Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin - Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

Home Canadian Judicial Council Universal Basic Income Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin External Website Links Must Watch Video Democrocy Code of Canada News Media RCMP Assault War Measures Act Explained Contact Us

Kamloops B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair

Canadian Judicial Council - Chief Justice of Canada

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 made fraudulent, unsupported allegations. 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 and failed to overturn this judgement.

The Government of Canada and Canadian Judicial Council, including Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, have protected a judges ability to commit fraud, have friends as witnesses and allege evidence that fails to appear anywhere. Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin is in charge of the Canadian Judicial Council operations. There is Obstruction of Justice at the highest levels of Canadian Government and Courts. Obstruction of Justice is claimed against Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. All rights are claimed in this case.

Canadian Judicial Council has viewed the nature of the 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 for trial and ability to cross examine. Justice Blair ordered a closed court room. A precedent when facts are needed or there has been fraud within a closed court room. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister that very clearly stated that facts had been needed in order to support Justice Blair's allegations.

There is more... Justice Blair refused to 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 was paid for the same attendance that Justice Blair claimed to never happen. There was absolutely no evidence submitted that disputed this attendance other that Judge Blair's allegations. This was done in order to constructively eliminate truthful evidence. Justice Blair is the sole person alleging this attendance never happened, Nothing supported his claim. Judgement Construction and Judicial Fraud are both claimed..

Justice Blair alleged that Dr. Philip Anthony White deposed in his affidavit that he discussed risk on September 30, 1994, although this allegation never appeared within any evidence as alleged by Justice Blair. Expert evidence was presented to the Prime Minister and Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin proving 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.. quickly 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 seemed to have viewed the conduct of Judges and the independence of the courts as the same. A legal precedent that the Government of Canada will not involve itself with issues of misconduct within the courts in the future.

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 dinner parties with the expert witnesses the Prime Minister's office, the Justice Minister's office and the Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin prevent a formal examination of evidence effectively concealing this corruption and obstruction of 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 by the Judge or constructively manufactured.

There Is fraud Within This Judgement.

The Canadian Judicial Council within their Internet web site state that "Judges must explain what they do". This claim is absolutely 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 Plaintiff in this case was not provided the ability to examine Judge Blair and openly present proof of judicial fraud.

The concealment of judges misconduct goes to the highest levels and the most senior levels of Canadian Judges including the Chief Justice of Canada, Beverley McLachlin, the Prime Minister of Canada and senior members of the Canadian Government. Complaints against federally appointed judges are selected and not open to any scrutiny by the general public. 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. This family has been very violently assaulted and very publicly humiliated by Judge Richard Blair without an ability to defend against fraud. Judge Blair knows he lied and had no basis for his allegations.

It is not agreed with the Canadian Government, the Prime Minister's office and the Canadian Judicial Council's Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin'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 the evidence. This sets a Canadian precedent that the Canadian Government will not be involved within future cases when there is judges misconduct, fraud and judges involvement. Remember the removal of a Judge Blair for fraud is not an issue for the Appeal Courts to decide.

The decision to examine a judge for fraud rests with the Canadian Judicial Council and Government of Canada, who do not adopt any reasonable standard. It is an Obstruction of Justice and cover up by the very ones we place trust in running our country like a democracy. Senior Government Ministers including Mr Paul Martin, Mr. Don Boudria, Mr. Allen Rock and justice Minister all have adopted the "it's not our problem" position. This also becomes a Canadian Government accepted standard for all Members of Parliament as they cannot be held above the law. All future legal and equality rights are demanded by this family. If there is fraud in future cases or your case.. the outcome in future cases must be the same as in this case for equality in law to exist. For democracy to exist.

Finding nothing wrong with judgement, the Prime Minister's office, The Justice Ministry and the Chief Justice of Canada have set the accepted standard for judges. This is a precedent.	Contradictory is Justice Blair's claim. The "Standard of Disclosure" had been placed before Justice Blair within a book of authorities.	Maybe Justice Blair should seek professional psychiatric assistance for the problems he has in making allegations that do not appear in the evidence.
Justice Blair pointed and yelled "My friendships will have no effect on judgement." as he was being asked to step aside.	It would be Justice Blair's very inability to provide thoughtful answers and his inability to defend his allegations that will uncover a constructive application of evidence and exclusions of evidence that provided benefit. Allegations would not be defendable by Justice Blair and not supported by evidence.	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.
Warning: Kamloops Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair made serious allegations of evidence that failed to appear anywhere. Fraud is claimed	Warning: The Prime Ministers office within a letter states "While careful consideration has been given to your description of the difficulties you have experienced, this office is unable to intervene in any way in this situation."	Warning: The Canadian Judicial Council within a letter states "Please be advised that any further correspondence in this matter will remain without reply and will simply be filed."

Expert evidence proving fraud was presented to the Government of Canada, Ministry of Justice, Chief Justice of Canada Beverley McLachlin and the Prime Minister proving Judge Blair's claims failed to appear within the evidence. Fraud is claimed on alleged evidence that failed to appear and fraud is claimed on an alleged consent. The Canadian Judicial Council is a key method of concealing corruption within Canadian Courts.

✅	The doctors failed to provide evidence relating to Judge Blair's alleged disclosure of risk or consent.
✅	A constructive judgement with both law and evidence withheld in order to provide benefit.
✅	Justice Blair made allegations failed to appear in evidence.
✅	Justice Blair was not asked to explain. Judge Blair fails to dispute fraud.
✅	Government accepted fraud on alleged evidence that failed to appear.
✅	An alleged need for experts within a closed courtroom went to destroy legitimate evidence.
✅	Dr. White is paid for the same attendance alleged never happened. This is fraud.
✅	The rejection of a requested trial and cross-examination was beyond the Plaintiff's control.
✅	Justice Blair's alleged experts, employed by the Doctors, did not see the Plaintiff's evidence.
✅	Judge Blair introduced questions knowing they could not be answered with affidavits.
✅	Judge Blair fails to dispute this claim of fraud. Nothing disputes this Internet website.
✅	Judge Blair's misconduct is claimed to be an issue for the courts by the Canadian Judicial Council.
✅	Court Costs awarded based upon fraudulent claims made by Kamloops Judge Richard Blair..

Justice Blair made serious unsupported allegations that alleged experts employed by the doctors claimed an informed consent. Absolutely no inference can be taken from alleged doctor experts who provided him with some form of evidence that an informed consent was provided or any discussions had taken place, when discussions had not. No consent relating to risk was provided. 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 judges allegations that failed to appear anywhere in the evidence.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Richard Blair said:

[19] Mr. Paul has not produced any medical evidence concerning the standard disclosure practice... "Blair, J." BLAIR J.

The Reality:

The "Standard of Disclosure" was placed before Justice Blair within the Legal Book of Authorities (Past Judgements):

From 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 unprivileged and un consented to invasion of one's bodily security 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."

There is fraud. Evidence failed to appear anywhere as alleged by Justice Blair. The Canadian Judicial Council is a method of concealing corruption within Canadian Courts. All Rights are reserved.

Expert Checklist

Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White dispute Mrs. D... Lynn attendance at his office on September 20, 1994?

✅ No there is no reference in Dr. White's affidavit specifying whether or not D... Lynn attended at his office on September 20, 1994; ... John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

Question: Within his affidavit did Dr. Philip Anthony White claim not to remember Mrs. D... Lynn attendance at his office on September 20, 1994?

✅ "No, there is no reference in Dr. White's affidavit claiming an inability to recall the attendance of D... Lynn at his office on September 20, 1994;" ... John David McGreevy, Barrister & Solicitor.

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

✅ "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: 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?

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

Question: 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?

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

Judgement Checklist

✅	Fraud. Dr. Philip White has it both ways, paid for the same attendance alleged not happened by Judge Blair.
✅	Fraud on an alleged consent.
✅	Fraud. Alleged experts failed to see the Plaintiff's evidence.
✅	Fraud. Court costs awarded for doctor benefit based upon unlawful claims.
✅	Canadian Judicial Council is Government's method of concealing fraud and misconduct.
✅	Fraud. Unlawful claims appear on Government Internet sites
✅	Fraud. Violent public humiliation by Justice Blair with claims he knows to be untrue.
✅	Justice Blair not required to produce the alleged evidence nor explain his allegations. A Government accepted Canadian Precedent.
✅	Government refusal to provide the ability to present proof of fraud.
✅	The B.C. Court of Appeal makes Government accepted fraudulent claims.
✅	Removal of B.C. Supreme Court Judge Blair is not an issue for the courts.
✅	Judgement construction with a desired outcome.
✅	Judges dinner at the homes of doctor witnesses. Refusal to step aside.
✅	Government of Canada and Prime Minister claim independence from the Canadian courts although expert evidence of fraud is presented.
✅	Both law and evidence withheld by Judge Blair in order to provide benefit.
✅	B.C. Court of Appeal supports Judge Blair with fraudulent claims and refuses to hear an appeal.

Justice Blair said:

[29] ... Perhaps these reasons might lead Mr. Paul 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 counseling 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!

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 DENIED.

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. Shame on Kamloops Justice Richard 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].

About the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin

The Canadian Judicial Council Mandate

Part II of the Judges Act establishes the Canadian Judicial Council mandate.

The Canadian Judicial Council is a federal body created under the Judges Act (R.S., 1985, c. J-1), with the mandate to promote efficiency, uniformity, and accountability, and to improve quality of judicial service in the superior courts of Canada. The Canadian Judicial Council is also mandated to review any complaint or allegation against a superior court judge. These are appointed by the federal government. In most provinces, there is a provincial judicial council mandated in regard to provincially-appointed judges.

The Canadian Judicial Council is chaired by the Chief Justice of Canada, currently the Right Honourable Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin. There are 38 other Canadian Judicial Council members, who are the chief justices and associate chief justices of Canada’s superior courts, the senior judges of the territorial courts, and the Chief Justice Beverley Mclachlinof the Court Martial Appeal Court of Canada.

The Canadian Judicial Council was granted power under the Judges Act to investigate complaints made by members of the public or Attorney

General about the conduct (not the decisions) of federally appointed judges. After its review and investigation of a complaint, the Canadian Judicial Council can make recommendations, including to Parliament through the Minister of Justice that a judge be removed from office.

By directing complaints to the Canadian Judicial Council, Canadas Parliament acknowledges that the public must have a way to voice its concerns about judges. At the same time, the system must allow judges to respond to allegations of misconduct in a fair way. The entire process must be efficient, fair, and objective. In all cases, judicial independence – the foundation of Canadian justice – is central to the process.

Canada is one of the very few countries where a complaint can be made against the Chief Justice Beverley Mchlachlin in the same way as any other judge.

The Canadian Judicial Council was created in 1971 following years of discussion about the need to coordinate professional development and judicial conduct matters for judges, in a way that would respect the judiciary as an independent branch of government. The review of complaints had previously usually been coordinated by the federal Department of Justice, with the occasional involvement of local Chief Justices like Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin.

A key factor that facilitated the creation of the Canadian Judicial Council was the case of Justice Landreville. He was charged with a criminal offence. Those charges were dismissed, but allegations of impropriety continued to be made by some. This gave rise to quite a bit of public debate; some in the legal profession criticized the fact that the judge was still sitting. A Committee of the Law Society, despite not having jurisdiction over a federally appointed judge, produced a negative report without even notifying Landreville of its proceedings.

There being no defined process to formally inquire into the conduct of a judge, the government then constituted a one-man Royal Commission headed by former Supreme Court Justice Ivan Rand. In his report, Rand found some improprieties and was critical of Justice Landreville. However, some said Mr Rand was biased and famous constitutional lawyer J.J. Robinette who represented Justice Landreville before the Commission was seriously critical of the process.

After the Rand report became public, a joint Committee of Parliament eventually recommended the judges removal and he resigned.

There were many who came to a view that the process which had been followed was flawed: the absence of a process defined in legislation to review the conduct of a judge left too much room for review by the law societies, government or Parliament, of even other bodies without necessarily involving the judiciary.

Professor William Kaplan, in his book Bad Judgment, wrote that Without a doubt, the Landreville case figured prominently in the decision to establish the Canadian Judicial Council. He quotes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice who spoke during second reading of the Bill that created the Canadian Judicial Council: Because the independence of the judiciary is an integral part of the Canadian democratic process, it is important that the judiciary become, to some extent, a self-disciplinary body. (Kaplan, p. 194)

There is no doubt that the awkwardness and uncertainty of the Landreville proceeding was a factor motivating Parliament to adopt this new procedure. (Martin Friedland, A Place Apart: Judicial Independence and Accountability in Canada, 1995, p. 88).

Any member of the public can make a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council provided the complaint is about judicial conduct, is made in writing, and is about a specific federally appointed judge, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin will review the matter.

Although the Minister of Justice or a provincial Attorney General can initiate a formal inquiry about a federally appointed judge, most complaints come from the general public.

If a provincial Attorney General or the Minister of Justice of Canada submits a complaint, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin must appoint an Inquiry Committee to consider whether a recommendation should be made to the Minister of Justice to remove the judge from office. The Inquiry Committee must hold a hearing, normally in public. The Canadian Judicial Council then considers the report of the Inquiry Committee and makes a recommendation to the Minister of Justice.

In accordance with the complaints process, the Canadian Judicial Council and Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin also initiate an inquiry into a judges conduct.