Shame on Justice Blair
Kamloops B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair
Government Standard
The Government of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council have set this case as the accepted standard for Canadian Supreme Court Judges. There is proof that Kamloops Justice Richard Blair made fraudulent, unsupported allegations. It is claimed that Justice Blair's judgement is based upon his violent impulse and speculation and not of the facts before the court and Justice Blair's allegations are not supported. What had been prior law on consent, battery the standards of disclosure, access to a fair trial and  the quality of expert evidence are seriously modified or failed to appear in judgement. The B.C. Court of Appeal DENIED and failed to overturn this judgement.

The Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council, including Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, have protected a judges ability to commit fraud, have friends as witnesses and allege evidence that fails to appear anywhere. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is in charge of the Canadian Judicial Council operations. The is Obstruction of Justice at the highest levels of Canadian Government and Courts. Obstruction of Justice is claimed against Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. All rights are claimed in this case.
Canadian Judicial council Precedent

Canadian Judicial Council has viewed the nature of the trial as having no ability to examine witnesses, the true fact is that a request for a trial and cross-examination was made, Justice Blair rejected this request for trial and ability to cross examine. Justice Blair ordered a closed court room. A precedent when facts are needed or there has been fraud within a closed court room. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister that very clearly stated that facts had been needed in order to support Justice Blair's allegations.

There is more... Justice Blair refused to step aside from his involvement with evidence when he attended dinner parties at the homes of witnesses, he pointed and yelled "his friendships with witnesses would not have any effect on his judgement".  

Dr. Philip Anthony White was paid for the same attendance that Justice Blair claimed to never happen. There was no dispute regarding this attendance other that Judge Blair's untruthful allegations. This was done in order to constructively eliminate truthful evidence. Justice Blair is the sole person alleging this attendance never happened, Nothing supported his claim. Judgement Construction and Judicial Fraud are both claimed..

Justice Blair claimed that Dr. Philip Anthony White deposed in his affidavit that he discussed risk on September 30, 1994, although this claim never appeared within any evidence as alleged by Justice Blair. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin that claims made by Justice Blair failed to appear within the evidence.

The Government of Canada including the Department of Justice and Prime Minister have done nothing.. quickly claiming complete independence from the courts including areas of fraud, obstruction of justice and judges involvement. The Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Manley, Shiela Copps, Don Boudria and the Ministry of Justice seemed to have viewed the conduct of Judges and the independence of the courts as the same. A legal precedent that the Government of Canada will not involve itself with issues of misconduct within the courts in the future.

Deceptive Claims of Open Court

It is claimed by the Judiciary and Government, that the Canadian system of justice is open and transparent to the public. The Canadian judiciary is claimed to be equal in that judgements are being written, filed and available for anyone to read. Yet when there is proof of fraud and judges dinner parties with the expert witnesses the Prime Minister's office, the Justice Minister's office and the Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin prevent a formal examination of evidence effectively concealing this corruption and obstruction of justice. This means when reading a judgement it is not very clear what material evidence had been excluded by a judge to provide benefit or what objections had been over-ruled or how the judge was involved with the evidence or what evidence was fabricated by the Judge or constructively manufactured. There is fraud in this case. What do you call alleged evidence which benefits friends that fails to appear anywhere?

The Canadian Judicial Council within their Internet web site state that "Judges must explain what they do". This claim is absolutely misleading and untrue. "Judges are not required to explain anything and they are not required to support their judgements with legitimate evidence". Appeals do not provide relief from this type of corruption as appeals do not provide the means to examine judges when there is proof of misconduct and fraud. Appeal Courts tend to support the lower courts findings. The Plaintiff in this case was not provided the ability to examine Judge Blair and openly present proof of judicial fraud.

The concealment of judges misconduct goes to the highest levels and the most senior levels of Canadian Judges including the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, the Prime Minister of Canada and senior members of the Canadian Government. Complaints against federally appointed judges are selected and not open to any scrutiny by the general public. Judges need not answer to anyone. Canadians are unable to formally ask questions when a judgement is not defendable by the judge or when there are serious questions relating to the application of evidence or judgement bias as in this case. This provides judges with believablity even in cases where there is proof of fraud such as this one and permits easy concealment of fraud in order to support each other. This family has been very violently assaulted and very publicly humiliated by Judge Richard Blair without an ability to defend against fraud. Judge Blair knows he lied and had no basis for his allegations.

It is not agreed with the Canadian Government, the Prime Minister's office and the Canadian Judicial Council's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin's allegations that the Plaintiff's family had been treated properly by Justice Blair. Yet there are few, if any, places to go with this easily proved judicial fraud, the Canadian Government has quickly claimed independence from the Courts including areas of fraud, obstruction of justice and Judges involvement with the evidence. This sets a Canadian precedent that the Canadian Government will not be involved within future cases when there is judges misconduct, fraud and judges involvement. Remember the removal of a Judge Blair for fraud is not an issue for the Appeal Courts to decide.

The decision to examine a judge for fraud rests with the Canadian Judicial Council and Government of Canada, who do not adopt any reasonable standard. It is an Obstruction of Justice and cover up by the very ones we place trust in running our country like a democracy. Senior Government Ministers including Mr Paul Martin, Mr. Don Boudria, Mr. Allen Rock and justice Minister all have adopted the "it's not our problem" position. This also becomes a Canadian Government accepted standard for all Members of Parliament as they cannot be held above the law. All future legal and equality rights are demanded by this family. If there is fraud in future cases or your case.. the outcome in future cases must be the same as in this case for equality in law to exist. For democracy to exist.

No Examination of Fraud

It is possible that this Internet Web Site may lead to more questions, some letters and documents may not appear, this is unavoidable but may be another reason why a formal examination into Justice Richard Blair should have been provided to this family in the first place. In most cases it would be Justice Blair very inability to provide thoughtful, logical answers to only a very few questions that would prove his application of evidence is unsupported. It is the intention of this Internet web site to only present relevant documents that may assist in proving fraud and corruption within Justice Blair's judgement. The intention is to make the presentation of this evidence as simple as possible to understand. This Internet web-site is not intended to debate any of the evidence. It is not to detail private health related evidence although it should be noted that the legal council appearing for the doctors openly told the court that they had no dispute with the facts regarding health issues, pain and swelling. Many.. Many years have past already.. the same health issues continue today.

It is not intended to be a debate on the merits of any disagreement with the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Government, Prime Minister's office, Justice Minister's office and Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin relating to them preventing an examination into evidence. This is intended to present the facts relating to the accepted standard set by the Government of Canada as it relates to the conduct of Federally Appointed Supreme Court Judges. Judges the Government appoints. Equality under Canadian Law. In simple terms by preventing the need for a formal hearing into Justice Blair's fraud, total lack of credibility and involvement with evidence the Canadian Government and Canadian Judicial Council have set a precedent that provides the ability for a constructive application and constructive elimination of legitimate evidence, exclusion of evidence that provides for benefit to judges friends and unlawful claims within future judgements. This here provides the Canadian precedent for a judge to allege fact not presented as evidence. Fraud is claimed.

In most areas of judgement it would be Justice Blair's very inability to provide thoughtful, reasonable answers to questions that would uncover his many unsupported claims. It is not possible to fully explore some of the evidence appearing within judgement without first having Justice Blair explain and be cross examined on the formal record. Both the Government of Canada and Judicial Council did not ask that Justice Blair provide the alleged evidence which failed to appear anywhere. They have refused to see the evidence. This precedent can prevent future examination. "The Plaintiff was ordered by Justice Blair not use any notes or read from affidavits on the grounds that "he could read faster", The Plaintiff struggled to remember the law and what he intended to say. He was emotional." "Nothing could have been done to prevent this type of attack on evidence. It was totally beyond the Plaintiff's control. Justice Blair is not required to explain his allegations within judgement."
A precedent in Law! Although the specific word "battery" failed to appear within the Statement of Claim, the Tort of "battery" was properly plead with respect to Dr. Morrow's wrongful injection. Justice Blair and the Appeal Court did not permit the amending of the Statement of Claim to include the word "battery". Prior Canadian law permitted amending the Statement of Claim. This family was not treated properly. Both Judge Blair and the B.C. Appeal Court failed to ask any doctor for evidence of consent. Doctor and patient relations are subject to abuse, misrepresentation and judicial fraud. This is a precedent. All rights are claimed. No evidence of consent was presented by Dr. White and Dr. Morrow nor requested by Justice Blair.  The B.C. Court of Appeal did not permit an appeal. Fraud is claimed on an alleged informed consent.

Justice Richard Blair Kamloops B.C. Justica Richard Blair Kamloops BC

Finding nothing wrong with judgement, the Prime Minister's office, The Justice Ministry and the Chief Justice of Canada have set the accepted standard for judges. This is a precedent. Contradictory is Justice Blair's claim. The "Standard of Disclosure" had been placed before Justice Blair within a book of authorities. Maybe Justice Blair should seek professional psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear in the evidence.
Justice Blair pointed and yelled "My friendships will have no effect on judgement." as he was being asked to step aside. It would be Justice Blair's very inability to provide thoughtful answers and his inability to defend his allegations that will uncover a constructive application of evidence and exclusions of evidence that provided benefit. Allegations would not be defendable by Justice Blair and not supported by evidence.
Judge Blair's judgement has been approved by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada and sets this case as the Government accepted standard of conduct for Canadian Judges. All rights are claimed.
No Problem. It's someone else's problem, not ours. Why waste time on this? Not my problem.
The Prime Ministers office within a letter states "While careful consideration has been given to your description of the difficulties you have experienced, this office is unable to intervene in any way in this situation."
The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Please be advised that any further correspondence in this matter will remain without reply and will simply be filed."

There is fraud. Expert evidence was presented to the Government of Canada, Ministry of Justice, Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin and the Prime Minister proving these claims failed to appear in the evidence. Fraud is claimed on alleged evidence that failed to appear and consent. The Canadian Judicial Council is a key method of concealing corruption within Canadian Courts.

Precedent in Law
Image   The doctors failed to provide evidence relating to Judge Blair's alleged disclosure  of risk or consent.
Image   A constructive judgement  with both law and evidence withheld in order to provide benefit.
Image   Justice Blair made allegations failed to appear in evidence.
Image   Justice Blair was not asked to explain. Judge Blair fails to dispute fraud.
Image   Government accepted fraud on alleged evidence that failed to appear.
Image   An alleged need for experts within a closed courtroom went to destroy legitimate evidence.
Image   Dr. White is paid for the same attendance alleged never happened. This is fraud.
Image   The rejection of a requested trial and cross-examination was beyond the Plaintiff's control.
Image   Justice Blair's alleged experts, employed by the Doctors, did not see the Plaintiff's evidence.
Image   Judge Blair introduced questions knowing they could not be answered with affidavits.
Image   Judge Blair fails to dispute this claim of fraud. Nothing disputes this Internet website.
Image   Judge Blair's misconduct is claimed to be an issue for the courts by the Canadian Judicial Council.
Image   Court Costs  awarded based upon fraudulent claims made by Kamloops Judge Richard Blair..

Please Take Note: Justice Blair made serious unsupported allegations that alleged experts employed by the doctors claimed an informed consent.  Absolutely no inference can be taken from alleged doctor experts who provided him with some form of evidence that an informed consent was provided or any discussions had taken place, when discussions had not.  No consent relating to risk was provided. Experts hired by the doctors, who failed to see any evidence from the Plaintiff, when fraud is claimed have absolutely no credibility.  Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on judges allegations that failed to appear anywhere in the evidence.

Problems Applying Disclosure Law

Justice Blair said:
[19] Mr. Paul has not produced any medical evidence concerning the standard disclosure practice... "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:
The "Standard of Disclosure" was placed before Justice Blair within the Legal Book of Authorities (Past Judgements):

From Book of Authorities:

Consent to Medical Care Law Reform Commission of Canada (1979): "In regard to the burden of proof of consent, in common law jurisdictions where a relationship is characterized as confidential, or fiduciary, undue influence is presumed to be present. This means that in the medical contract the doctor has the burden of proving the voluntairness of consent, which burden should be regarded as encompassing both the consent to the contract and to the medical procedure that it contemplates."

Rawlings v. Lindsey 20 C.C.L.T. pp 307 "While evidence of standards of disclosure prevailing in the profession may be relevant, it is not conclusive. The responsibility for weighing these factors and determining the appropriate standard and whether it has been breached ultimately falls upon the court:" Reible Hughs supra

(Reible v. Hughes 14 C.C.L.T. at 71) "To allow expert medical evidence to determine what risks are material and, hence, should be disclosed and correlatively, what risks are not material is to hand over the medical profession the entire question of the scope of the duty of disclosure, including the question as to whether there has been a breach of that duty. Expert medical evidence is, of course, relevant to the findings of risk that reside in or are a result of recommended surgery or other treatment. The issue under consideration is a different issue from that involved where the question is whether the doctor carried out his professional activities by applicable professional standards. What is under consideration here is the patient's right to know what risks are involved in undergoing or forgoing the proposed treatment."

(Rieble v. Hughes 14 C.C.L.T. at pp12) "The issue of informed consent can arise in both battery and negligence cases: with respect to the former a lack of proper information communicated by the doctor to the patient can vitiate an apparent consent while, with respect to the latter, failure to see to it that the patient is properly advised can amount, in certain circumstances, to an act of negligence."... The tort is an intentional one, consisting of an unprivileged and un consented to invasion of one's bodily security it does not require proof of causation and it causes upon the defendant the burden of proving consent to what was done. Again, it does not require the adducing of medical evidence, although it seems to me that if battery is to be available for certain kinds of failure to meet the duty of disclosure there would necessarily have to be some such evidence brought before the court as an element in determining whether there has been such feature.

(Canadian Law of Consent and Treatment - Second Edition - Lorne E. Rozovsky at pp 134.) "The fact that a patient has signed a document that purports to demonstrate that he or she has consented to a particular treatment is evidence of consent. It is not conclusive of consent. Consent is a process by which the various necessary criteria for a valid consent are filled. A document which states that the patient has consented does not provide evidence that the various criteria, such as being advised of the risks, have been fulfilled. Even a statement saying that the patient has been advised does not fulfill this criterion, since the patient was not in a position to know whether he or she was fully informed or not. While a consent document signed by the patient may be considered prima facie proof of a fully informed and valid consent, evidence that one or more of the criteria have not been fulfilled destroys its effectiveness. Therefore, the defendant presenting such a document should be prepared to provide additional evidence in support of the criteria which make up a valid consent process."

There is fraud.  Evidence failed to appear anywhere as alleged by Justice Blair. The Canadian Judicial Council is a method of concealing corruption within Canadian Courts. All Rights are reserved.

Expert Checklist Judgement Checklist
Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White dispute Mrs. D... Lynn Paul's attendance at his office on September 20, 1994?
Check Mark   No there is no reference in Dr. White's affidavit specifying whether or not D... Lynn Paul attended at his office on September 20, 1994; ... John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White claim not to remember Mrs. D... Lynn Paul's attendance at his office on September 20, 1994?
Check Mark   "No, there is no reference in Dr. White's affidavit claiming an inability to recall the attendance of D... Lynn Paul at his office on September 20, 1994;" ... John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White depose that he had discussed possible risks of a vasectomy with Mr Paul. Peter Paul on September 30, 1994?
Check Mark  "Dr. White states at clause number 6 that, "On that occasion, I explained the procedure to him as I always do in such cases." He does not fully explain what he did say (if anything) in terms of discussing possible risks. Further information is needed to determine what Dr. White suggests was discussed on September 30, 1994. Referral to Exhibit "B" does not provide any help in determining what was discussed;" ...  John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Question: If... Dr. Philip Anthony White's affidavit deposed that risks had been discussed on September 30, 1994,  What were the risks claimed to be discussed on that day that appear within his affidavit?
Check Mark   There is no reference in the affidavit to specific risks claimed to have been discussed on that day; ...  John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White provide any documented evidence or signed disclosure forms that supported his claim that risk had been disclosed or discussed?
Check Mark   There are no disclosure forms or other signed documents by Paul Paul confirming that risks had been disclosed or discussed." ...  John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Check Mark   Fraud. Dr. Philip White has it both ways, paid for the same attendance alleged not happened by Judge Blair.
Check Mark   Fraud on an alleged consent.
Check Mark   Fraud. Alleged experts failed to see the Plaintiff's evidence.
Check Mark   Fraud. Court costs awarded for doctor benefit based upon unlawful claims.
Check Mark   Canadian Judicial Council is Government's method of concealing  fraud and misconduct.
Check Mark   Fraud. Unlawful claims appear on Government Internet sites
Check Mark   Fraud. Violent public humiliation by Justice Blair with claims he knows to be untrue.
Check Mark   Justice Blair not required to produce the alleged evidence nor explain his allegations. A Government accepted Canadian Precedent.
Check Mark   Government refusal to provide the ability to present proof of fraud.
Check Mark   The B.C. Court of Appeal makes Government accepted fraudulent claims.
Check Mark   Removal of B.C. Supreme Court Judge Blair is not an issue for the courts.
Check Mark   Judgement construction with a desired outcome.
Check Mark   Judges dinner at the homes of doctor witnesses. Refusal to step aside.
Check Mark   Government of Canada and Prime Minister claim independence from the Canadian courts although expert evidence of fraud is presented.
Check Mark   Both law and evidence withheld by Judge Blair in order to provide benefit.

Check Mark   B.C. Court of Appeal supports Judge Blair with fraudulent claims and refuses to hear an appeal.

Justice Richard Blair Kamloops B.C.
Justica Richard Blair Kamloops BC

Justice Blair said:
[29] ... Perhaps these reasons might lead Mr. Paul to reconsider the specialists' suggestion as to how he might best approach his problems. "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:
No Medical Evidence nor measure to Justice Blair's allegations.

In many upon many paragraphs Justice Blair seems to very obsessively claim a need for counseling for what he describes as "problems", he even provides his very own assessment, yet the reality is absolutely no measured or verifiable evidence had been presented to support his allegations. What Problems? These totally unsupported claims attacked the legitimacy and character of the Plaintiff and his family. No Inferences can be taken that any evidence supported these allegations made by Justice Blair. No Evidence Presented!

The reasons delivered by Justice Blair has prompted the Plaintiff to use Justice Blair's suggestion on approaching problems perhaps not in the way Justice Blair had banked on. The result is this Internet web site. What Problems? No Evidence Presented! Maybe Justice Blair should use his own advice and seek some psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear within the evidence.

No inferences can be made that the Plaintiff has any of the inferred problems described by Justice Blair, no measure, no verifiable evidence and no expert evidence was presented. These are totally unsupported allegations made by Justice Blair. The evidence was the Plaintiff did not have an informed consent to the operation, no risk had been disclosed that would have prevented the Plaintiff agreeing to the operation, no diagnostic procedures provided to see if the condition could be repaired and a wrongfully injected anesthetic. The legal council openly told Justice Blair they never disputed the medical records proving pain and swelling immediately following the surgery. The evidence fully supported their conclusions. Whatever other claims Justice Blair has made is purely of his own making. An appeal DENIED.

Like many of Justice Blair's other allegations including doctor evidence that failed to appear and Dr. White getting paid for the same attendance Justice Blair claimed to not happen, these are totally unsupported allegations. Fraud is claimed. Shame on Kamloops Justice Richard Blair.

Law on Experts
Law on experts

"Opinion evidence is not permissible when it is reality argument in the guise of opinion evidence. [Sengbusch v. Priest (1987), 14 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 26 (S.C.) at p. 40]; [Mazur v. Moody (1987), 14 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 240 (SC), at p. 243] Emil Anderson No. 1 supra, at p. 33]; [Emil Anderson No. 2, supra, at p. 363]; Vancouver Community College v. Phillips Barratt (1988), 26 B.C.L.R.. (2nd) 296 (S.C.), at p. 306]:

The opinion given must be within the stated qualifications of the expert or uniquely within the special skill of the witness. [Kelliher v. Smith, supra, atp. 684]; [Johnson v. Goldsmid et at, Unreported decision, December 21, 1987, Meredith J., Vancouver Registry No. C860754, at pp.4-5];

The expert opinion must be based on stated facts or hypothesis to be proven by evidence. The expert is not entitled to draw inferences or make findings of fact and then base his opinion on those findings. [Emil Anderson No.1, supra, at p.32]; [Emiil Anderson No. 2, supra, at pp.362-363]; [Johnson v. Goldsmid, supra, at p.4]; [Mazur v. Moody, supra, at p. 244]; [Bleta v. The Queen, (1964) S.C.R. 561, at pp. 564-567]; Quintette Coal Limited v. Bow Valley Resources Services Limited, supra, at pp.129-130]; [Hennessy v. Rothman (1988) 26 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 322 (S.C.). at p. 325]; Surrey Credit Union v. Willson (1980), 45 B.C.L.R. (2nd) 310, at p. 313].

Where a report contains admissible and inadmissible opinions, which are so inextricably bound up as to be practically inseparable, the report as a whole is inadmissible.
 There is no obligation on the adverse party to clear up ambiguities or indentify which inadmissible referances in an expert's report may be excised so as to render the opinion or any part of it admissible. [Emil Anderson No. 2, supra, at p.361]; [Emil Anderson No.2, at p. 32]; Quintette Coal Limited v. Bow Valley Resource Services Limited, supra, at pp. 128-129].

Canadian Judicial Council Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin Justice Richard Blair Kamloops BC

Shame on Justice Blair

Image    Justice Richard Blair must be removed from the Supreme Court.    Image Underhanded
Image    There is proof that Kamloops B.C. Justice Richard Blair is a fraud.    Image Dishonest

            Canadian Judicial Courts Logo
Copyright © 2002 - 2020 all rights reserved.