Canadalawcourts.com - Canadian Law on Medical Standard of Disclosure

_{doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada, doctor, consent, hospital, medical, standard, disclosure, canadian, law, bc, b.c., superior, courts, court, appeal, fraud, dishonest, verify, canada}

Justice Blair said:

[19] Mr. Post.nikoff 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. Post.nikoff was likely to have had an adverse reaction to the vasectomy, ..."Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:

The "Standard of Disclosure" was before Justice Blair within a "Book of Authorities". In addition expert medical evidence concerning the "Standard of Disclosure Practice" was available. Justice Blair ordered that legitimate Expert Medical journals that had been presented as evidence regarding risk and consent could not be used to cross-examine Drs. White and Morrow. Justice Blair introduced questions 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 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 on judges alleged doctor evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Without any supporting evidence Justice Blair's allegations are subject to fraud, influence and speculation. A motion to strike the summary trial in favor of having a cross-examination of witnesses was over-ruled by Justice Blair.

The Law of Consent and Disclosure placed before Judge Blair.

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. 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."

[ 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.