.P. of unprofessional behaviour, including refusal to issue a refund and an incident involving another Vision Express optician. The Committee directed N.P. to complete a Specified Education or Remediation Program (SCERP) and receive a verbal caution, mainly due to inadequate record-keeping. The Board upheld this decision. This shows us how important it is to maintain appropriate, accurate, and proper patient records that are in accordance with the College’s standards.