The ACAO will be holding a free information session
in Medicine Hat, AB on August 26th, 2018.

 The session topics and schedule will include:

  • Quality Assurance
  • Scope of Practice
  • OAC Membership
  • NAIT Exit Point
  • National Involvement
  • SAIT
  • Exploring Boundaries in the Me Too Era
  • Voting Online
  • Online Registration and Practice Permits

 Where: Medicine Hat Lodge – 1051 Ross Glen Dr. SE, Medicine Hat, AB

 Time:  1 pm – 5 pm          

 Credits: 4 EC Credits (lunch will not be provided)

Registration:  Registration is free. To register go to your Member Profile and select the event titled “Medicine Hat Information Session” to register.

Deadline: Registration for this event will close on August 22nd,2018.

Coffee and tea will be available.
Be sure to register early, attendance is limited and it’s on a first come first serve basis!
For more information please phone or email the ACAO office.


Effective June 1st, 2018, the Alberta Government has amended the Occupational Health and Safety Act. After more than 40 years, the OHS Act was finally reviewed and updated; as a result, there have been many changes and additions to employer responsibilities and worker’s rights.

Please read the Highlights of Changes document to get an idea of what is new. You can also read the full Occupational Health and Safety Act, or an overview of the new laws provided by the Alberta Government. As Employers, Supervisors, or Employees, your specific roles and responsibilities may have changed. Take some time to learn about those changes and discover how they affect you.

Cross-Border Internet Practice


By Erica Richler

*The following article was pulled from this blog.

“Yesterday an important decision was rendered by the Ontario Superior Court on the cross-border internet practice of professions. In College of Optometrists of Ontario v. Essilor Group Canada Inc., 2018 ONSC 206, two regulators (the College of Opticians of Ontario was also a party) obtained an injunction against a major internet supplier of contact lenses and eyeglasses requiring it to comply with Ontario rules relating to dispensing eyewear. Essilor (the parent of Clearly and Coastal) operated out of British Columbia. Essilor tried to portray the application as turf protection to guard the commercial interests of optometrists and opticians. The Court viewed that argument as irrelevant; the issue was whether the online dispensing of lenses and eyeglasses was permitted by the legislation.

The Court first addressed whether the actions of Essilor breached the Ontario legislation by “dispensing” eyewear, which is a controlled act. The Court noted that while the controlled act scheme in the legislation was designed to prevent harm, one had to interpret the language of the provision and not conduct a risk-assessment of the specific conduct in the case. The Court concluded “that ‘dispensing’ is not a singular act but a series of acts that encompass the making, adjustment (fitting) and delivery of” eyewear. Under the Essilor business model, no Ontario-registered practitioner was responsible for performing these functions. That outcome was contrary to the purpose of the provisions (i.e., ensuring the provision of proper health care by qualified and authorized professionals). It was evident to the Court that Essilor was making and delivering contact lenses and eyeglasses.

The second issue was whether Ontario legislation applied in circumstances where almost everything Essilor did occurred in British Columbia. The Court indicated that it should not take an “old-world understanding of place and time”. The location of the action should not be assessed on a purely commercial transaction basis (i.e., where was the contract made?), as is done under the Civil Code in Quebec. Rather, location should be determined in a manner consistent with the purpose of the provisions. Under this approach the Court looked for whether there was a “sufficient connection” between the conduct and Ontario. The Court said that a “purposive analysis of the legislation demonstrates that this situation is best characterized not as a contract for the sale of eyeglasses, but as the delivery of health care.”

The Court engaged in a fascinating discussion of the location of events over the internet. It cited authorities viewing such interactions as occurring “both here and there”. The Court concluded that where the order was placed by an individual in Ontario and the eyewear was received in Ontario, presumably to be used in Ontario, there was a sufficient connection to Ontario. “To find otherwise would mean the eyeglasses are provided without obligation to adhere to Ontario regulation.” The Court was also not swayed by the fact that ordering lenses and eyeglasses online was permitted in British Columbia; such a change in the law in Ontario should be done by the legislature, not the courts.

In passing, the Court noted that the regulatory rules of Ontario also applied to internet practice within Ontario. Internet providers that are based in Ontario and dispense eyewear to Ontario clients need to comply with all Ontario rules.”


Your 2018 OAC Membership

You may have recently received an e-mail about your 2018 OAC membership. We’re sorry that you did not hear about this from us first. We’re hoping we can give you further information and help you understand why we have made this decision. 

Read More