Canadalawcourts.com - Canadian Consent Law

_{judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded, judgement, supreme, appeal, court, courts, british, columbia, standard, consent, risk, disclosure, doctor, medical, hospital, precedent, law , Canadian, Canada, dr., dr, philip, white, kelowna, kamloops, fraud, dishonest, underhanded}

Justice Blair said:

[20] Dr. White deposed that he discussed the risks of the vasectomy with Mr. Post.nikoff on both September 30 and November 5, 1994, before referring him to Dr. Morrow... "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality... Judge Blair does not dispute fraud:

This is fraud. There is nothing within Dr. Philip Anthony White's affidavit regarding the alleged discussion of risk on September 30, 1994. This alleged discussion of risk was totally fabricated by Justice Blair. Further unsupported allegations include Dr. Philip Anthony White getting paid for the same attendance Justice Blair alleged never happened. Justice Blair is the sole person making these serious allegations, allegations not presented as evidence. Judge Blair is totally without credibility. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on judges alleged evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Judge Blair is not required to explain nor produce evidence. Accepted Government standard.

Question 4:

4) Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White depose that he had discussed possible risks of a vasectomy with Mr. Paul Peter Post.nikoff on September 30, 1994?

Expert Answer 4:

4) 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 5:

5) 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?

Expert Answer 5:

5) There is no reference in the affidavit to specific risks claimed to have been discussed on that day; ... John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Justice Blair would not permit the cross-examination of Dr. Philip Anthony White or Dr. Donald Ray Morrow.

Dr. White wrote Dr. Morrow a letter on November 14, 1994 requesting that he provide his assurances to the operation. These assurances had been given.

Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent and alleged evidence that failed to appear.

Dr. Philip Anthony White and Dr. Donald Ray Morrow failed to present the court with any reasonable evidence of an alleged disclosure or an alleged informed consent.

Fraud on Alleged Consent: All allegations made by Judge Blair and B.C. Court of Appeal Madam Justice Ryan of an informed consent are disputed as fraudulent. There was no consent. Absolutely no evidence of consent was presented by the doctors. Judge Blair is scheming with allegations he knows to be untrue. Alleged evidence failed to appear. Fraud is claimed.

[ 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.