Canadalawcourts.com - Canadian Medical Doctor Reports

_{canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports, canadian, canada, law, on, medical, doctor, reports, correspondence, expert, reports}

Justice Blair said:

[25] .... He submitted that he could feel the anesthetic being administered, however Dr. Carter noted in his report of January 25, 1995, that Mr. Post.nikoff had no idea what was actually done at the time of his vasectomy. "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

Warning! No medical report presented by Dr. Carter.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Blair makes Government approved fraudulent claims.

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

Justice Blair is scheming with fraudulent, bazar allegations. The Plaintiff within his affidavit, clearly described that he knew exactly what had been done at the time of his vasectomy. Justice Blair alleged that a letter that was attached to Dr. Philip Anthony White's affidavit provided him with some form of evidence that the Plaintiff had no idea what was actually done at the time of his operation, absolutely no evidence was presented that supported Justice Blair's allegation and yes the Plaintiff could feel the anesthetic enter wrongfully. Maybe it is Justice Blair who has no idea on how to properly conduct himself. Other than Justice Blair's allegations, no inferences can be drawn that the Plaintiff intended to mislead or did not know what was happening at the time of the operation. No evidence was presented to give credibility to Justice Blair's claim. The Plaintiff believes Dr. Carter's letter may have been referring to a discussion of risk that unfolded in Dr. Carter's office after the operation where the Plaintiff had no idea of the many risks that Dr. Carter described. These are very serious unsupported claims totally fabricated by Justice Blair. Justice Blair intended on humiliating the Plaintiff and his family with allegations he knows to be untrue. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on alleged evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Justice Blair is not required to explain or produce the alleged evidence.

Although requested, Justice Blair would not permit Dr. Carter to testify. Justice Blair ordered the court room closed to all witnesses. A total lack of any credibility is claimed on the part of Justice Blair.

"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].

[ 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.