A FRAUDULENT Canadian Judicial Council Judgement |
A Canadian Government Standard set for the Courts. |
Justice Blair said: [29] ... Perhaps these reasons might lead Mr. Postnikoff 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. |
Throughout judgement, in many upon many paragraphs Kamloops Richard Blairseems to very obsessively claim a need for counseling for what he describes as "problems", he provides his very own assessment, yet the reality is absolutely no verifiable evidence had been presented to support his fraudulent 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 byJustice Blair. No Evidence Presented! |
The reasons delivered by Kamloops Justice Richard Blairhas prompted the Plaintiff to use Justice Blair's suggestion on approaching problems perhaps “not in the way JusticeRichard Blairhad 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 Was Never Applied For This Family - Judge Blair is a Fraud |
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]. |