CANADA
PROVINCE OF QUEBEC
DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
NO: 500-06-001

(Class Action)
SUPERIOR COURT
CHRISTOPHER OUELLET,

Applicant
-vsLASIK M.D. INC., legal person having its
head office at 1180 Drummond Street, Suite
400, district of Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2S1
and
L.M.D. GMA L.P., legal person having its
head office at 1180 Drummond Street, Suite
400, district of Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2S1
and
DR. MOUNIR BASHOUR, ophthalmologist,
having his place of employment at 1250
René-Lévesque boulevard west, MD level,
district of Montreal, Quebec, H3B 4W8
and
VALHALLA & CAMELOT ENTERPRISES
INC., legal person having its head office at
4175 Sainte-Catherine Street West, suite
403, Westmount, district of Montreal,
Quebec, H3Z 3C9
Defendants

APPLICATION TO AUTHORIZE THE BRINGING OF A CLASS ACTION AND TO
APPOINT THE STATUS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF
(ARTICLE 571 AND FOLLOWING C.C.P.)

 -2TO ONE OF THE HONOURABLE JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURT, SITTING IN
AND FOR THE CLASS ACTION DIVISION IN THE DISTRICT OF MONTREAL, YOUR
APPLICANT STATES AS FOLLOWS:
I.
1.

INTRODUCTION
Applicant wishes to institute a class action on behalf of the following class, of
which he is a member, namely:
Class:
All persons who have received laser vision correction surgery
at Lasik MD.
(hereinafter the “Class”)
Corneal Neuralgia Subclass:
All persons who have developed corneal neuralgia after
receiving laser vision correction surgery at Lasik MD.
(hereinafter the “Corneal Neuralgia Subclass”)
or any other group to be determined by the Court;

2.

On its website, Defendant Lasik M.D. Inc. (hereinafter “Lasik MD”) boasts that:
“LASIK MD is Canada’s only national provider of laser vision
correction, delivering high-quality LASIK at affordable prices. With
over 30 clinics in nine provinces in Canada, we want to make
laser vision correction accessible to everyone. Our team is made up
of more than 50 surgeons who are among the most experienced in
the field”
Applicant communicating a screen
(www.lasikmd.com) as Exhibit P-1;

capture

of

Lasik

MD’s

website

3.

Lasik MD is an office of doctors or specialist surgeons carrying on in industry of
laser eye surgery clinics, with its head office in Montreal, Quebec, as it appears
from an extract of the CIDREQ communicated herewith as Exhibit P-2;

4.

Defendant Dr. Mounir Bashour, ophthalmologist (hereinafter “Dr. Bashour”) is
one of the surgeons at Lasik MD;

5.

Defendant Valhalla & Camelot Enterprises Inc. is a company offering technical
consultation services whose president, secretary and treasurer is Dr. Bashour, as
appears from an extract of the CIDREQ communicated herewith as Exhibit P-3;

 -36.

Defendant L.M.D. GMA L.P., a limited partnership, is an office of doctors and
specialist surgeons, as it appears from an extract of the CIDREQ communicated
herewith as Exhibit P-4;

7.

Given the close ties between the Defendants and considering that their
obligations, as more fully detailed below, were contracted for the operation of an
enterprise, they are presumed solidarily liable for the acts and omissions of the
other;

II. CONDITIONS REQUIRED TO AUTHORIZE THIS CLASS ACTION AND TO
APPOINT THE STATUS OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF (SECTION 575
C.C.P.):
1) The facts alleged appear to justify the conclusions sought:
A) Applicant’s claim against Defendants for (i) failure of the duty to inform
(ii) false representations and (iii) hidden defect
8.

On June 13, 2014, Applicant consulted Lasik MD because he wanted to get lasik
surgery (he did not like wearing glasses);

9.

Applicant communicates herewith his medical file from Lasik MD as Exhibit P-5;

10.

During his first consultation on June 13, 2014, Lasik MD told him that he has big
pupils and it is probable that he develops halos and starbursts (especially at
night). He was also told that he would have dry eyes for about 3 to 6 months. He
signed a consent form and was provided with a “Lasik Information Booklet” from
Lasik MD similar to the 2016 version communicated herewith as Exhibit P-6
(Applicant was given the 2015 version and consents in advance to Lasik MD
filing same as appropriate evidence);

11.

Applicant accepted these risks because he did not consider them to be material,
as it from the consent form communicated herewith as Exhibit P-7;

12.

Applicant also agreed to pay $3,550.00 for the cost of the lasik surgery, as it
appears from his invoice communicated herewith as Exhibit P-8;

13.

It is important to note that neither the consent form (Exhibit P-7), nor the 2016
Lasik Information Booklet (Exhibit P-6), nor the 2015 version (which Applicant
invites Lasik MD to file) divulges the risk of a serious and devastating medical
condition called “corneal neuralgia” that the Applicant would later develop as a
result of his surgery;

14.

On January 26, 2015, the Applicant underwent the lasik surgery performed by Dr.
Bashour, as appears from Exhibit P-5;

15.

The surgery went as planned and initially the results were normal, as it appears

 -4from the notes taken by Lasik MD during the post-surgery appointments
contained in Exhibit P-5 (February 10, 2015, March 28, 2015);
16.

On December 7, 2015, Applicant made an emergency appointment with Lasik
MD because he developed severe pain and inflammation in both his eyes
(Applicant couldn’t look at his computer screen or any monitors). Applicant
constantly felt a burning feeling in his eyes;

17.

Following the appointment of December 7, 2015, Applicant was told by Lasik MD
that he had blepharitis (an inflammation of the eyelids) and that he should have
better hygiene of eyelids (Exhibit P-5). On November 2, 2016, the Applicant
would learn that this diagnosis was wrong;

18.

On January 21, 2016, the Applicant once again consulted with Lasik MD as he
continued to feel excruciating pain in both his eyes (they became very dry and
extremely sensitive to light). Applicant had trouble keeping his eyes open. Lasik
MD diagnosed him with and gave him a treatment for dry eye. On November 2,
2016, the Applicant would learn that this diagnosis was wrong;

19.

On February 5, 2016, the Applicant returned to Lasik MD for help because he
continued to experience the same horrible symptoms (including the burning
sensation in both of his eyes). Lasik MD prescribed an anti-inflammatory and
restasis. Once again, Lasik MD treated him as a dry eye. Martine Beaulieu of
Lasik MD also told him that with restasis it takes 6 months to take effect and that
he should see an improvement in that time. On November 2, 2016, the Applicant
would learn that this diagnosis was wrong;

20.

On March 23, 2016, the Applicant returned to Lasik MD as he continued to suffer
severe pain in both his eyes. Lasik MD put plugs in his eyes for dry eye and told
him to use warm compresses. They prescribed restasis for 6 to 12 months and
an anti-inflammatory. On November 2, 2016, the Applicant would learn that this
diagnosis was wrong;

21.

Towards the end of May 2016, the Applicant began working as a tobacco
inspector for the Ministère de Santé et Services sociaux du Québec. However,
because this job required that he work on a computer screen, he could no longer
perform this function as it was extremely painful for his eyes to look at a screen.
The Applicant was forced to leave this job at the end of September 2016;

22.

The pain to his eyes following the lasik surgery became so unbearable to the
Applicant that he became depressed and even contemplated suicide several
times. His parents had him institutionalized for his own safety;

23.

On September 20, 2016, the Applicant returned to Lasik MD to see Dr. Martine
Beaulieu (“Dr. Beaulieu”) and informed her that he wants to see a surgeon
because his life has been a living hell since the eye surgery (Dr. Beaulieu took
detailed notes of this appointment in Exhibit P-5);

 -524.

During this appointment the Applicant told Dr. Beaulieu that he had recently
consulted with another health professional and that his symptoms are way too
much out of proportion to be dry eye and he insisted on seeing a surgeon. Dr.
Beaulieu advised the Applicant that he should not see a surgeon because he had
just started the treatment she previously recommended and that they have to
wait and see if it works. On November 2, 2016, the Applicant would learn that this
diagnosis was wrong;

25.

Around this time, the Applicant started doing research online. He discovered a
Facebook Group called “Lasik Complications Facebook” with approximately 6000
members who experienced laser complications. The Applicant told his story on
this page and someone suggested that based on the symptoms he described he
may actually have corneal neuralgia and not dry eye;

26.

On October 14, 2016, the Applicant consulted with Dr. Beaulieu at Lasik MD and
brought articles with him about corneal neuralgia. He explained to her that he
believes this could be what he has and informed her that he wants to see the
surgeon. During this meeting he reiterated that his life has been completely
ruined by the lasik surgery. Despite his pleas, Dr. Beaulieu insists on Applicant
continuing the treatment for dry eye only (which was the wrong diagnosis all
along). On November 2, 2016, the Applicant would learn that this diagnosis was
wrong;
The November 2, 2016 Consultation at Lasik MD:

27.

On November 2, 2016, Dr. Bashour (the surgeon) finally agrees to meet with the
Applicant at Lasik MD, as it appears from Exhibit P-5;

28.

For the first time, on November 2, 2016, Dr. Bashour finally gives Applicant the
correct diagnosis of corneal neuralgia (see Exhibit P-5);

29.

Corneal neuralgia is a condition that will cause Applicant to suffer pain every day
for the rest of his life and there is no treatment (for instance, Applicant will
constantly feel a burning sensation in his eyes and as a result cannot watch
regular screens and must use a special and very expensive black and white
electronic ink screen with no back light);

30.

What happens next during the November 2, 2016, consultation is shocking;

31.

Dr. Bashour admits to the Applicant that he is his fifth or sixth patient that he
knows about who developed corneal neuralgia after lasik surgery and that one of
his patients with corneal neuralgia actually killed himself;

32.

Dr. Bashour acknowledges that this illness (corneal neuralgia) is the cause of the
Applicant’s suffering and what is ruining his life;

33.

Dr. Bashour admits that the people he meets who have corneal neuralgia are the
most depressed and unhappy people he has ever seen;

 -634.

Dr. Bashour then recommends to Applicant that he purchase a book called The
Presence Process by Michael Brown about spiritual healing to help him,
Applicant communicating this “prescription” as Exhibit P-9;

35.

Desperate and hopeless, Applicant purchased the book for approximately $20
and began reading it. After three pages the Applicant realized that this book had
nothing to do with treating corneal neuralgia and stopped reading it;

36.

Following the consultation of November 2, 2016, Dr. Bashour recommended that
Applicant receive a refund (as indicated in Dr. Bashour’s notes in Exhibit P-5);

37.

However, in order to receive the refund of $3,550.00, the Applicant was asked to
give a release to all of the Defendants named herein, to never discuss his
situation on social media and that he can no longer receive any complimentary
eye exams from Lasik MD, as it appears from Exhibit P-10;

38.

Applicant refused to sign this release and has never been compensated by any
of the Defendants;

39.

On November 16, 2016, Applicant consulted once again with Dr. Bashour;

40.

During this last consultation, Dr. Bashour admits to Applicant that the Defendants
knew about corneal neuralgia and that they never disclosed this risk. As such,
Applicant’s Charter right to his personal security has been violated by the
Defendants’ omissions and gross and intentional negligence as described herein;

41.

The Applicant emphasizes that Lasik MD only recently modified its website and
marketing concerning what they refer to as the “myths & facts” about Lasik
surgery. For instance, in November of 2016, Applicant took a picture of a
marketing screen inside Lasik MD (1250 René-Lévesque West, in Montréal) that
contained the following “myth” and “fact”, Applicant communicating Exhibit P-11:
MYTH:
I WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF TERRIBLE SIDE EFFECT.
FACT:
COMPLICATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE
Complications following LASIK are rare, minor and treatable. You
may, however, experience a surge in confidence following the
procedure. We told you it’d be life-changing.

42.

Lasik MD’s declaration that it is a myth that someone can “have some kind of
terrible side effect” is a misrepresentation;

43.

Lasik MD continued making this misrepresentation, as it appears from a wayback
machine screen capture of their website (https://www.lasikmd.com/what-toexpect/myths-facts) as of September 6, 2018, communicated as Exhibit P-12:

 -7FEAR #6: I WILL HAVE SOME KIND OF TERRIBLE SIDE
EFFECT.
FACT: COMPLICATIONS ARE EXTREMELY RARE.
Complications following LASIK are rare, minor and treatable. In
fact, the main side effect you will experience is the feeling of
freedom from no longer needing to wear glasses or contacts.
44.

Up until today on its website (https://www.lasikmd.com/what-to-expect/mythsfacts) and in its advertising, Lasik MD declares the following, Applicant
communicating Exhibit P-13:
“The vast majority of complications following LASIK are rare, minor
and treatable. In fact, the main side effect you will experience is the
feeling of freedom from no longer needing to wear glasses or
contacts.”

45.

It appears that at some point in 2019, Lasik MD added the terms “The vast
majority of” before the words “complications following LASIK are rare”;

46.

Regardless, these representations are still false because in the Applicant’s case
(and for others similarly situated) the complications were not a myth, were not
minor and were not treatable (this is evidenced by Dr. Bashour prescribing a
spiritual book);

47.

On November 14, 2019, CBS News published an article titled “LASIK eye
surgery should be taken off market, former FDA adviser says”, which includes
the following, Applicant communicating Exhibit P-14:
“Still, the FDA's own website is filled with stories of serious
complications. Patients reported "relentless eye pain," dizziness
and detached retinas, and told the agency: "LASIK ended my life"
and "this procedure needs to stop."
"Essentially we ignored the data on vision distortions that persisted
for years," said Morris Waxler, a retired FDA adviser who voted to
approve LASIK. He now says that vote was a mistake.
"I re-examined the documentation … and I said, 'Wow this is not
good,'" Waxler said.
Waxler said his own analysis of industry data shows
complication rates between 10 and 30%. In 2011, he petitioned
the FDA to issue a voluntary recall of LASIK. Three years later, the
agency denied that request and now tells CBS News it "has not
found any new safety concerns associated with LASIK devices."

 -848.

Since November 2016, Applicant continued living in chronic pain, depression and
is unable to enjoy life like he used to as a result of the burning and sharp pains in
his eyes following the lasik surgery;

49.

Towards the end of 2017 and following a post that he made on Facebook,
Applicant was contacted by Lasik MD in order to ask him to meet with one of the
owners (he was told) named Pierre Demers;

50.

Mr. Demers asked Applicant if wanted a compensation and Applicant replied that
monetary compensation would be great. However, once again Lasik MD refused
to compensate him;

51.

The Defendants failed in their legal obligation to adequately inform Applicant of
the serious health risks and dangers associated to lasik eye surgery;

52.

Had Applicant been informed and aware of the risk of corneal neuralgia and the
true dangers associated to lasik eye surgery, he would have never undergone
this procedure;

53.

The Applicant was entitled to expect, and rightly expected, that the Defendants
guarantee the quality and safety of the products and services that they advertise,
sell and perform;

54.

In additional to pecuniary losses (including the $3,550.00 paid for the lasik eye
surgery), this situation caused Applicant a severe depression, a lot of stress,
inconvenience, frustration, severe loss of quality of life and loss of time from work
and the ability to work (he has a diploma in accounting and is not able to use it
given that this work requires a lot of screen time). Applicant used to love playing
video games which he can no longer do as a result of the corneal neuralgia;

55.

Applicant has suffered ascertainable loss as a result of the Defendants’
omissions, misrepresentations, failure to inform and gross negligence associated
with the marketing and selling of their lasik eye surgery and hereby claims the
following damages:

Damages
Reimbursement of the initial surgery
Trouble and inconvenience
Moral damages
Loss of work
Punitive damages for violation of s. 1 of Quebec’s Charter
TOTAL:
56.

Amount
$3,550.00
$25,000.00
$100,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$428,550.00

Applicant’s damages are a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’
misconduct;

 -9B) Applicant’s claim for punitive damages (ss. 1 and 49 of Quebec’s
Charter)
57.

Not only did the Defendants violate the law by failing to inform the Applicant of an
important fact (i.e. the risks of developing corneal neuralgia), they intentionally
continued performing lasik eye surgeries in Canada without informing other Class
Members of this risk, and this despite the increase in the number of cases
reported to Dr. Bashour and to Lasik MD over the last few years;

58.

This type of conduct triggers a s. 1 Charter violation, because the Applicant’s
personal security has been compromised as a result of the Defendants’ gross
and intentional negligence, giving rise to a claim in punitive damages under s. 49;

59.

The Defendants’
dangerous;

60.

The Defendants’ demonstrated through their behavior that they were more
concerned about their bottom lines than about the safety and health of Class
members;

61.

In these circumstances, Applicant’s claim for punitive damages in the amount of
$100,000.00 is justified;

violations

were

intentional,

malicious,

vexatious,

and

2) The claims of the members of the Group raise identical, similar or related
issues of law or fact:
62.

All Class members have a common interest both in proving that Lasik MD failed
to adequately inform them about the true risks associated to its lasik surgery and
in maximizing the aggregate of the damages cause to them by the Defendants;

63.

In this case, the legal and factual backgrounds at issue are common to all the
members of the Class, namely whether the Defendants failed in their duty to
inform about the health risks associated to lasik surgery in general and about the
risk of corneal neuralgia in specific;

64.

The claims of every member of the Class are founded on very similar facts to the
Applicant’s claims;

65.

All Class members are entitled to expect that the Defendants guarantee the
quality of the lasik surgery that they advertise, sell and perform and that they
inform their patients about the important risks concerning same;

66.

Consequently, all Class members not only overpaid Lasik MD when they had
their lasik surgery performed, but those that developed corneal neuralgia will
continue to pay for life;

67.

By reason of the Defendants’ unlawful conduct, Applicant and members of the

 - 10 Class have suffered damages, which they may collectively claim against the
Defendants;
68.

Each Class member is justified in claiming at least one or more of the following
as damages:
•

Reimbursement of a portion or of the full costs of the lasik surgery (the latter
for those who developed corneal neuralgia);

•

Trouble and inconvenience;

•

Loss of work;

•

Moral damages;

•

Punitive damages for violation of s. 1 of Quebec’s Charter.

69.

All of these damages to Class members are a direct and proximate result of the
Defendants’ faults;

70.

The claims of every Class member are founded on very similar facts to the
Applicant’s claim;

71.

Individual questions, if any, pale by comparison to the common questions that
are significant to the outcome of the present Application;

72.

The damages sustained by the Class members flow, in each instance, from a
common nucleus of operative facts, namely, the Defendants’ failure to
adequately inform Class members of the risks associated to lasik surgery;

73.

The recourses of the Class members raise identical, similar or related questions
of fact or law, namely:
a) Did the Defendants adequately inform their patients about the risks of lasik
surgery in general?
b) Did the Defendants adequately inform their patients about the risks of corneal
neuralgia?
c) Did the Defendants conceal their knowledge of the risk of corneal neuralgia
and, if so, until when?
d) Is the responsibility of any of the Defendants engaged in view of the Quebec
Civil Code or Quebec Charter?
e) If the responsibility of any of the Defendants is engaged, are Class members
entitled to:
i.

a reduction of their obligations and, if so, in what amount?

ii.

damages for trouble and inconvenience and, if so, in what amount?

 - 11 -

f)

iii.

damages for loss of work and, if so, in what amount?

iv.

moral damages and, if so, in what amount?

v.

punitive damages and, if so, in what amount?

Did Defendants act in bad faith?

g) When does prescription start for Class members and what are the factors
common to the Class members regarding the impossibility in fact to act?
3) The composition of the Class:
74.

The composition of the Class makes it difficult or impracticable to apply the rules
for mandates to take part in judicial proceedings on behalf of others or for
consolidation of proceedings;

75.

A September 7th, 2016 press release titled “La Caisse finances LASIK MD’s
international growth” states that following as appears from Exhibit P-15:
“LASIK MD currently performs more than 60,000 surgeries annually
and has completed more than 750,000 procedures since the
company was established in 2001.”

76.

A CTV article titled “W5 investigates a rare but painful side effect of laser eye
surgery” published on October 19, 2018, reported on three (3) Canadians who
were interviewed about their corneal neuralgia, Applicant communicating the
article herewith as Exhibit P-16 (the Applicant intends to refer to the video
included online with the article available at: https://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/w5investigates-a-rare-but-painful-side-effect-of-laser-eye-surgery-1.4141117);

77.

In a 2015 study titled “Corneal Neuralgia after LASIK”, Ophthalmologist and
cornea specialist Dr. Pedram Hamrah mentions the following, applicant
disclosing the study as Exhibit P-17:
“Although dry eye syndrome is common after LASIK, the patients in
this study were referred for dry eye syndrome that was persistent
and unresponsive to standard therapy. In each case, the clinical
signs of dry eye and tear metrics were inconsistent with the
patient’s level of discomfort. Each patient reported symptoms of
pain, burning, soreness, achiness, and light sensitivity. Foreign
body sensation or grittiness was not a prominent feature for any of
them. Unlike typical LASIK-associated dry eye disease, the
symptoms experienced by these patients did not gradually wane
with time after surgery but rather persisted or increased. We believe
that these patients had dry eye syndrome that was neuropathic in
etiology, warranting treatment of underlying neuralgia rather than
treatment of aqueous deficient or evaporative dry eye. […]

 - 12 In summary, patients with persistent dry eye symptoms out of
proportion to clinical signs after LASIK have a syndrome that may
best be classified as corneal neuralgia. In vivo confocal microscopy
can be informative as to the neuropathic basis of this condition. In
keeping with current understanding of CRPS, early multimodal
treatment directed toward reducing peripheral neurologic signaling
is warranted to avoid subsequent centralization and persistence of
pain on that basis. Distinguishing this syndrome from typical postLASIK dry eye remains a challenge.
78.

Applicant is aware of at least 5 other Class members and believes that the filing
of the present class action will enable others suffering from corneal neuralgia to
come forward;

79.

Indeed, after the publication of the CTV W5 investigation in October of 2018, in
which Applicant was interviewed (Exhibit P-16), another post-lasik patient went
public with her story, as it appears from a June 21, 2019 article titled “Woman
calls for more research on laser eye surgery after complications” communicated
herewith as Exhibit P-18;

80.

The number of persons included in the Class could be in the hundreds;

81.

The names and addresses of all persons included in the Class are not known to
the Applicant, however, all are likely in the possession of Defendants (in
November of 2016, Dr. Bashour admitted to the Applicant that he was aware of 5
or 6 other Class members);

82.

Class members could be numerous and dispersed across the province, across
Canada and elsewhere;

83.

These facts demonstrate that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to contact
each and every Class member to obtain mandates and to join them in one action;

84.

In these circumstances, a class action is the only appropriate procedure for all of
the Class members to effectively pursue their respective rights and have access
to justice without overburdening the court system;

4) The Class member appointed as representative plaintiff is in a position to
properly represent the class members:
85.

Applicant requests that he be appointed the status of representative plaintiff for
the following main reasons:
a) He is a member of the Class and has a personal interest in seeking the
conclusions that he proposes herein;
b) He is competent, in that he has the potential to be the mandatary of the
action if it had proceeded under article 91 of the Code of Civil Procedure;

 - 13 c) His interests are not antagonistic to those of other Class and Sub-Class
members;
86.

Additionally, Applicant respectfully adds that:
a) He contacted and mandated his attorneys to file the present application for
the sole purpose of having his rights, as well as the rights of other Class
members, recognized and protected so that they may be compensated for
the damages that they have suffered as a consequence of Defendants’ fault
and so that the Defendants can be held accountable;
b) He also wants to make sure that the public is made aware of the true risks
associated to lasik surgery, including the risks of corneal neuralgia;
c) He is aware of several other Class members in the same situation as him
and has helped them as much as he can in seeking treatment for corneal
neuralgia;
d) In December 2017 he created a Facebook group titled “Lasik complications
et problèmes Québec” to help others going through the same horrifying
experience as him post-lasik surgery;
e) He has the time, energy, will and determination to assume all the
responsibilities incumbent upon him in order to diligently carry out the action;
f)

He cooperates and will continue to fully cooperate with his attorneys, who
have experience in consumer protection-related class actions;

g) He understands the nature of the action;
III. DAMAGES
87.

During the Class Period the Defendants generated important revenues while
intentionally failing to inform Class members of an important fact regarding the
risks of corneal neuralgia;

88.

Consequently, the Defendants have breached several obligations imposed on
them by legislation in Quebec and Canada, including:

89.

a)

The Civil Code of Quebec, including sections 1399-1401, 1407, 1469 and
1473; and

b)

The Quebec Charter, section 1, thus rendering s. 49 applicable.

Moreover, Defendants failed in their obligation and duty to act in good faith and
with honesty in their representations and in the performance of their obligations;

 - 14 90.

In light of the foregoing, the following damages may be claimed solidarily against
the Defendants:
a) compensatory damages, in an amount to be determined, on account of
the damages suffered; and
b) punitive damages, in an amount to be determined, pursuant to s. 49 of the
Charter;

IV. NATURE OF THE ACTION AND CONCLUSIONS SOUGHT
91.

The action that the Applicant wishes to institute on behalf of the members of the
Class is an action in damages;

92.

The conclusions that the Applicant wishes to introduce by way of an Originating
Application are:
GRANT Plaintiff’s action against Defendants on behalf of all Class members;
DECLARE the Defendants solidarily liable for the damages suffered by the
Applicant and each of the Class members;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay to each Class member a sum to be
determined in compensation of the damages suffered, and ORDER collective
recovery of these sums;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay to each Class member punitive
damages, in an amount to be determined, and ORDER collective recovery of
these sums;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay interest and the additional indemnity
on the above sums according to law from the date of service of the Application to
Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action and to Appoint the Status of
Representative Plaintiff;
ORDER the Defendants to deposit in the office of this Court the totality of the
sums which forms part of the collective recovery, with interest and costs;
ORDER that the claims of individual Class members be the object of collective
liquidation if the proof permits and alternately, by individual liquidation;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to bear the costs of the present action
including the cost of notices, the cost of management of claims and the costs of
experts, if any, including the costs of experts required to establish the amount of
the collective recovery orders;
RENDER any other order that this Honourable Court shall determine;

 - 15 93.

The interests of justice favour that this Application be granted in accordance with
its conclusions;

V. JURISDICTION
94.

The Applicant requests that this class action be exercised before the Superior
Court of the province of Quebec, in the district of Montreal, because the
Defendants are all domiciled in the judicial district of Montreal, province of
Quebec, thus triggering article 3148(1) CCQ;

95.

In light of the preceding, the Applicant has standing to represent an international
class and the Superior Court of Quebec is the appropriate forum;

VI. PRESCRIPTION AND IMPOSSIBILITY TO ACT
96.

Prescription should not run against Class members because it is impossible in
fact for them to act;

97.

Indeed, Class members could not have acted previously as they had no reason
to suspect that the Defendants were concealing the risks of corneal neuralgia
from them;

98.

Additionally, in the case of the Applicant, prescription can only start running as of
November 2nd, 2016, because up until that time the Defendants were telling him
that he had simple dry eye (which was a disclosed risk) that would improve with
treatment. Up until November 2nd, 2016, it was impossible for the Applicant to
discover the negligence of the Defendants;

99.

On November 1st, 2019, all of the Defendants expressly renounced to
prescription from the period of November 1st, 2019 until November 15th, 2019,
such that the Applicant’s personal cause of action which started running on
November 2nd, 2016 was extended to November 15th, 2019 (and therefore not
prescribed).

FOR THESE REASONS, MAY IT PLEASE THE COURT:
1. GRANT the present application;
2. AUTHORIZE the bringing of a class action in the form of an Originating
Application in damages;
3. APPOINT the Applicant the status of representative plaintiff of the persons
included in the Class and Sub-Class herein described as:
Class:
All persons who have received laser vision correction surgery
at Lasik MD.

 - 16 Corneal Neuralgia Subclass:
All persons who have developed corneal neuralgia after
receiving laser vision correction surgery at Lasik MD.
or any other group to be determined by the Court;
4. IDENTIFY the principle questions of fact and law to be treated collectively as
the following:
a)

Did the Defendants adequately inform their patients about the risks
of lasik surgery in general?

b)

Did the Defendants adequately inform their patients about the risks
of corneal neuralgia?

c)

Did the Defendants conceal their knowledge of the risk of corneal
neuralgia and, if so, until when?

d)

Is the responsibility of any of the Defendants engaged in view of the
Quebec Civil Code or Quebec Charter?

e)

If the responsibility of any of the Defendants is engaged, are Class
members entitled to:
i.

a reduction of their obligations and, if so, in what amount?

ii.

damages for trouble and inconvenience and, if so, in what
amount?

iii.

damages for loss of work and, if so, in what amount?

iv.

moral damages and, if so, in what amount?

v.

punitive damages and, if so, in what amount?

f)

Did Defendants act in bad faith?

g)

When does prescription start for Class members and what are the
factors common to the Class members regarding the impossibility in
fact to act?

5. IDENTIFY the conclusions sought by the class action to be instituted as being
the following:
GRANT Plaintiff’s action against Defendants on behalf of all Class
members;

 - 17 DECLARE the Defendants solidarily liable for the damages suffered by the
Applicant and each of the Class members;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay to each Class member a sum
to be determined in compensation of the damages suffered, and ORDER
collective recovery of these sums;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay to each Class member
punitive damages, in an amount to be determined, and ORDER collective
recovery of these sums;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to pay interest and the additional
indemnity on the above sums according to law from the date of service of
the Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action and to Appoint
the Status of Representative Plaintiff;
ORDER the Defendants to deposit in the office of this Court the totality of
the sums which forms part of the collective recovery, with interest and
costs;
ORDER that the claims of individual Class members be the object of
collective liquidation if the proof permits and alternately, by individual
liquidation;
CONDEMN the Defendants solidarily to bear the costs of the present
action including the cost of notices, the cost of management of claims and
the costs of experts, if any, including the costs of experts required to
establish the amount of the collective recovery orders;
RENDER any other order that this Honourable Court shall determine;
6. DECLARE that all Class members that have not requested their exclusion, be
bound by any judgement to be rendered on the class action to be instituted in
the manner provided for by the law;
7. FIX the delay of exclusion at thirty (30) days from the date of the publication
of the notice to the members, date upon which the members of the Class that
have not exercised their means of exclusion will be bound by any judgement
to be rendered herein;
8. ORDER the publication of a notice to the members of the Class in
accordance with article 579 C.C.P. within sixty (60) days from the judgement
to be rendered herein in the “News” sections of the Saturday editions of LA
PRESSE, Le Journal de Montreal, the MONTREAL GAZETTE and the
National Post;
9. ORDER that said notice be published on the Lasik MD website
(https://www.lasikmd.com) and Facebook page, in a conspicuous place, with

 - 18 a link stating “Notice of a Class Action”;
10. ORDER the Defendants to send an Abbreviated Notice by regular mail and by
e-mail (when the email address is available) to each Class member, to their
last known addresses, with the subject line “Notice of a Class Action”;
11. ORDER the Defendants and their representatives to supply class counsel,
within thirty (30) days of the judgment rendered herein, all lists in their
possession or under their control permitting to identify Class Members,
including their names, addresses, phone numbers and email addresses;
12. RENDER any other order that this Honourable Court shall determine;
13. THE WHOLE with legal costs including publications fees.
Montreal, November 15, 2019

(s) LPC Avocat Inc.
LPC AVOCAT INC.
Me Joey Zukran
Attorney for the Applicant
5800 blvd. Cavendish, Suite 411
Montréal, Québec, H4W 2T5
Telephone: (514) 379-1572
Telecopier: (514) 221-4441
Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

 SUMMONS
(ARTICLES 145 AND FOLLOWING C.C.P.)
Filing of a judicial application
Take notice that the Applicant has filed this Application for Authorization to Institute a
Class Action and to Appoint the Status of Representative Plaintiff in the office of the
Superior Court in the judicial district of Montreal.
Defendant's answer
You must answer the application in writing, personally or through a lawyer, at the
courthouse of Montreal situated at 1 Rue Notre-Dame E, Montréal, Quebec, H2Y
1B6, within 15 days of service of the Application or, if you have no domicile, residence
or establishment in Québec, within 30 days. The answer must be notified to the
Applicant’s lawyer or, if the Applicant is not represented, to the Applicant.
Failure to answer
If you fail to answer within the time limit of 15 or 30 days, as applicable, a default
judgement may be rendered against you without further notice and you may, according
to the circumstances, be required to pay the legal costs.
Content of answer
In your answer, you must state your intention to:
• negotiate a settlement;
• propose mediation to resolve the dispute;
• defend the application and, in the cases required by the Code, cooperate with the
Applicant in preparing the case protocol that is to govern the conduct of the
proceeding. The protocol must be filed with the court office in the district
specified above within 45 days after service of the summons or, in family matters
or if you have no domicile, residence or establishment in Québec, within 3
months after service;
• propose a settlement conference.
The answer to the summons must include your contact information and, if you are
represented by a lawyer, the lawyer's name and contact information.
Change of judicial district
You may ask the court to refer the originating Application to the district of your domicile
or residence, or of your elected domicile or the district designated by an agreement with
the plaintiff.
If the application pertains to an employment contract, consumer contract or insurance

 contract, or to the exercise of a hypothecary right on an immovable serving as your
main residence, and if you are the employee, consumer, insured person, beneficiary of
the insurance contract or hypothecary debtor, you may ask for a referral to the district of
your domicile or residence or the district where the immovable is situated or the loss
occurred. The request must be filed with the special clerk of the district of territorial
jurisdiction after it has been notified to the other parties and to the office of the court
already seized of the originating application.
Transfer of application to Small Claims Division
If you qualify to act as a plaintiff under the rules governing the recovery of small claims,
you may also contact the clerk of the court to request that the application be processed
according to those rules. If you make this request, the plaintiff's legal costs will not
exceed those prescribed for the recovery of small claims.
Calling to a case management conference
Within 20 days after the case protocol mentioned above is filed, the court may call you
to a case management conference to ensure the orderly progress of the proceeding.
Failing this, the protocol is presumed to be accepted.
Exhibits supporting the application
In support of the Application for Authorization to Institute a Class Action and to Appoint
the Status of Representative Plaintiff, the Applicant intends to use the following exhibits:
Exhibit P-1:

Screen capture of Lasik MD’s website taken on October 23, 2019;

Exhibit P-2:

Extract of the CIDREQ for Lasik MD;

Exhibit P-3:

Extract of the CIDREQ for Valhalla & Camelot Enterprises Inc.;

Exhibit P-4:

Extract of the CIDREQ for L.M.D. GMA L.P.;

Exhibit P-5:

Copy of Christopher Ouellet’s medical file from Lasik MD;

Exhibit P-6:

Copy of Lasik MD’s 2016 Information Booklet;

Exhibit P-7:

Copy of Applicant’s deposit receipt for $3,550.00;

Exhibit P-8:

Copy of consent form;

Exhibit P-9:

Copy of the prescription by Dr. Bashour for the “Presence Process”
book;

Exhibit P-10:

Copy of document titled “Reçu et quittance”;

 Exhibit P-11:

Picture of screen taken inside Lasik MD (1250 René-Lévesque
West, in Montréal) by Applicant in November 2016;

Exhibit P-12:

Wayback machine screen capture of Lasik MD’s website (FAQs)
from September 6, 2018;

Exhibit P-13:

Screen capture of Lasik MD’s website (FAQs) taken on October 23,
2019;

Exhibit P-14:

Copy of November 14, 2019 CBS News article titled: “LASIK eye
surgery should be taken off market, former FDA adviser says”;

Exhibit P-15:

Copy of the September 7th, 2016 press release titled “La Caisse
finances LASIK MD’s international growth”;

Exhibit P-16:

Copy of the CTV article titled “W5 investigates a rare but painful
side effect of laser eye surgery” published on October 19, 2018;

Exhibit P-17:

Copy of 2015 study titled “Corneal Neuralgia after LASIK”, by Dr.
Pedram Hamrah;

Exhibit P-18:

Copy of June 21, 2019 article titled “Woman calls for more research
on laser eye surgery after complications”.

These exhibits are available on request.
Notice of presentation of an application
If the application is an application in the course of a proceeding or an application under
Book III, V, excepting an application in family matters mentioned in article 409, or VI of
the Code, the establishment of a case protocol is not required; however, the application
must be accompanied by a notice stating the date and time it is to be presented.
Montreal, November 15, 2019

(s) LPC Avocat Inc.
LPC AVOCAT INC.
Me Joey Zukran
Attorney for the Applicant
5800 blvd. Cavendish, Suite 411
Montréal, Québec, H4W 2T5
Telephone: (514) 379-1572
Telecopier: (514) 221-4441
Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

 NOTICE OF PRESENTATION
(articles 146 and 574 al. 2 C.C.P.)
TO:

LASIK M.D. INC.
1180 Drummond Street, Suite 400
Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2S1
L.M.D. GMA L.P.
1180 Drummond Street, Suite 400
Montreal, Quebec, H3G 2S1
DR. MOUNIR BASHOUR
1250 René-Lévesque blvd. West
Montreal, Quebec, H3B 4W8
VALHALLA & CAMELOT ENTERPRISES INC.
4175 Sainte-Catherine Street West, suite 403
Westmount, Quebec, H3Z 3C9
DEFENDANTS

TAKE NOTICE that Applicant’s Application to Authorize the Bringing of a Class Action
and to Appoint the Status of Representative Plaintiff will be presented before the
Superior Court at 1 Rue Notre-Dame E, Montréal, Quebec, H2Y 1B6, on the date set
by the coordinator of the Class Action chamber.

Montreal, November 15, 2019

(s) LPC Avocat Inc.
LPC AVOCAT INC.
Me Joey Zukran
Attorney for the Applicant
5800 blvd. Cavendish, Suite 411
Montréal, Québec, H4W 2T5
Telephone: (514) 379-1572
Telecopier: (514) 221-4441
Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

 Applicant

BL 6059
N/D: JZ-204
______________________________________

Me Joey Zukran
LPC AVOCAT INC.
Avocats • Attorneys
5800 blvd. Cavendish, Suite 411
Montréal, Québec, H4W 2T5
Telephone: (514) 379-1572 • Fax: (514) 221-4441
Email: jzukran@lpclex.com

ORIGINAL
______________________________________

APPLICATION TO AUTHORIZE THE BRINGING OF
A CLASS ACTION AND TO APPOINT THE STATUS
OF REPRESENTATIVE PLAINTIFF
(ARTICLES 571 AND FOLLOWING C.C.P.)
______________________________________

Defendants
______________________________________

LASIK M.D. INC. ET ALS.

-vs.-

CHRISTOPHER OUELLET

(Class Action)
SUPERIOR COURT
DISTRICT OF MONTREAL
______________________________________

500-06-001
______________________________________