Justice Blair said:

[17] Mr. Post.nikoff deposed and reiterated in his submissions that neither doctor provided him with any information about the risks of the vasectomy.  However, in reviewing Mr. Post.nikoff's material, there appears some uncertainty in his position.  He deposes at paragraph 4 of his affidavit filed February 2, 1998, that Dr. White did not provide him with any information of the risks of vasectomy.  However, in paragraph 9 of the same affidavit Mr. Post.nikoff deposed as follows: 9. On November 05, 1994 at my physical examination I  again asked Dr. White questions "Does my ******* *******",  "Does the ******* *******", Does my *** ***** *******. I was assured by Dr. White that there would not be any change in these areas.  Dr. White told me "the change was microscopic that I would not feel the difference". Further in paragraph 9 Mr. Post.nikoff stated:  I was very careful in properly asking questions with respect to risk.  These and all the other assurances by Dr. White prompted me to finally agree to a vasectomy... "Blair, J."  BLAIR J.

WARNING! Judges constructed claims of uncertainty.

The Reality:

Justice Blair is uncertain. Other than Justice Blair's allegations of uncertainty, no evidence was presented that disputed any of the Plaintiff's submissions as being uncertain. Allegations of uncertainty is purely of Justice Blair's own making. No inferences can be drawn that the Plaintiff was not certain of the discussions with any doctors or what had been done to him. The evidence was the Plaintiff asked thorough and proper questions and was provided with assurances of no risk from doctors.  Dr. White wrote a letter to Dr. Morrow asking him to provide the Plaintiff with his assurances. Justice Blair introduced questions which he knew could not be possibly answered within his court ordered closed court room. Judge Blair's inferences of uncertainty intended to mislead. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on alleged doctor evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Judge Blair is not required to explain or produce evidence. Judge Blair needs to be removed.

  Question 6:

  Expert Answer 6:

6) Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White provide any documented evidence or signed disclosure forms that supported his claim that risk had been disclosed or discussed?

6) There are no disclosure forms or other signed documents by Paul Post.nikoff confirming that risks had been disclosed or discussed. ...  John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

The Canadian Law of Consent.

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."

(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.

(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."