The Government of Canada and the Canadian Judicial Council have set this case as the accepted standard for Canadian Supreme Court Judges. There is proof that Kamloops Justice Richard Blair is a Fraud. Fraud and a total lack of credibility within judgement is claimed. It is claimed that Justice Blair's judgement is based upon his violent impulse and speculation and not of the facts before the court and Justice Blair's allegations are not supported. What had been prior law on consent, battery the standards of disclosure, access to a fair trial and  the quality of expert evidence are seriously modified or failed to appear in judgement. The B.C. Court of Appeal denied the plaintiff the ability to appeal this judgement. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent.

Fraud is claimed on alleged evidence that failed to appear anywhere. The Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council have protected a judges ability to commit fraud, have friends as witnesses and allege evidence that fails to appear anywhere. Judge Blair's judgement has been approved by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada and sets this case as the Government accepted standard of conduct for Canadian Judges. All rights are claimed.

Canadian Judicial Council has viewed the nature of a summary trial as having no ability to examine witnesses, the true fact is that a request for a trial and cross-examination was made, Justice Blair rejected this request to cross examine. Justice Blair ordered a closed court room. A precedent where a Supreme Court Justice can order a summary trial proceed when facts are needed or there has been fraud within a closed court room. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister that clearly stated that facts had been needed in order to support Justice Blair's allegations.

There is more... Justice Blair refused a motion that he step aside from his involvement with evidence when he attended dinner parties at the homes of witnesses, he pointed and yelled "his friendships with witnesses would not have any effect on his judgement".  Dr. Philip Anthony White got paid for the same attendance that Justice Blair claimed to never happen. This was done in order to constructively exclude legitimate evidence. Justice Blair the sole person alleging this attendance never happened, absolutely no evidence supported his claim. Justice Blair claimed that Dr. Philip Anthony White deposed in his affidavit that he discussed risk on September 30, 1994, although this claim never appeared within any evidence as alleged by Justice Blair. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada that claims made by Justice Blair failed to appear within the evidence.

The Government of Canada including the Department of Justice and Prime Minister have done nothing claiming complete independence from the courts including areas of fraud, obstruction of justice and judges involvement. The Prime Minister, Paul Martin, John Manley, Shiela Copps, Don Boudria and the Ministry of Justice have viewed the conduct of Judges and the independence of the courts as the same. This sets the precedent that the Government of Canada will not involve itself with issues of misconduct within the courts.

It is claimed by the Judiciary and Government, that the Canadian system of justice is open and transparent to the public. The Canadian judiciary is claimed to be equal in that judgements are being written, filed and available for anyone to read. Yet when there is proof of fraud and judges involvement with the witnesses the Prime Minister's office, the Justice Minister's office and the Chief Justice of Canada prevent a formal examination of evidence effectively concealing this corruption and obstructing proper justice. This means when reading a judgement it is not very clear what material evidence had been excluded by a judge to provide benefit or what objections had been over-ruled or how the judge was involved with the evidence or what evidence was fabricated and constructively manufactured.

The Canadian Judicial Council within their Internet web site have stated that "Judges must explain what they do". This claim is totally misleading and untrue. "Judges are not required to explain anything and they are not required to support their judgements with legitimate evidence". Appeals do not provide relief from this type of corruption as appeals do not provide the means to examine judges when there is proof of misconduct and fraud. Appeal Courts tend to support the lower courts findings.

The concealment of judges misconduct goes to the highest levels and the most senior levels of Canadian Judges and Government. Complaints against federally appointed judges are not open to any scrutiny and judges need not answer to anyone. Canadians are unable to formally ask questions when a judgement is not defendable by the judge or when there are serious questions relating to the application of evidence or judgement bias as in this case. This provides judges with believablity even in cases where there is proof of fraud such as this one and permits easy concealment of fraud in order to support each other.

It is not agreed with the Canadian Government, the Prime Minister's office and the Canadian Judicial Council's allegations that the Plaintiff's family had been treated properly by Justice Blair. Yet there are few, if any, places to go with this easily proved judicial fraud, the Canadian Government has quickly claimed independence from the Courts including areas of fraud, obstruction of justice and Judges involvement with evidence. This sets a precedent that the Canadian Government will not be involved within future cases when there is judges misconduct, fraud and involvement. Remember the removal of a Judge Blair for fraud is not an issue for the courts to decide. Senior Government Ministers including Mr. Paul Martin, Mr. Don Boudria, Mr. Allen Rock all adopted the "it's not our problem" position. A Government accepted standard for all Members of Parliament as they cannot be held above the law. All future legal and equality rights are demanded.

It is most possible that this Internet Web Site may lead to more questions, some letters and documents may not appear, this is unavoidable but may be another reason why a formal examination into Justice Richard Blair should have been provided to this family in the first place. In most cases it would be Justice Blair very inability to provide thoughtful, logical answers to many questions that would show his application of evidence is unsupported. It is the intention of this Internet web site to only present relevant documents that may assist in proving fraud and corruption within Justice Blair's judgement. The intention is to make the presentation of this evidence as simple as possible to understand.

This Internet web-site is not intended to prove the strength of contradictory evidence or to debate any of the evidence that was before the court. Contradictory evidence can only be debated with witnesses. It is not to detail private health related evidence although it should be noted that the legal council appearing for the doctors openly told the court that they had no dispute with the facts regarding health issues of pain and swelling.  

It is not intended to be a debate on the merits of any disagreement with the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadian Government, Prime Minister's office, Justice Minister's office and Chief Justice of Canada relating to them preventing a hearing. This is intended to present the facts relating to the accepted standard set by the Government of Canada as it relates to the conduct of Federally Appointed Supreme Court Judges. Equality under Canadian Law. In simple terms by preventing the need for a formal hearing into allegations of Justice Blair's total lack of credibility and involvement with evidence the Canadian Government and Canadian Judicial Council have set a precedent that provides the ability for a constructive application and elimination of legitimate evidence, exclusion of evidence that provides for benefit and unlawful claims within future judgements. This provides the Canadian precedent for a judge to allege fact not presented as evidence. Fraud is claimed.

Justice Blair said:
[19] Mr. Post.nikoff has not produced any medical evidence concerning the standard disclosure practice... "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:
The "Standard of Disclosure" was before Justice Blair within the Legal Book of Authorities:

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."

Justice Blair said:
[29] ... Perhaps these reasons might lead Mr. Post.nikoff to reconsider the specialists' suggestion as to how he might best approach his problems. "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:
No Medical Evidence nor measure to Justice Blair's allegations.

In many upon many paragraphs Justice Blair seems to very obsessively claim a need for counselling for what he describes as "problems", he even provides his very own assessment, yet the reality is absolutely no measured or verifiable evidence had been presented to support his allegations. What Problems? These totally unsupported claims attacked the legitimacy and character of the Plaintiff and his family. No Inferences can be taken that any evidence supported these allegations made by Justice Blair. No Evidence Presented! Judge Blair's judgement has been approved by the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada and sets this case as the Government accepted standard of conduct for Canadian Judges. All rights are claimed. No explanation

The reasons delivered by Justice Blair has prompted the Plaintiff to use Justice Blair's suggestion on approaching problems perhaps not in the way Justice Blair had banked on. The result is this Internet web site. What Problems? No Evidence Presented! Maybe Justice Blair should use his own advice and seek some psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear within the evidence.

No inferences can be made that the Plaintiff has any of the inferred problems described by Justice Blair, no measure, no verifiable evidence and no expert evidence was presented. These are totally unsupported allegations made by Justice Blair. The evidence was the Plaintiff did not have an informed consent to the operation, no risk had been disclosed that would have prevented the Plaintiff agreeing to the operation, no diagnostic procedures provided to see if the condition could be repaired and a wrongfully injected anesthetic. The legal council openly told Justice Blair they never disputed the medical records proving pain and swelling immediately following the surgery. The evidence fully supported their conclusions. Whatever other claims Justice Blair has made is purely of his own making. An appeal was not permitted.

Like many of Justice Blair's other allegations including doctor evidence that failed to appear and Dr. White getting paid for the same attendance Justice Blair claimed to not happen, these are totally unsupported allegations. Fraud is claimed.

"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].

Accepted. Canadian Judicial Council approves this case of judicial fraud and unexplained judicial allegations. Future ability to get equality or truth in Canadian justice.

Accepted. An examination into the conduct of a Supreme Court Judge shall not be provided when a judge attends dinner at the homes of witnesses who could not be cross-examined in closed court.

Accepted. An examination into the conduct of a Supreme Court Judge shall not be provided when a judge applies evidence constructively for benefit.

Accepted. An examination into the conduct of a Supreme Court Judge shall not be provided when a judge alleges evidence that fails to appear anywhere.

Accepted. An accepted standard permitting Judges of the Supreme and Appeal Courts ability to apply Canadian law differently in a fraudulent free-wheeling manner.

Accepted. The independence of the Canadian courts, judges fraud and misconduct are viewed as the same by the Ministry of Justice, Prime Minister and Government of Canada.

Accepted. Canadian Judicial Council has found the B.C. Appeal Court made accepted findings permitting judges involvement and dinner at the homes of witnesses, Judge not asked to explain.

Accepted. A Supreme Court Judgement need not be supported by real evidence and judges are not required to publically explain when alleged evidence fails to appear.

Accepted. An examination into the conduct of a Supreme Court Judge shall not be provided when both law and evidence are withheld in order to provide for benefit.

Accepted. The Canadian Government has protected Supreme Court Judges ability to commit fraud and have friends as witnesses.

Accepted. A judge is able to deny a request to step aside from involvement, without providing any explanation.

Accepted. A Supreme Court Judge is permitted to publically humiliate a family with allegations that are easily known to be untrue and never be asked to explain.

Accepted. Fraud is permitted to be publically displayed on Government operated websites totally against all natural law.

Maybe Justice Blair should seek professional psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear in the evidence.