Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]
Censorship
Unlawful & Extrajudicial Sealing Orders | Interference | Virtual Private Cloud | Ad Contract Interference
Click to Sign the Petition.
February 6th, 2024
CAGE Response to the Introduction of Zersetzung and Criminal Interference Evidence in S-220956
May 20th, 2022 Affidavit
Insight into the CAGE Director's relationship to criminal mischief, which began in November 2021 following an initial shareholder dispute, was first furnished in an Affidavit made on May 20th, 2022. This Affidavit introduced a series of elements germane to the scandal including evidence implicating the Canadian Military, negligence by the RCMP, physical and online harassment and mischief, disruption in day-to-day life and business relationships, and compelling data points implicating estranged relatives. See litigation and zersetzung pages.
Threat to Strike
S-220956 at a May 24th, 2022 Hearing
As exhibited above, counsel for the CAGE Director advised of an intention to strike Petition S-220956 during a hearing on May 24th, 2022. The same hearing, referenced in the adjacent photo, was held in violation of BCSC Rule 22-1(5) in an ensconced private room. This hearing extended the duration of a sealing order over the file which was made at inception. The PsyOp actor featured, "Walking Faith", is the same actor who displayed video footage of the interior of my Surrey, BC Condo.
Affidavit Enroute to BC
CAGE counsel's threat to strike S-220956 was made while the May 20th, 2022 Affidavit was enroute to a BC process-serving agent via courier. The intention was to have the agent file the Affidavit upon its arrival. Aside from my notary, no other party was made aware of the existence of the May 20th, 2022 Affidavit. Likewise, the Respondents' threat to strike was without rhyme or reason. The court pronounced an order to invite privileged audit discovery on April 1st, 2022, and per an email further down on this page, the Parties had agreed on a path forward. An Application to strike would have been meritless and baffling in equal measure. On being asked, CAGE counsel confirmed an intention to strike via email.
May 20th, 2022 Affidavit Remained Unfiled; Threat to Strike Dissipated
As shown in the above photo, I decided not to file the May 20th, 2022 Affidavit upon its arrival in BC. I subsequently followed-up with CAGE counsel, who advised it had no further updates on its intent to strike S-220956. The contents in the May 20th, 2022 Affidavit made their way into an Affidavit that was filed on July 26th, 2022. As is depicted in the adjacent photo, CAGE counsel's advice on confidential materials in the file shifted from specific commercial data to the entire corpus of records, following the introduction of criminal elements impacting the proceedings. The matter of interference, and the reason why S-220956 was opened to begin with under the exceptional conditions presented, was never treated.
It can be reasonably inferred that CAGE counsel's threat to strike S-220956, four months into the proceeding, with an outstanding discovery order, was related to the pending introduction of external criminal elements implicating the CAGE Director and a host of other actors, and whereas, the threat dissipated when the Affidavit was not filed. In June 2022, a similar event occurred where I had an Affidavit commissioned that included a 2020 share purchase memorandum issued by the CAGE entity. While the June 2022 Affidavit was enroute via courier to BC, I was served an Affidavit from CAGE counsel, sworn a day later, stating that the same memorandum was confidential. Again, no mention of the creation of the Affidavit was made beyond the notary and BC receiving agent, nor was the memorandum broached in any conversation that ensued prior to the Affidavit's commissioning.
Weaponized, Unconstitutional, & Duplicated Protection Orders
Origin of Sealing & Protection Orders
Sealing orders prevent public disclosure of court materials and are permitted in certain circumstances as outlined by the Supreme Court of Canada. Test criteria originally outlined in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 was refined and clarified in Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25, which remains the trusted benchmark for a test against the Constitutionally-enriched Open Court Principle gleaned from section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Sealing orders are applicable for sections of a court record that strike at an individual's biographical core ("dignity" in Sherman at para. 7), and in certain cases concerning privileged commercial data. Sealing orders are not intended to conceal wrongdoing, and are typically made through redaction to ensure the public can understand the file. Consideration of sealing orders in this scandal began on August 3rd, 2021 in the initial shareholder oppression matter, where retained counsel, in an act of gross negligence, neglected to file an Application to seal confidential shareholder information. See Litigation page for details. The weaponization of sealing and protection (restraining) orders in this scandal is a Constitutional violation that requires attention.
The above Tucker ruling affected a restraining order in the absence of any evidence it was required. This encumbered the discovery order made April 1st, 2022, requiring the Petitioner to seek leave (permission) for the same order to be actioned. The Tucker order also proposes precrime. The order below from justice Majawa provides a false account of events leading up to the tucker hearing.
Kangaroo Court Rulings
I utilize a pejorative reference as it best approximates what had happened with respect to unconstitutional censorship over the file, in addition to the disposition of proceedings generally speaking (see Litigation page). Justice Majawa, and likewise all judges connected to the scandal following Tucker, insisted that preemptive disclosures of court files were made prior to the initial protection order by justice Tucker on June 27, 2022. CAGE counsel admits no disclosure took place in the transcript below. The adjacent transcript from justice Majawa demonstrates dishonesty. There was no disclosure prior to Tucker.
Constitutional Law
"This Court has been resolute in recognizing that the open court principle is protected by the constitutionally‑entrenched right of freedom of expression and, as such, it represents a central feature of a liberal democracy. As a general rule, the public can attend hearings and consult court files and the press — the eyes and ears of the public — is left free to inquire and comment on the workings of the courts, all of which helps make the justice system fair and accountable."
Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 @ paragraph 1
Further citations:
-
United States v. Meng, 2021 BCSC 1253
-
Nguyen v. Dang, 2017 BCSC 1409
The above court transcript featuring CAGE counsel admits to no prior disclosure of court materials that would have violated the April 1st, 2022 order. Counsel's suggestion of ambiguity over a process the Parties had agreed on in writing is disingenuous. Justice Tucker signed CAGE counsel's pre-drafted order which placed undue encumbrance on discovery, and positioned the Petitioner as a reckless troublemaker. The same narrative was duplicated beyond this point in all hearings alongside a replication of the same protection order, including at the Appellate level.
Concurrence of Censorship Measures
BCSC chambers judge Crossin presided over a sealing order Application brought by CAGE counsel in S-228567 (see Litigation page, and image at immediate right). The Affidavit before the judge was suffused with public social media evidence concerning criminal mischief related to the CAGE Director. No commercial data was exhibited, and the Affidavit contained no body of statements. The pre-drafted order provided by CAGE counsel was rubberstamped without due consideration of the file contents. AG Canada adopted no position, despite it being a clear violation of Constitutional law.
One month later, justice Mayer extends the duration of the same interim sealing order made by justice Crossin. S-229680 was then filed as a replacement for S-228567, as the latter was filed in an improper format. As shown in the transcript at the right, justice Kirchner placed a concurrence of unconstitutional sealing orders above the open court principle to conceal criminal mischief related to the CAGE. Reference to section 2(a) was an "attack".
Justice Andrew Majawa, the same judge who dismissed the two main BCSC files amid miscarriage of justice and violation of procedure, repeated the same unconstitutional concurrence in February 2023 as shown in the transcript citation to the left. The text of his written decision reads much like the submissions of CAGE counsel. Justice Majawa stated that he agreed with justice Crossin that Mr. Dempsey's October 26th, 2022 Affidavit in S-228567 contains commercial shareholder records. It does not. The remainder of the same written decision is suffused with palpable errors concerning other issues in the file, including dismissals of hard evidence and palpably dishonest statements. No mention is made to the nine (9) procedural violations that occasioned the hearing.
An Extrajudicial Sealing of S-229680
Clerk's Notes Confirm an Extrajudicial Seal
S-229680 Pleadings & Extrajudicial Seal
Per the visual above, a sealing and protection order was placed over S-229680 prior to CAGE counsel formally accepting service of the pleadings via email; the only manner in which they were distributed. An Application was prepared but not filed, and was presumably attended on short notice by CAGE counsel alone. Less than three hours from the scheduled hearing time, a review of the BC Court Services Online ("CSO") portal revealed that a sealing order had already been entered. I received a confirmation email from CAGE counsel on the acceptance of service while I was logged into the portal, at 4:38pm Atlantic (12:38pm Pacific). A representative at CSO confirmed that the preclusion of S-229680 from public search results was due to the entry of a sealing order. Besides the absence of service confirmation and consideration for open court jurisprudence, the speed by which administrative steps unfolded for order entry is remarkable. Likewise, I was not afforded an opportunity to approve the order (BCSC Rule 13-1(1)), and, I had not consented to a rush for order entry (see first image at top of page). Finally, per the adjacent visual, I was unable to locate the pleadings in my CSO account.
Duplication of Unlawful Censorship Outside British Columbia
Double Standards in Constitutional Law
Replication of unfounded sealing and protection orders in the BCSC and BCCA courts was likewise manifested out of province. Per the transcript below and adjacent communications, an out-of-province court escalated a consensual motion for modest redactions to a panel of appellate-level judges. The motion focused on an Affidavit which presented a detailed chronology of all aspects of the scandal from November 2021 through August 2023, as the same data was central to the action number. As was the case with the BC rulings, the confidentiality motion concerned a matter of Constitutional law. In other matters, the same judge advised it would be a waste of time to "re-litigate settled Constitutional law". Furthermore, the interim confidentiality order sealed peripheral references to the Affidavit, including the motion itself. This act of censorship demonstrates bias and potential collusion concerning a scandal originating in BC.
In June 2024, a Judge Finally Admits to a Concurrence of Unconstitutional Sealing Orders
Censorship of the Scandal
The judge suggested that it was not his role to review past decisions. Yet, this does not preclude him from adjudicating on the material before him in keeping with the requirements of constitutional law (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9 at paragraph 48; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653 at paragraph 20. Per the decision text to the right, the judge wrote that since the BC proceedings had concluded, public interest in the file would be a moot point. This is palpably wrong, whereas the BC proceedings had elicited a series of compelling scandals. Portions of those materials were migrated to the out-of-province court, and were likewise sealed. Less than 10% of the materials filed were confidential.
...But it Was Not Enough to Correct the Trend
A total of five BCSC judges (Crossin, Mayer, Majawa, Tucker, & Kirchner), one BCCA judge, and three out-of-provinces judges had adjudicated unconstitutional sealing and protection orders concerning public content which is of material relevance to the overarching scandal. The judge admitted the concurrence, but was reluctant to correct the trend in accordance with applicable legal tests.
Newspaper Ads; 2023 vs. 2025. What Changed?
Advocating for Constitutional Rights Out-Of-Pocket
The Supreme Court of Canada held in Hill v. Hamilton‑Wentworth Regional Police Services Board, [2007] 3 S.C.R. 129, 2007 SCC 41 at para. 37;
"If the State commits significant errors in the course of the investigation and prosecution, it should accept the responsibility for the sad consequences. Society needs protection from both the deliberate and the careless acts of omission and commission".
The events of this scandal, in the absence of safe avenue through customary means, and for lack of regard for Constitutional rights, have required me to raise awareness and seek whistleblowers through out-of-pocket expenditures. While ads ran in newspapers in 2023, it was much more difficult to gain traction in 2024 and following. From 2020 through April 2025, the United Nations, in partnership with the World Economic Forum, had positioned media outlets in a partner stakeholder capacity and not as the independent voice of the people. The overarching language used is commensurate with the post-democratic arguments at the Politics page (here).
Postmedia Blocked an Ad Publication Five (5) Days After it Was Approved & Paid
The 2025 version of the Q/A page references new proof of state interference in the scandal, the implication of estranged family members (of biological relation to a key criminal actor), offers a critique of Prime Minister Carney's "Value(s)" text, links to the Whistleblowers page (here) containing attempts to reach Conservative MPs, and provides a link to a compelling argument concerning the likelihood of post-democratic institutions in Canada (here). The ads would likewise have been posted several days prior to the Federal election. I had initially placed ads in Postmedia papers in 2023 without any problems.
"The Truth we Need for the World we Want".
If there were ever an adage for a controlled press, this is it. The litmus test concerning bias resides in the standard of review. Whereas the Toronto Star had not provided that insight, I can only infer bias by way of the fact that the same paper is willing to characterize a speeding ticket infraction as a scandal (here), while refusing to accept money in exchange for a simple ad pointing the public to learn of a scandal far more serious by comparison. The Torstar publication was concerned that the speeding ticket issue was "kept from the public until now". What happens when this matter gets the attention it deserves?
Ad Contract Negligence: A Radio Broadcaster Kept my Ads Off-Air
Flatlined Radio Ad Metrics
In August 2023, I signed a month-long contract with a SK-based radio station known for its considerable reach. The decision was based on anticipated traffic to this website in an effort to seek advocacy for denied help from public service and adjudicative agencies, where it should have otherwise been present. My contract detail involved two daily 15-second ads at predetermined times (morning and evening traffic reports), along with copious ad-hoc coverage throughout each week at variable timeslots. Web traffic showed no change over the contract period in the coverage area. Two days prior to contract terminus, I tuned in. The ads were not aired during the required times. The CMS activity tracker shown below confirms the ads were not aired. The broadcaster estimates a reach of over one million unique users.
Broadcaster Admits to the Two Days I Presented as Evidence
The radio broadcaster was presented with two days of recordings which demonstrated breach of contract for September 13th through 15th, 2023, which the broadcaster admitted to. The broadcaster advised the ads had run every other day besides the two days I had tested for contract performance, and were discernible to its 200,000+ daily listening audience. I then pointed to the web traffic metrics, whereas traffic was indistinguishable from past months in the same broadcast area.
Broadcaster Recognized CRTC Rules
The broadcaster maintained its position that the ad had run from August 15th, through September 13th, 2023 inclusive, but was not able to provide an explanation for the gap in web traffic, or why the ad did not play for the exact two days I had tuned in. The broadcaster maintained that proof of airtime was kept on file pursuant to CRTC rules and advised the same records could be made available on request. In consideration of the web traffic reports, the broadcaster agreed to a refund.
Broadcaster Refuses to Disclose Airtime Records
Following my acceptance of the broadcaster's offer to review airtime records, the broadcaster backpedaled as is shown in the adjacent photo. By means of the characteristics of these events as coupled with the overarching Testimony, a possibility of external influence merits consideration under the legal test in Sherman Estate, supra, at paragraphs 97-98.
Virtual Private Cloud ("VPC")
Hacked Devices & Tracked Correspondence
The matter of compromised devices (laptop PC and smartphone) became an issue in late November 2021 when events detailed in the Testimony and Zersetzung pages began manifesting. Besides direct remote PC interface, which involved an actual takeover of my laptop (all functions controlled by a remote actor), it also became reasonably apparent that my email communications were tracked, as was revealed by consistent patterns in email pixel tracking. In the February 2022 example below, my email sent to BC Court Services Online was opened in Quebec.
Shortly following my February 2022 relocation from British Columbia to Nova Scotia, I sought recourse to a computer specialty shop as a means to investigate the compromise of my devices, as evidenced in events from November 2021 onward. The adjacent citation is from my Affidavit made May 20th, 2022, concerning a Halifax-based specialty shop that preemptively identified me as a "political target".
A Possible Virtual Private Cloud ("VPC") Environment
A copious amount of web monitoring data from Inspectlet has revealed that a notable quantity of traffic to this website has a restricted IP address designated under RFC 3330. The same is suggestive of restrictive protocols which may tweak or filter traffic to the site. After observing this phenomenon in roughly 40% of recorded web traffic, I approached an acquaintance who accessed the site via smartphone, as is shown in the adjacent photo. The IP was again recorded as "restricted". At this residence I use basic cable internet provided by a well-known local ISP, whereas I had not implemented any hardware, services, or stipulations which may have enabled filtering.
"Conned & Scammed"
On January 31st, 2024, a resident took a call on the landline at this location from a Connecticut area code. The automated message advised "internet service would be cut" that day, similar to a phone scam. I was in the midst of distributing emails to public community groups in search of grassroots advocates when the call was placed. Of the 1,000 messages sent from a validated list, only a small fraction were shown to have landed in a recipient inbox as is sampled in the adjacent photo.
Later that same day, Inspectlet recorded referral traffic sourced through an online ad marketing campaign I had launched a day earlier, though the same active campaign had not yet yielded any click-throughs. A support representative from the ad marketing firm expressed concern but was unable to explain these outliers. IP addresses sourced through inspectlet identified three companies specializing in network and cloud security. The first is a large network security firm HQ'd in the United States with several overseas offices. The other two entities are Canadian. One is a VPC service provider with expressed ties to the Canadian public sector, and the other specializes in custom application development, app management, and consulting.
Click images to expand
URL Inaccessible in Ad
Per the above photo, the RefugeeCanada URL mated to the ad which drove traffic to the site was inaccessible during the times these entities visited. I was logged into the marketing dashboard when the VPC service provider visited the site as is depicted in the adjacent photo. To my knowledge, this website was accessible to the public at all times.
Multinational NetworkSecurity Firm
The adjacent photo depicting traffic from a multinational network security firm is suffused with specific proprietary markings which are unfamiliar to me. While offering a robust portfolio of services, the firm appears to specialize in configurable Zero Trust No Access cloud solutions ("ZTNA"). This entity was the first to view the site as referral traffic through the online ad account, under the conditions denoted above. IP validation is shown below with redaction.
Consistent Patterns
The above photo depicts the unformatted mobile version of this website as it appeared in an Inspectlet recording. Whereas "mobile view" is disabled in my CMS and has been for some time, this recording is not expected to be possible without the viewer having obtained some manner of access to the website backend. Visitors to RefugeeCanada.net should always see the desktop version of the site on their smartphones and tablets. I acknowledge that performance bugs and glitches can happen from time to time, and I am not an IT professional. That said, I am satisfied to opine that an inference of filtered web traffic, tampering, and/or monitoring is plausible. This I buttress with the characteristics of the scandal generally speaking, which involve sophisticated cyber attacks, online and on-heels mischief, and palpable obstruction of justice in five courts and three police agencies across three provinces. As such, questions pertaining to web traffic and cybersecurity should be buttressed to the overarching testimony as is customary per the legal test in Coast Foundation v. Currie, 2003 BCSC 1781 at paragraphs 13 & 15.
Transmission of Physical Documents
Undelivered Materials, or Dishonesty?
Per the detailed account in the litigation page, Halifax Regional Police ("HRP") filed a false report concerning a 79-minute meeting centering on the relationship between the CAGE Director and criminal mischief detailed in the testimony and zersetzung pages. A true and unedited audio recording transcript of the same meeting was exhibited in an Affidavit and served on HRP, alongside a Notice of Application which sought to join HRP to class proceeding S-229680. Pursuant to Rule 4-5(1) of the BCSC Rules and section 10 of the BC Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act ("the ACT"), any document can be served to a person or entity outside British Columbia without leave (permission) of the Court so long as a real and substantial connection exists. Section 10 of the ACT defines the threshold criteria as follows:
"Without limiting the right of the plaintiff to prove other circumstances that constitute a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and the facts on which a proceeding is based, a real and substantial connection between British Columbia and those facts is presumed to exist if the proceeding, (h) concerns a business carried on in British Columbia." (ie., the CAGE entity)
The foregoing criteria is satisfied in the materials served on HRP via personal service on January 27th, 2023. Canada Post confirmed the Affidavit was delivered. An HRP clerk likewise advised the Affidavit was received and would be forwarded to HRP counsel. An Affidavit of Personal Service was filed in its proper format in the BCSC on February 2nd, 2023. HRP counsel later advised on February 8th, 2023 that he had not received the Affidavit. This yields two possibilities. Either the Affidavit was not sent to HRP counsel following its delivery to the clerk's office, or, HRP counsel did receive the Affidavit and wrote a false account. Per the account in the Litigation page, S-229680 was dismissed shortly thereafter amid the violation of nine (9) foundational rules of procedure that the BCSC refused to address and enforce.
Canada Post support ticket notifications.
Mail Delivery Sundires
Snail Mail
In consideration of the gravity of the scandal, I had been actively reaching out to human rights groups over the course of 2023 via email and physical letters. Innocence Canada was kind enough to respond per the adjacent image, outlining that my letter to the organization had been removed from its envelope prior to delivery. This is the only such notification I have received concerning physical delivery, but given the challenges I have faced in garnering support in official and extraneous capacities since this scandal began to unfold, I add this occurrence to a list of incidents that may or may not be relevant.
