by Written on behalf of Wise Health Law January 21, 2019 4 min read

In a recent decision of the Discipline Committee (DC) of the College of Optometrists of Ontario (COO) allegations of professional misconduct were dealt with relating to the improper delegation of services.

What Happened?

The complainant/patient (CP) attended the member's clinic for the first time in August of 2016. He wore eyeglasses and had undergone many eye examinations in the past. His usual optometrist had moved away. The CP was suffering from headaches and felt he may need a new eyeglass prescription. He made an appointment to see the optometrist member. When he arrived, he was greeted by a man he assumed was the member. The man did not introduce himself and simply said he would be conducting the examination. The man was, in fact, an optician and not an optometrist. The CP was told his tests revealed a significant change in his prescription. The member was present at the clinic that day but had been called to take a personal call dealing with a death in the family. He had intended to participate in the CP’s exam but was unable to because of the call. He did review the CP's health record prior to the prescription being sent to be fulfilled. He did not, however, at any time see the CP.

New Prescription Issued

The CP relied on the new prescription to order lenses for his eyeglass and sunglasses frames. The insurance submission and the prescription were sent in the name of the member. A short while later, the CP came to pick up his glasses but only the sunglasses were ready. He tried them on but found that his vision was poor. He was told by the optician, who the CP still assumed was an optometrist, that he needed time to adjust to the new prescription. When the CP later returned to pick up his eyeglasses, he had, by then, made his complaint and had confirmed that he had been tested by the optician. The member eventually offered a refund and agreed to test the CP's eyes again personally. The second test provided different results.

Optician’s Prescription

Rx Sph Cyl Axis Add Prism
OD +2.00 -2.00 89 +2.25 -
OS +1.75 -1.75 87 +2.25 -

Optometrists Prescription

Rx Sph Cyl Axis Add Prism
OD +2.00 -2.00 85 +2.00 -
OS +1.50 -1.00 85 +2.00 -
The CP did not purchase replacement lenses through the clinic. The College ultimately investigated the CP's complaint and did so undercover. The investigator attended the clinic and asked for an eye exam with the optician by name. He was told that the optician did not perform eye exams and was offered an appointment with the member.

Professional Misconduct Issues


The Regulated Health Professions Act (RHPA) regulates “controlled acts” by health professionals. In s. 27(2) two such acts are the communication of a diagnosis (item 1) and the prescription of eyeglasses (item 9). The section also prohibits such controlled acts being done by an unauthorized person. An optometrist is the health professional who is allowed to perform the two relevant controlled acts. Controlled acts may, however, be delegated under s. 28 of the RHPA but only in accordance with the Regulations made under the Optometry Act (OA). The OA and its Regulations are silent on the subject. However, the College has its own standards on the subject known as the Optometric Practice Reference-Standards of Practice (OPR). Delegation requires supervision which means being physically present to allow immediate intervention if needed. The responsibility still ultimately remains with the optometrist. It may only occur after a relationship is established with the patient which includes an interview, an assessment, recommendations (if necessary), and informed consent about any proposed investigations or therapy. The actual delegation requires a specific and documented informed consent.


The member ultimately pleaded guilty to this act of professional misconduct and the DC agreed that it was supportable based upon the plea and the agreed statement of facts.

Joint Submissions on Sanctions

The College and the member had agreed on the appropriate sanctions. They included a reprimand, a three-week suspension, completion of an ethics program, a series of thousand-word essays, further unannounced inspections of his practice and $20,000.00 in costs payable to the College.

Test for Accepting a Joint Submission

The DC accepted the joint submission based on the test set out in the Supreme Court of Canada’s (SCC) decision in R. v. Anthony-Cook. Rejection may only occur if the result would bring the administration of the discipline process into disrepute or would be otherwise contrary to the public interest. That would be a disposition that was so markedly out of line with the expectations of reasonable persons aware of the circumstances of the case that they would view it as a breakdown in the proper functioning of the system. The purpose of a discipline order includes general deterrence, specific deterrence, remediation, and the protection of the public. All of these purposes had been considered and addressed in the accepted joint submission. If you are a regulated health professional facing a complaint, investigation, or disciplinary hearing at your College, contact the trusted and respected health lawyers at Wise Health Law. We rely on our significant experience before discipline panels of various regulatory Colleges to provide our clients with exceptional guidance and representation through the often-overwhelming discipline process. We provide our clients with expert legal guidance and have been recognized for our knowledge and excellent work by regulatory colleges, professional associations, and other lawyers. To find out more about how we can help, contact us online, or at 416-915-4234 for a consultation.

Also in Blog

Bill 218: Supporting Ontario’s Recovery Act, 2020

by Valerie Wise October 23, 2020 3 min read

On October 20, 2020, the Ontario government introduced legislation to provide protection from liability for workers, volunteers and organizations who make “good faith efforts” to comply with federal, provincial or municipal law and public health guidance relating to COVID-19.   
Cases to Watch: Marchi v. Nelson

by Mina Karabit September 22, 2020 3 min read

In August 2020, the Supreme Court heard and granted leave to appeal in Marchi v. Nelson, a case from the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The decision is one to watch as it will likely result in a renewed discussion of the distinction of policy versus operational decisions and their impacts on liability in tort law. The discussion will likely impact many of the anticipated post-COVID-19 lawsuits against public and government institutions.
Judicial Review: New Time Limits and a Helpful Primer

by Mina Karabit September 17, 2020 4 min read

In December 2019, Ontario’s Attorney General introduced Bill 161, the Smarter and Stronger Justice Act (the “Act”), which became law on July 8, 2020. The Act hopes to simplify a complex and outdated justice system by bringing changes to how legal aid services are delivered, how class actions are handled, and how court processes are administered.

Of note, the Act has amended the Judicial Review Procedures Act (JRPA) to establish new rules as to when an application for judicial review may be brought.

Any decisions made on or after July 8, 2020 are now subject to a 30-day limit for bringing an application for judicial review unless another Act provides otherwise. Courts, however, retain powers to extend the time for making an application for judicial review if satisfied that there are apparent grounds for relief and that no prejudice or hardship will be incurred by the delay. Before these amendments, the JRPA did not set out any time limits for bringing an application, but courts had powers to extend the time to bring an application if another Act prescribed the limit.