The Canadian Law on Experts - B.C. Supreme Court
Take Note: B.C. Supreme Court Justice Blair made serious unsupported allegations and failed to apply the law on experts and alleged experts employed by the doctors gave him some evidence of an informed consent. The Law on Experts Failed to appear anywher within Juddgement. Absolutely no inference can be taken from alleged doctor experts who provided him with any form of evidence that an alleged informed consent was provided or any discussions had taken place, when these alleged discussions had not taken place at any time. Experts hired by the doctors, who failed to see any evidence from the Plaintiff, when fraud is claimed have absolutely no credibility. Fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. Fraud is claimed on Judge Blair's allegations that failed to appear anywhere in the evidence. Fraud is claimed on Judge Blair's allegation that the Plaintiff wife was not present at Dr. White's office. A doctor paid for the same attendence that Judge Blair said never happened.
Shame on B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair
The Canadian Law on Experts - B.C. Supreme Court
"Opinion evidence is not permissible when it is Truth 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].
|