Canadian Judicial Council
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair is an “Underhanded, Dishonest and Fraudulent Federally Appointed Canadian Judge” who was never asked to reasonably explain his allegations nor produce his alleged evidence in an effort to support his fraudulent claims.

Evidence Page #9


B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair Is an “Underhanded, Dishonest and Fraudulent Federally Appointed Canadian Judge” who was never asked to reasonably explain his allegations nor produce his alleged evidence in an effort to support his fraudulent claims.

Judicial Standard of Disclosure - B.C. Supreme Court Law of Consent



Judicial Standard of Disclosure - B.C. Supreme Court Law of Consent

Justice Blair said: [19] Mr. Postnikoff has not produced any medical evidence concerning the standard disclosure practice of the risks relating to vasectomy. Blair, J. BLAIR J. [26]  There is no evidence that would have suggested Mr. Postnikoff was likely to have had an adverse reaction to the vasectomy, ...Blair, J. BLAIR J.

Expert Evidence Question #6

    Question 6:
6) 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?
    Expert Answer 6:
6) There are no disclosure forms or other signed documents by Paul Postnikoff confirming that risks had been disclosed or discussed.   John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

The Truth: The "

Judicial

Standard of Disclosure

"

Law of Consent

was placed before

B.C. Supreme Court

Justice Blair within a "Book of Authorities". In addition expert medical evidence concerning the "

Judicial Standard of Disclosure

Practice" was available. Justice Blair introduced questions regarding

B.C. Supreme Court

Law of Consent

knowing they could not be answered within his court ordered closed court room. From past judgements the entire question of the "Standard of Disclosure" and the question as to whether or not there has been

consent

was not a

decision for experts

. From past judgements and

law of consent

there was a right to know the possibilities of any adverse reactions. Both Drs. White and Morrow failed to present any evidence that supported Judge Blair's underhanded allegations of consent. Fraud is claimed on an alleged

consent

and Judge Blair's alleged doctor evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Without the alleged supporting evidence Justice Blair's allegations are fraudulent, influenced and speculation. Fraud is claimed. A motion to strike the

summary trial

in favor of having a cross-examination of witnesses was over-ruled by Justice Blair.
In this case Judge Blair ignored established Canadian law in order to provide benefit ... he applied the law in a free-wheeling hostile impulsive nature. He violently humiliated this family with allegation he knows to be fraudulent. All future eqality rights are claimed by this family. This sets the precedent for future judgements and matters relating to Judicial Conduct.

Serious Unsupported Judicial Allegations

The Canadian Law of Consent was before Jusice Richard Blair within a legal 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 unpriviliged and unconsented to invasion of one's bodily secutity it does not require proof of causation and it causes upon the defendant the burden of proving consent to what was done. (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."

Home | Judicial Fraud | RCMP Liars Exposed | Canadian Judicial Council | Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin | Judicial Disclosure Law | Judge Blair Problems | Judgement Check List | Part II of the Judges Act | External Website Links | Must Watch Video | Democrocy Code of Canada | Canadian Judicial Council Fraud | Canadian Judicial Council Misconduct | Contact

Evidence 1 | Evidence 2 | Evidence 3 | Evidence 4 | Evidence 5 | Evidence 6 | Evidence 7 | Evidence 8 | Evidence 9 | Evidence 10 | Evidence 11 | Evidence 12 | Evidence 13 | Evidence 14
Share, Download, Distribute, Copy, Social Media, Email, Talk and Comment on any Part of This Website.
Share.. Share.. Share.. with no restrictions.
If possible please reference website as your source.

Mobile Friendly Web Design By: Mr. Paul Postnikoff
https://canadianjudicialcourts.com
Email: info@canadianjudicialcourts.com
Canadian Judicial Council 2012 - 2024