David C. Rosenbaum

The moving parties, several banks and a financial institution, sought leave to appeal a motions judge's refusal to grant summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's claims in conversion and preclusion.

The underlying action involved a fraudulent scheme where a customer forged endorsements on cheques and bank drafts, deposited them with the plaintiff collecting bank, and the moving parties subsequently reverse-cleared the instruments.

The Divisional Court granted leave to appeal, finding good reason to doubt the correctness of the motions judge's decision that the conversion and preclusion claims raised genuine issues for trial, and noting the issues were of general importance to the banking industry.

The appellants appealed their convictions for performing the controlled act of dispensing eyeglasses without authorization under the Regulated Health Professions Act.

The individual appellant, an optician registered in Nova Scotia but not Ontario, sold prescription bifocals to a private investigator.

The appellants argued that the retail sale of eyeglasses to adults is not a health care service and that the controlled act of dispensing should be defined by the risk of harm.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the sale of prescription eyeglasses falls within the scope of opticianry and constitutes a health care service.

The Court further held that the plain meaning of the statute defines the controlled act, and courts are not required to engage in a risk analysis before determining if an activity is prohibited.