DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO B E T W E E N: THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO -AND- DR. EMAD ESKANDER, DR. KAR MAN CHEUNG, DR. SUZAN SARKIES, DR. VIVIAN LI NOTICE OF HEARING THE INQUIRIES, COMPLAINTS, AND REPORTS COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO has referred the following allegations about you to the Discipline Committee: That in or about 2014, you committed acts of professional misconduct under paragraphs 14 and 24 of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 made under the Optometry Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as set out in the particulars which are contained in Appendix A to this Notice of Hearing. FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT THE INQUIRIES, COMPLAINTS, AND REPORTS COMMITTEE OF THE COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO has referred the following allegation about Dr. Cheung, Dr. Sarkies and Dr. Li to the Discipline Committee: That in or about 2014, you committed acts of professional misconduct under paragraph 39 of section 1 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 made under the Optometry Act 1991, S.O. 1991, c. 35, as set out in the particulars which are contained in Appendix A to this Notice of Hearing. TAKE NOTICE THAT THE DISCIPLINE COMMITTEE WILL HOLD A HEARING pursuant to the provisions of the Health Professions Procedural Code (the Code ) which is Schedule 2 to the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991, R.S.O. 1991 c. 18 and the Discipline Committee s Rules of Procedure (a copy of which is available to you upon request) for the purpose of deciding whether you are guilty of professional misconduct. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT the hearing will be held before a panel of the Discipline Committee on a date to be set at the Pre-Hearing Conference on at 65 St. Clair Avenue East, Suite 900, Toronto Ontario. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT at the hearing a panel of the Discipline Committee will do the following: 1. Consider the allegations of professional misconduct and hear the evidence;
2 2. Make its findings based exclusively on evidence admitted before it; and 3. Determine whether in respect of the allegations you have committed an act or acts of professional misconduct. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to subsections 51(2) of the Code, if the Panel finds you guilty of professional misconduct, it may make an order doing one or more of the following: 1. Directing the Registrar to revoke your certificate of registration. 2. Directing the Registrar to suspend your certificate of registration for a specified period of time. 3. Directing the Registrar to impose specified terms, conditions and limitations on your certificate of registration for a specified or indefinite period of time. 4. Requiring you to appear before the panel to be reprimanded. 5. Requiring you to pay a fine of not more than $35,000 to the Minister of Finance. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT pursuant to section 53.1 of the Code if the Panel finds you guilty of professional misconduct the Panel may make an Order requiring you to pay all of part of the College s legal costs and costs and expenses incurred in investigating this matter and conducting the hearing. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT you are entitled to be represented by counsel at the said Hearing and to call witnesses and to adduce evidence in answer to the allegations set out in this Notice of Hearing. AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT a member whose conduct is being investigated in proceedings before the Discipline Committee is entitled to certain disclosure of evidence pursuant to section 42 of the Code. To facilitate that process, you or your lawyer may contact directly the lawyer for the College of Optometrists of Ontario. The College s lawyer in this matter is: Julia J. Martin Barrister and Solicitor 200 Elgin St, Suite 901 Ottawa ON K2P 1L5 Tel: (613)513-6735 Fax: (613)565-5041 Email: julia@juliamartinlaw.com
3 AND FURTHER TAKE NOTICE THAT if you do not attend at the Hearing on the above date, or on any subsequent date fixed by the Discipline Committee, the panel of the Discipline Committee may proceed in your absence and you will not be entitled to any further notice. DATED at Toronto, Ontario this 29 th day of June, 2015. COLLEGE OF OPTOMETRISTS OF ONTARIO 65 St. Clair Avenue East Suite 900 Toronto, ON M4T 2Y3 (signed) Paula L. Garshowitz, O.D. Registrar TO: DR. EMAD ESKANDER 1070 Major MacKenzie Dr. E Richmond Hill, ON L4S 1P3 DR. KAR MAN CHEUNG 3623 Hwy 7 East Unit 105 Markham, ON L3R 8X6
4 DR. SUZAN SARKIES 6001-14th Avenue Suite B4 Markham, ON L3S 0A2 DR. VIVIAN LI 1755 Brimley Rd Scarborough, ON M1P 0A3
5 Appendix A Particulars Background 1. Dr. Emad Eskander, Dr. Kar Man Cheung, Dr. Suzan Sarkies, and Dr. Vivian Li (the optometrists ) are optometrists practising in the Province of Ontario and members of the College of Optometrists of Ontario. 2. In or about 2014, the optometrists provided eye examinations to school children in Ontario through. is a private corporation that offers and offered at the relevant time, OHIP insured eye examinations and free eye glasses to Ontario school children in selected school boards. Dr. Emad Eskander 3. Dr. Emad Eskander is an optometrist practising in Ontario who has been a member of the College of Optometrists of Ontario (the College ) since in or about January 1, 2007. 4. In or about 2014, Dr. Eskander examined and treated the following child patients through the Program: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. 5. It is alleged that Dr. Eskander failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession contrary to paragraph 1. 14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in his examination and treatment of some or all of the patients in paragraph 4 as follows: a. He conducted inadequate binocular vision assessments; b. The internal examinations were incomplete; and c. The refractive examinations were minimal and incomplete. 6. It is further alleged that Dr. Eskander failed to make and maintain the records required by Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94 contrary to paragraph 1.24 for some or all of the patients referred to in paragraph 4 as follows:
6 a. The patient history was inadequate; b. There were no patient addresses; c. The diagnosis was blank; and d. The records were not legible. Dr. Kar Man Cheung 7. Dr. Kar Man Cheung is an optometrist practising in Ontario who has been a member of the College of Optometrists of Ontario (the College ) since in or about October 21, 2013. 8. In or about 2014, Dr. Cheung examined and treated the following child patients through the Program: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. 9. It is alleged that Dr. Cheung failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession contrary to paragraph 1. 14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in her examination and treatment of some or all of the patients in paragraph 8 as follows: a. She conducted inadequate visual acuity assessments; b. She conducted inadequate binocular vision assessments; c. She failed to conduct or conducted inadequate external ocular examinations; d. The internal examinations were insufficient; and e. The refractive examinations were minimal and incomplete. 10. It is further alleged that Dr. Cheung failed to make and maintain the records required by Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94 contrary to paragraph 1.24 for some or all of the patients referred to in paragraph 8 as follows: a. The patient history was inadequate; b. The recording of the visual acuity was inadequate; c. The external examination findings were not adequately recorded; and d. The internal examination findings were not adequately recorded.
7 Dr. Suzan Sarkies 11. Dr. Suzan Sarkies is an optometrist practising in Ontario who has been a member of the College of Optometrists of Ontario (the College ) since in or about February 10, 2010. 12. In or about 2014, Dr. Sarkies examined and treated the following child patients through the Program: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. l. 13. It is alleged that Dr. Sarkies failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession contrary to paragraph 1. 14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in her examination and treatment of some or all of the patients in paragraph 12 as follows: a. She conducted inadequate visual acuity assessments; b. She conducted inadequate binocular vision assessments; c. She failed to conduct or conducted inadequate external ocular examinations; d. The internal examinations were insufficient; e. The refractive examinations were minimal and incomplete; and f. Insufficient evaluation of pupillary function 14. It is further alleged that Dr. Sarkies failed to make and maintain the records required by Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94 contrary to paragraph 1.24 for some or all of the patients referred to in paragraph 12 as follows: a. The diagnosis was not properly recorded; b. The recording of pharmaceutical agents used was insufficient; c. The recording of the visual acuity was inadequate; d. The external examination findings were not adequately recorded; and e. The internal examination findings were not adequately recorded.
8 Dr. Vivian Li 15. Dr. Vivian Li is an optometrist practising in Ontario who has been a member of the College of Optometrists of Ontario (the College ) since in or about July 9, 2012. 16. In or about 2014, Dr. Li examined and treated the following child patients through the Program: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h. i. j. k. 17. It is alleged that Dr. Li failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession contrary to paragraph 1. 14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 in her examination and treatment of some or all of the patients in paragraph 16 as follows: a. She conducted inadequate binocular vision assessments; b. She failed to conduct or conducted inadequate external ocular examinations; and c. The internal examinations were insufficient; 18. It is further alleged that Dr. Li failed to make and maintain the records required by Part IV of Ontario Regulation 119/94 contrary to paragraph 1.24 for some or all of the patients referred to in paragraph 16 as follows: a. The external examination findings were not adequately recorded; and b. The internal examination findings were not adequately recorded. Optometrists failed to allow for follow up 19. It is further alleged that the optometrists failed to maintain the standard of practice of the profession contrary to paragraph 1. 14 of Ontario Regulation 119/94 as follows: a. They failed to schedule follow up assessments for their patients; and b. They failed to provide a mechanism or system for their patients (or their parent/guardian) to contact them with questions or when problems arose with their vision or eye glasses.
9 Optometrists failed to properly maintain records 20. In addition to the allegations against each optometrist above, it is alleged that Dr. Cheung, Dr. Sarkies, and Dr. Li stored or allowed their records to be stored in boxes on the floor at the office of which was a unit in an industrial park. 21. It is alleged that the manner in which the records were stored: a. was not secure and exposed the records to breaches of patients privacy; and b. did not allow for patients to readily access their records. 22. The conduct in paragraphs 20 and 21 constitutes professional misconduct under paragraph 1.39 of Ontario Regulation 119/94.