please close the thread

[fatkinglet]

closed

[monty613]

Not much action you can take for a long wait and then recommending eyeglasses...

[Blunt]

Agreed, this guy is the biggest A-hole around.
He does this to everyone. His ass needs to be kicked.

[fatkinglet]

Not much action you can take for a long wait and then recommending eyeglasses...

what about the refusal of giving out my mom's prescription, i believe that is illegal

[pulsar]

File complaint to:
Regulatory Body for Ontario (http://www.collegeoptom.on.ca/)

[maebach]

I would complain to the ministry of health, and the ministry of consumer and commercial relations. I would not bother going to the College of Optometrist as they would look defend the optometrist and not look after the public. Keep in mind even though these guys call themselves doctors, they're actually retailers allowed to do eye exams. Why else would so many of them sell glasses and contacts? If they were real doctors they would simply release the prescription and you can go to the place of your choosing.

My definition of a doctor is:
A medically trained professional that, (a) diagnoses a medical problem, (b) prescribes, (c) heals. NOT retails. THAT is not a doctor.

[ah802]

Making an official complaint might get you somewhere.. But defaming an individual with credentials in this forum doesn't make you exempt from litigation protecting his status and reputation. Because this forum is more or less public, he would be well within his rights to sue, and with a win, could probably scoop up everything you own of value and if underage, your parents pay.

I'm not supporting any party here... Noting the circumstances, this optometrist might have misunderstood the representations of the client and assumed that they wanted glasses. The four hour wait should be a warning to make an appointment. Given an appointment a 1 hour wait would be unacceptable and non contactable, but without that appointment the patent should walk out of the office after an unacceptable period of time (hey it could have been a busy day). You don't treat a professional eye doctor like a barber, and the 'long' wait was their attempt to state that very fact.

Value your eyes and eye sight... it's not a hair cut.

Optometrist's and Stores that sell glasses usually go hand in hand... Check out Walmart, they give you the eye exam and sell you glasses in the same spot. I see nothing wrong in two brothers making a living on different sides of optometry. Surely if the patent insists on a paper prescription, they should get it if they paid (or if the government paid on their behalf), but in this case it's not clear anyone was billed... 'free' might mean the gov pays or it could mean really free.

If you really have issues with this, go a step further and go through proper channels; make an official complaint, and if substantiated you will have some satisfaction knowing that you have saved others from the same fate.

Venting is one thing...slander is another.

[profguy]

Making an official complaint might get you somewhere.. But defaming an individual with credentials in this forum doesn't make you exempt from litigation protecting his status and reputation. Because this forum is more or less public, he would be well within his rights to sue, and with a win, could probably scoop up everything you own of value and if underage, your parents pay.

I'm not supporting any party here... Noting the circumstances, this optometrist might have misunderstood the representations of the client and assumed that they wanted glasses. The four hour wait should be a warning to make an appointment. Given an appointment a 1 hour wait would be unacceptable and non contactable, but without that appointment the patent should walk out of the office after an unacceptable period of time (hey it could have been a busy day). You don't treat a professional eye doctor like a barber, and the 'long' wait was their attempt to state that very fact.

Value your eyes and eye sight... it's not a hair cut.

Optometrist's and Stores that sell glasses usually go hand in hand... Check out Walmart, they give you the eye exam and sell you glasses in the same spot. I see nothing wrong in two brothers making a living on different sides of optometry. Surely if the patent insists on a paper prescription, they should get it if they paid (or if the government paid on their behalf), but in this case it's not clear anyone was billed... 'free' might mean the gov pays or it could mean really free.

If you really have issues with this, go a step further and go through proper channels; make an official complaint, and if substantiated you will have some satisfaction knowing that you have saved others from the same fate.

Venting is one thing...slander is another.

Are you related to this optomitrist? No legit doctor says free when it is covered by ohip - he is taking credit for something he didn't give (which is nothing) - he is billing ohip.

This is a scam - not giving a prescription - he is being exposed for what he is. How convenient that he sent the women to his brother who sells glasses - how would the brother know what she needs except if he is in on the scam.

Where's the slander - if it is true?

[dariusz8]

Making an official complaint might get you somewhere.. But defaming an individual with credentials in this forum doesn't make you exempt from litigation protecting his status and reputation. Because this forum is more or less public, he would be well within his rights to sue, and with a win, could probably scoop up everything you own of value and if underage, your parents pay.

I'm not supporting any party here... Noting the circumstances, this optometrist might have misunderstood the representations of the client and assumed that they wanted glasses. The four hour wait should be a warning to make an appointment. Given an appointment a 1 hour wait would be unacceptable and non contactable, but without that appointment the patent should walk out of the office after an unacceptable period of time (hey it could have been a busy day). You don't treat a professional eye doctor like a barber, and the 'long' wait was their attempt to state that very fact.

Value your eyes and eye sight... it's not a hair cut.

Optometrist's and Stores that sell glasses usually go hand in hand... Check out Walmart, they give you the eye exam and sell you glasses in the same spot. I see nothing wrong in two brothers making a living on different sides of optometry. Surely if the patent insists on a paper prescription, they should get it if they paid (or if the government paid on their behalf), but in this case it's not clear anyone was billed... 'free' might mean the gov pays or it could mean really free.

If you really have issues with this, go a step further and go through proper channels; make an official complaint, and if substantiated you will have some satisfaction knowing that you have saved others from the same fate.

Venting is one thing...slander is another.


Man you sound like your related some how to the optometrist... Any way theres no slander that i see or anything that can get the op in trouble... Like to know how you figure if the person is underage that the optometrist can sue the parents. Pffft..... your really barking up the wrong tree and suggest you look at the laws better. Delt with similar issue in the past. Its a discussion forum for ppl to discuss issues they have, i guess you missed that part.

OP I strongly agree with you finding out what you can do next... thanks for warning ppl about this crock and the waste of time your family member had to indure. I know i would not be inclined to heading there after hearing your inconvience.

I really dont think it should be so easy for someone to become licensed to do eye exames if they are not doctors.... Only eye doctors should be allowed to do exams as they have all the necessary training to perscribe correct glasses and find other eye problems one may have.

[iamnotamerican.com]

That Gordon Ng (located on the main floor of ChinaTown Center, (416) 591-7269) is a scam artist, my mom was there yesterday for an eye exam. (May 2nd) she has diabetes and was physically there waiting for 4 hours in that small room to see him because he said my mom didn't make a appointment, After my mom had been waiting for so long, the scam artist said would offer my mom a free eye exam without telling my mom that it should be already covered under her medical condition. However, that bastard, Gordon NG, refused to give my mom the prescription and instead to sent my mom upstair for a pair of eyeglasses, which the eyeglasses store is owned by his brother.

I am so mad to learn the fact after my mom came home and I would like to know what action i can take

Um...where's the scam? Making someone wait, while maybe indicative of an a*shole, certainly isn't a scam..

Offering someone a free eye exam that may already be covered under a provincial plan or other isn't a scam.

Sending someone elsewhere (even a business somehow interconnected) for glasses isn't a scam, either.

So, while this Dr may be a jerk, you are opening yourself wide open for a defamation/slander suit by making accusations the doctor is a scammer. I would suggest you revise your post and its title to reflect more of the facts.

[fatkinglet]

I am not mad at the fact that my mom waited for so long before she got her appointment. What ticks me off is that he refused to hand over my mom's prescription when my mom asked for it, and i belive that is wrongful pratice and force my mom to go to his bro store to get the eyeglasses because they have my mom's prescription

[controlyar]

I would complain to the ministry of health, and the ministry of consumer and commercial relations. I would not bother going to the College of Optometrist as they would look defend the optometrist and not look after the public. Keep in mind even though these guys call themselves doctors, they're actually retailers allowed to do eye exams. Why else would so many of them sell glasses and contacts? If they were real doctors they would simply release the prescription and you can go to the place of your choosing.

My definition of a doctor is:
A medically trained professional that, (a) diagnoses a medical problem, (b) prescribes, (c) heals. NOT retails. THAT is not a doctor.

You really need to learn the difference between an Optometrist and an Optician. You just made an ass out of yourself. :lol:

[darkprince]

Yep! I went to them too. B4 but it wasn't that bad for me. To swtten up a deal he gave me pair of DKNY frames for half price. Yeah, i knew both stores were related. I thought his mother own the glasses store. :confused:

Well i dunno if its illegal that he didn't give you the prescription. But if he is going to charge you inorder for you to get the prescription(that piece of paper) then that is illegal.

That Gordon Ng (located on the main floor of ChinaTown Center, (416) 971-5180) is a scam artist, my mom was there yesterday for an eye exam. (May 2nd) she has diabetes and was physically there waiting for 4 hours in that small room to see him because he said my mom didn't make a appointment, After my mom had been waiting for so long, the scam artist said would offer my mom a free eye exam without telling my mom that it should be already covered under her medical condition. However, Gordon NG, refused to give my mom the prescription and instead to sent my mom upstair for a pair of eyeglasses, which the eyeglasses store is owned by his brother.

I am so mad to learn the fact after my mom came home and I would like to know what action i can take

[iamnotamerican.com]

Are you related to this optomitrist? No legit doctor says free when it is covered by ohip - he is taking credit for something he didn't give (which is nothing) - he is billing ohip.

Maybe so, the patient doesn't have to pay anything, so therefore saying it's 'free' is an accurate statement as far as the patient is concerned. Yes, if you want to argue semantics, it's not free at all since their taxes or in some cases monthly or annual contributions to the provincial plans paid for it, but for all intents and purposes, it is 'free' at the time to the person who doesn't get billed for it.


This is a scam - not giving a prescription - he is being exposed for what he is. How convenient that he sent the women to his brother who sells glasses - how would the brother know what she needs except if he is in on the scam.
The definition of a 'scam':　A scheme for making money by deceptive, dishonest, or fraudulent means, i.e., a swindle or fraud.

Where is the deceptive or fraudulent means of making money? Certainly, he may (or may not) have been directing customers to 'preferred' retailers for the frames & lenses, but it is certainly not deceptive or fraudulent. You were not there at the time, it seems, so you don't know exactly what was said, how it was presented or how it transpired.

Where's the slander - if it is true?

The fact is you are passing on what is known as 'heresay' - you were not there so you are not a witness to what went on. It could be argued you are not expressing your comments in good faith and therefore, making accusations of a 'scam' could be seen as slanderous.

The difference is this: If you post details about what happened, point by point, that is generally all well and good. However, once you start labelling someone as you have - in this case as a fraudster - that can cross the line.

Hope that clarifies things for you.

[Whitedart]

what about the refusal of giving out my mom's prescription, i believe that is illegal

Why was this optometrist even chosen for a eye exam? Picked out from a phone book, referral from someone else, you live nearby or ?

If it was a cold walk in, then maybe some questions should have been asked before the eye exam.

[Hunter316]

Where's the slander - if it is true?

The slander lies in that there does not appear to be any kind of scam going on here. The customer was not charged anything at the time the test was administered so they were not out any money and most optometrists advertise free eye exam with the purchase of glasses. If they did something underhanded to try to get money from the customer then this could be construed as a scam but they didn't so it isn't.

It would also be fairly easy for the optometrist in question to show how they might be harmed by what they at least would claim as a false accusation since a vast number of people research their activities on the internet before they make a purchase or partake in a service.

[profguy]

[QUOTE=iamnotamerican.com;6789826]Um...where's the scam? Making someone wait, while maybe indicative of an a*shole, certainly isn't a scam..

Offering someone a free eye exam that may already be covered under a provincial plan or other isn't a scam.

QUOTE]

Try looking up the definition of a "scam". Claiming to give someone a free exam and then billing the government isn't a scam them what is it? Not giving them a prescription but directing them to your brother instead to fill it is a scam.

If this isn't a scam to you then IMO you are scamer too or at least have very questionable ethics and not unlike the optometrist in question.

[iamnotamerican.com]

Um...where's the scam? Making someone wait, while maybe indicative of an a*shole, certainly isn't a scam..

Offering someone a free eye exam that may already be covered under a provincial plan or other isn't a scam.



Try looking up the definition of a "scam". Claiming to give someone a free exam and then billing the government isn't a scam them what is it? Not giving them a prescription but directing them to your brother instead to fill it is a scam.

Actually, I already had some time before you posted this. I refer you to my last post.


If this isn't a scam to you then IMO you are scamer too or at least have very questionable ethics and not unlike the optometrist in question.

Lots of businesses refer customers to 'preferred' vendors, for various reasons. The referring party may get preferred rates, a commission or perhaps just a special deal for their clients. Of course, they may also be in partnership or -in this case- even related, or maybe the referring party feels the customer would get better overall service with this vendor. This practice is certainly not uncommon, nor is it illegal or improper.

I doubt we will ever know what was said about the prescription - that's one of the problems with heresay. I highly doubt the doctor refused outright to provide the patient with the prescription even after a direct request, since that would clearly be improper. I suspect there was most likely an offer of convenience to forward the prescription on to the preferred vendor. A truly altruistic offer? Perhaps not, but there certainly could have been an agreement or even a misunderstanding on the part of the patient, and when the information is passed onto the third party (in this case, the OP) it becomes even more muddied.

In the end, even if everything the OP had written was 100% accurate in every sense, there certainly is no scam taking place. Potentially (though this would be really stretching it) a small amount of improper behaviour on the part of the doctor if he did indeed withhold the prescription, but certainly no 'scam'.

[Hunter316]

If this isn't a scam to you then IMO you are scamer too or at least have very questionable ethics and not unlike the optometrist in question.

I would ask what iamnotamerican.com has done that makes him a scammer.

Your opinions lose a lot of credibility when you attack someone in this manner. You posted your story on a site that has a history of people disagreeing with each other and as soon as someone has an opinion other than the one that you hold you question their ethics and insult them. This is not the way to get people to agree with your point of view.

[nator86]

iv been to this guy before, and would NOT go back to him ever again!

Thats all I'm going to say on this matter.

[Sprite_TM]

what the optometrist did was wrong, he forced his mom to buy glasses from "his" place when she clearly says she didnt and want the prescription

[Lulz]

Making an official complaint might get you somewhere.. But defaming an individual with credentials in this forum doesn't make you exempt from litigation protecting his status and reputation. Because this forum is more or less public, he would be well within his rights to sue, and with a win, could probably scoop up everything you own of value and if underage, your parents pay.


Freedom of Expression.
he can't sue anyone because someone is calling him names on a forum.

i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment

[Cheap Cat]

Freedom of Expression.
he can't sue anyone because someone is calling him names on a forum.

i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment

If someone is defaming his character and it is not true, yes, he can sue.

First amendment??? This is Canada, not the U.S. I assume that you are referring to the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I suspect you watch too much American television. Even in the U.S., the first amendment won't protect you from a defamation law suit.

[monty613]

i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment

"Whateva! I'll do what I want"

http://media.newschoolers.com/uploads/cache/images/1173157056-487085-400x270-cartman.jpg

[mistake]

Freedom of Expression.
he can't sue anyone because someone is calling him names on a forum.

i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment

you obviously have not heard of the human rights commission. you can get at least a $40000 fine for calling someone ******** or insulting them in any way. you dont have a clue what kind of rot exists in this country.

[khtm]

Who the hell would wait 4 hours for an eye exam? I'd be gone after 15 minutes.

[Hunter316]

you obviously have not heard of the human rights commission. you can get at least a $40000 fine for calling someone ******** or insulting them in any way. you dont have a clue what kind of rot exists in this country.

I don't agree with all politically correct BS that we are forced to live with these days but I don't think it’s a bad thing that people are made to back up defamatory or derogatory statements they make against others or face some kind of consequence.

[iamnotamerican.com]

Freedom of Expression.
he can't sue anyone because someone is calling him names on a forum.

Calling names, maybe not. But making unfounded accusations in poor faith are not equivalent to 'freedom of expression'.


i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment
As others have pointed out, methinx you've been watching a little too much American television. The First Amendment is an American amendment to their constitution and has nothing whatsoever to do with Canadian laws.

[lil_c09]

If this isn't a scam to you then IMO you are scamer too or at least have very questionable ethics and not unlike the optometrist in question.

Because someone is voicing their opinion on the matter makes them a scammer as well? Please explain how that works.

iv been to this guy before, and would NOT go back to him ever again!

Thats all I'm going to say on this matter.

Why say that if you're not going to explain what happened to you to make you not want to go back to him.

what the optometrist did was wrong, he forced his mom to buy glasses from "his" place when she clearly says she didnt and want the prescription

Again, the OP is relaying information that was given by his mother. No one knows the how legit this information this information is, nor do we know if she was actually offered a better deal if she indeed purchase glasses from their store. I mean, in a logical sense, if you owned this store, would you not offer people cheaper discounts if they purchased glasses from your store as well as doing an eye exam? I know I would.

Who the hell would wait 4 hours for an eye exam? I'd be gone after 15 minutes.

Exactly. For some reason I think the OP is exaggerating the time his mother spent at the office. I highly doubt anyone would wait that long.

[sschopra]

What the optomotrist did particularly with regards to the prescription is unethical (if not illegal). You have complete rights to your medical information. I think the first mistake you made was going to an optomotrist in Chinatown.

What the OP stated is not slander. He is making statements from his experience. If he said that the optomotrist was a drug dealer (without any valid evidence) that would be slander.

I would recommend filing a complaint with the college of optomotrists. Just like the College of Surgeons they are designed to act in the interest of the patient and not the provider. They will investigate the matter. Likely nothing will come from your case expect educating Gordon that he should give his perscriptions to all his patients. Will at least hopefully prevent other people from having the same problem.

Information regarding making a complaint can be found at:
http://www.collegeoptom.on.ca/complaintsprocess.htm

And whomever said he is not actually a Doctor is correct. There are only 5 degrees that are allowed to be called doctors.

1. Physicians
2. PHD holders
3. Dentists
4. Chiropractors
5. Podiatrists

All Naturopaths, Optomotrists, Physiotherapists or anybody else that refers to themselves as doctors is using their name incorrectly.

[Alcetic]

Be glad your mom wasn't treated like this:

Optician attacks (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzSn2efsyM4)

:o :o

[iamnotamerican.com]

What the optomotrist did particularly with regards to the prescription is unethical (if not illegal). You have complete rights to your medical information.

Really? Ever tried asking a hospital or the provincial health plan - for full copies of your medical records? Having said that, based on the fact OP's comments are nothing but third party heresay, for all we know the doctor (and I used this word in the broadest general sense) simply offered to send the prescription to the eyeglass retailer on his mother's behalf. That's the problem with heresay, and the very reason why it's not accepted in court. It's prone to exaggeration, convolution and inaccuracies.


What the OP stated is not slander. He is making statements from his experience.

Actually, he is making statements based on third party 'experiences' and heresay. Completely different.

If he said that the optomotrist was a drug dealer (without any valid evidence) that would be slander.

He accused the doctor of being a scammer - without any valid evidence and based on third party experiences. What's the difference?

[cahk]

I'm in BC so I don't know what OHIP covers, but anyhow: I am not here to defend this 'doctor', but I think there's some problem with what the OP is saying:

The fact that this 'doctor' claimed he can do the exam for free isn't exactly false - it depends on the circumstances. For example, was your mom asking 'If I need to pay anything?' or was she ready to pull her wallet out? If that's the case, it is completely legitimate for him to answer it's free (although he should clarify it is covered by OHIP, if that's indeed the case)

The fact that she had to wait for 4 hours isn't the 'doctor''s fault - it is his freedom to run his business the way he wants it. If he requests appointments to be made, then it is his right to make you wait. If you choose to wait, that's fine or you can walk away. It's kinda like a restaurant fails to serve you food, you can either keep waiting or call the manager and cancel the order if it's long enough. If you believe he had conducted himself unprofessionally, you are free to complaint to the regulatory body of that profession and not start a personal attack on this person. This person might be a jerk, but based on what you are saying, he clearly isn't a scam artist.

As some other members have pointed out, what you are doing is indeed libel, per Criminal Code of Canada Section 298
"A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published. Every one who publishes a defamatory libel is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years."

Is it illegal for him not to give you the prescription? Maybe. I know I never got mine (I'm in BC mind you)

i can call anybody anything i want and not get sued because of first amendment

As others have pointed out, first amendment has nothing to do with Canadian law and I gurantee if you go around and start calling people name, you will get sued both in criminal and civil court- The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms gurantees freedom of expression, but the courts have ruled there are limitations to it and libel is one of them.

[dishguy1977]

And whomever said he is not actually a Doctor is correct. There are only 5 degrees that are allowed to be called doctors.

1. Physicians
2. PHD holders
3. Dentists
4. Chiropractors
5. Podiatrists

All Naturopaths, Optomotrists, Physiotherapists or anybody else that refers to themselves as doctors is using their name incorrectly.

Do you people have any concept of the difference between an Optician and an Optometrist?? If he is an Optometrist he can ABSOLUTELY use the title Doctor!

"The Regulated Health Professions Act restricts the use of the title “Doctor”. Except as permitted in the regulations under the Act, no person is entitled to use the title “Doctor”, a variation or abbreviation or an equivalent in another language in the course of providing or offering to provide in Ontario health care to individuals, unless they are members of the College of Chiropractors of Ontario, the College of Optometrists of Ontario, the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario, the College of Psychologists of Ontario or the Royal College of Dental Surgeons of Ontario. The purpose of this prohibition is to avoid confusion among health care consumers."

[flexwong]

i think there is too much confusion in this thread. we have some people not understanding the difference between an optometrist and an optical technician, and others thinking that the first amendment of the US constitution is what we have in canada, and then we have some who think that referring someone to a specific store to buy things is a scam (i don't know about the "not releasing prescription" part but the simple process of telling you to go to that store is not a scam).

optometrists ARE doctors. optical technicians (or w/e you call them) are NOT doctors. those are the ones that you see at glasses shops who simply do eye examinations. they do not check your eyes for diseases, they simply give you a prescription.

[neondawg]

again ... simple solution for this kinda thing.

if your mom's ohip card was ran through for the eye exam and she requested a prescription be written and wasn't given it then you would have grounds to call up the government and express your concerns about things. and i don't mean calling them up and claiming he is doing fraudulent things .. just ask what is the procedure for this sort of thing.

second of all, she didn't have to go to the brothers shop and buy those glasses. she could have just thanked the man for his suggestion to use his brother but would rather shop around first before making a decision.

i agree that if you mom had to sit and wait for a long time it's not good customer service, but at the same time she could have easily left and then came back another day. i certainly wouldn't be sitting for more than 30 mins and wasting my day.

another thing .... get a second opinion on things. your mom could have easily called up another place and made an appointment and then after being examined, asked for a written prescription.

coming on here to vent really only makes for others good reading and doesn't help your situation. getting 3rd party info on things doesn't help and most often leads to confusion and mis-information.

common sense......

[profguy]

The slander lies in that there does not appear to be any kind of scam going on here. The customer was not charged anything at the time the test was administered so they were not out any money and most optometrists advertise free eye exam with the purchase of glasses. If they did something underhanded to try to get money from the customer then this could be construed as a scam but they didn't so it isn't.

It would also be fairly easy for the optometrist in question to show how they might be harmed by what they at least would claim as a false accusation since a vast number of people research their activities on the internet before they make a purchase or partake in a service.

Try re-reading my ealier post - claiming to provide a free exam but already covered by medical plan, not giving a prescription but forcing you to go to the guy's brother.

Get real - you must be a scammer too with your convoluted logic.

[Hunter316]

Try re-reading my ealier post - claiming to provide a free exam but already covered by medical plan, not giving a prescription but forcing you to go to the guy's brother.

Get real - you must be a scammer too with your convoluted logic.

I am not sure how anyone was forced to go to the guys bother. As there were no mentions of any threats against the mom if she did not go to the brother then I see no force being applied to do so. As for the prescription we do not know exactly what the conversation was. If the optometrist had said "there is no charge for this test due to your extended wait" and then turn around and charge the Health Plan then he would not be telling the truth but if he were to say "no you don't have to pay for this service" when someone was asking how much it cost he would be telling the truth since at the time he would not be charging the person.

If possible could you also please provide you definition of scammer since I am the second person with whose opinion you have seemingly disagreed with on here that you have called a scammer.