Canadalawcourts.com - Supreme Court of Canada Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlin

_{british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud, british columbia, bc, b.c., superior, supreme, appeal, court, courts, canadian, law, legal, judgement, decision, differently, different, cases, supreme court canada, chief justice, beverley mclachlin, informed, fraud,}

Justice Blair said:

[24] Mr. Post.nikoff in his submissions alleged that Dr. Morrow committed the tort of battery against him during the course of the surgical procedure. Mr. Post.nikoff did not plead either res ipsa loquitor or battery in his statement of claim, omissions which precludes submissions on those grounds... "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

Justice Blair said: ** Deline v. Whittle 2002 BCSC 521 **

Deline v. Whittle 2002 BCSC 521 [14] I conclude that the statement of claim offends Rule 19(1) in that it is not brief and it recites evidence, but that these failings do not justify striking out the statement of claim, although I direct that it be amended to comply with the Rules. "R.M.L. Blair, J." The Honourable Mr. Justice R.M.L. Blair

The Reality:

Beware contradictory Judge. From past judgements it is discovered that Judge Blair applies the law in several different ways. Within a judgement several years later (2002) ... Deline v. Whittle 2002 BCSC 521 - Judge Blair provides the ability to amend a "Statement of Claim" for others, yet Judge Blair withheld similar law that provided the ability to amend the "Statement of Claim" in this case. The law regarding "Amending" the Statement of Claim to include the word "Battery" was placed before Judge Blair. This shows that Judge Blair aware of the law in other judgements, applying the law in other cases and having the law placed before him, failed to provide the law fairly for the Plaintiff and his family. Judge Blair's application of law is an issue of fraud in this case and not mistake. The law of "battery and law permitting amending the Statement of Claim" was before Justice Blair and appeared within the plaintiff book of authorities. The past law appeared to say although the specific word "battery" never appeared within the Statement of Claim, what had been required was the element of "battery" to be properly plead, such as the wrongful injection by Dr. Morrow. Prior law required a concise statement of what the Plaintiff intended on relying upon at trail. The past law gave the plaintiff 10 days to amend the statement of claim to include the word "battery". The B.C. Court of Appeal would not permit amending the "Statement of Claim" to include the word "battery", although in submissions the fact of the wrongful injection and law of battery was before that court. Fraud, bias and a total lack of credibility is claimed, but the Prime Minister, Justice Ministry and the Chief Justice have found these judgements to be acceptable. Both law and evidence was withheld by Justice Blair in order to favor both Drs.' White and Morrow. A Government accepted standard for Judicial conduct in Canada.

2002 BCSC 521
Citation:
Deline v. Whittle
Date: 20020415

2002 BCSC 521
Docket:

SO 016141

Registry: Vancouver

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

BETWEEN:

TONI E. DELINE

PLAINTIFF

AND:

VERNON NORMAN WHITTLE

DEFENDANT

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
OF THE
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BLAIR

Plaintiff appearing on his own behalf.

Counsel for Defendant:

M.P.S. Spearing

Counsel for Clayton Schultz (not appearing formally)

M. A. Clemens, Q.C.

Date and Place of Hearing/Trial:
March 20 & 21, 2002

Vancouver, BC

Defendant's Application to Strike the Statement of Claim
[14] Mr. Whittle , in his motion filed January 11, 2002, seeks an order striking out the statement of claim on the basis that the pleadings are unnecessary, frivolous, scandalous and an abuse of process, words which reflect Rule 19(24) of Rules of Court. Mr. Deline acknowledges some of the difficulties with the statement of claim and, further, he advised that he was withdrawing paragraph 14(a) to (h) of the statement of claim. I conclude that the statement of claim offends Rule 19(1) in that it is not brief and it recites evidence, but that these failings do not justify striking out the statement of claim, although I direct that it be amended to comply with the Rules.
Defendant's Application for Security of Costs
[15] Mr. Whittle in his January 11, 2002, motion also sought an order that Mr. Deline post security for the defendant's costs in these proceedings and that the action be stayed until such security has been posted. I concur with Mr. Deline's submissions that the defendant's affidavit material is insufficient to support the application for security for costs. I do not agree with all of Mr. Deline's submissions regarding Mr. Whittle's affidavits sworn December 18 and 19, 2001, but do find substance in Mr. Deline's submissions regarding the issue of security for costs.
Defendant's Rule 18A Application
[16] Defence counsel did not pursue the application under Rule 18A found in Mr. Whittle's January 11, 2002, motion for an order dismissing in whole or in part the statement of claim and I dismiss those portions of the motion.
Plaintiff's Ex-Parte Motion
[17] Mr. Deline also spoke to his ex-parte notice of motion dated January 29, 2002, in which he sought an order permitting him to serve material by faxing documents to the defendant's Port Alberni office and providing him with additional time to respond to the defendant's applications. I find no basis for the plaintiff's applications and deny same, concluding that the plaintiff ought to abide by the guidelines for service as found in the Rules of Court. I further deny Mr. Deline's application for costs of the ex-parte application at Scale 5 payable forthwith from Mr. Spearing, counsel for Mr. Whittle , as I conclude the application is without merit.
Schedule
[18] As a result of my findings, I conclude that a schedule ought to be established to assist the parties with the future conduct of this action. The schedule is dependent on Mr. Whittle paying immediately the $1,600 to ensure the delivery of the Arbiter's award, the receipt of which I anticipate will assist Mr. Deline in amending his statement of claim.
[19] Mr. Deline will have 21 days after he receives the Arbiter's award to file an amended statement of claim and the defendant, to accommodate his counsel who will be away from April 5 to 27, 2002, will file his statement of defence the later of either May 10, 2002, or within 14 days of receiving the amended statement of claim. The parties have liberty to apply should problems arise with either the production of the Arbiter's award or compliance with the time limits.
Costs
[20] As success has been mixed, I direct that costs at Scale 3 be in the cause. Mr. Clemens did not seek costs of his attendance.
"R.M.L. Blair, J."
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.M.L. Blair

[ Beginning of Website ]	[ Introduction to Courts ]
[ Methods of Fraud ]	[ Tell-a-Friend ]
[ Executive Summary ]	[ Editorial Comment Board ]

	Justice Richard Blair must be removed from the Supreme Court.
	Justice Richard Blair is evidence that he can be a fraud and a judge.