Refracting, the Courts, and You: A Case Study

The Goal

James McLean, an Ontario optician practising in Hamilton, brought a Court application seeking a declaration that his proposed model for obtaining prescriptions, and dispensing eyewear, is lawful.¹

The Proposed Model

Mr. McLean, through a company which he controls, leased an automated refraction device known as the "Eyelogic System". The Eyelogic System, by conducting sight tests and measuring the refractive error of the eye, can automatically generate "prescriptions". Mr. McLean's intention was to use the Eyelogic System to generate "prescriptions", which would then be sent to an ophthalmologist in Alberta who would review them and issue an actual prescription. The actual prescription would then be sent back to Mr. McLean, and he would use same to dispense eyeglasses to the patient.

What, then, is the difference between a "prescription" and an actual prescription?² Section 5(1) of the Opticianry Act, 1991, (the "Act")³ prohibits an optician from dispensing eyewear to a patient "except upon the prescription of an optometrist or physician"⁴. Failure to comply with this provision is an act of professional misconduct.⁵ Thus, the "prescription" generated by the Eyelogic System does not satisfy this criteria, and is not a valid prescription in the sense that an Ontario optician could not then use same to dispense eyewear. This is where the Alberta ophthalmologist comes in to play. According to Mr. McLean, having the Alberta ophthalmologist review the "prescription" and send back an actual prescription would be in keeping with section 5(1) of the Act.

To read the rest of the article, click here.