Censorship Part II

Debunking bogus confidentiality orders with settled Constitutional law.

March 2nd, 2025

Unconstitutional Sealing & Protection Orders Conceal the Court Records

Sealing orders made in court files involving the scandal violate a basic Constitutional right under section 2(b) concerning freedom of expression. The legal tests were not applied to the characteristics of these files. Namely; Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3, 2002 SCC 75 at paragraph 53; Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person, 2024 SCC 21 at paragraph 1; Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, 2004 SCC 43 at paragraphs 24 through 26; R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraph 85; United States v. Meng, 2021 BCSC 1253 at paragraph 23, 24, & 33; Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55; Nguyen v. Dang, BCSC 1409 at paragraph 23(c); Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455 at paragraph 55; and Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at paragraph 35. The BC sealing orders also contain protection orders, preventing disclosure to any party outside the Style of Cause.

In order to qualify for an exception to open court, there must be a competing public interest at stake that cannot be addressed in any other way besides a redaction order (Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at paragraph 13). The file contents, as measured against open court tests, yield no competing public interests. The file contents trigger private interests which do not satisfy thresholds for an exception to freedom of expression, as is established in Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55.

Standard Criteria

Irrespective of the fact that the contents in these files demonstrate scandal, their characteristics are considered independently;

[1] There are no private contents in any file that strikes at the biographical core of persons (Sherman Estate v. Donovan, Supra, at paragraph 35);

[2] The four-year-old commercial data in the file concerning the CAGE entity does not reside under a shareholder agreement that was terminated on September 29th, 2021, and there are no other confidentiality agreements between the Parties (Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), Supra);

[3] Settlement privilege does not apply to the September 22nd, 2021 CAGE CEO Affidavit, or any related evidence concerning the same by way of the test in Nguyen v. Dang, BCSC 1409 at paragraph 23(c). The same materials are substantially mated to the out-of-court proceedings, and are central to proceedings in the coming months (United States v. Meng, Supra, at paragraph 33; R. v. Babos, Supra; Perka v. The Queen, [1984] 2 S.C.R. 232 at page 279; and R. v. Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509; inter alia);

[4] There are no materials in the file subject to solicitor-client privilege, notwithstanding a palpable scandal involving the CAGE BC retainer fees, which claimed 737.7 billable hours [$376,201.97] were reasonably required to service nine (9) thirty-minute hearings involving minimal prep and filings at the BCSC, and that the CAGE CEO had in fact paid that amount (Smith v. Jones, Supra; and Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), at paragraph 44; inter alia).

There are no contents in any court file detailing the scandal that prevail against the public interest in open court proceedings; the same being central to Canada's democracy in affording Citizens an ability to scrutinize agencies with the power to change their lives (Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person, 2024 SCC 21 at paragraph 1).

Vancouver Sun (Re), [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332, 2004 SCC 43 at paragraph 24
“The open court principle has long been recognized as a cornerstone of the common law: Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), supra, at para. 21. The right of public access to the courts is “one of principle . . . turning, not on convenience, but on necessity”: Scott v. Scott, [1913] A.C. 417 (H.L.), per Viscount Haldane L.C., at p. 438. “Justice is not a cloistered virtue”: Ambard v. Attorney-General for Trinidad and Tobago, 1936 CanLII 385 (UK JCPC), [1936] A.C. 322 (P.C.), per Lord Atkin, at p. 335. “Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion, and the surest of all guards against improbity”: J. H. Burton, ed., Benthamiana: Or, Select Extracts from the Works of Jeremy Bentham (1843), p. 115.”

Applying Case Law to the Actual Characteristics of the Files

The Scandal Cannot be Lawfully Censored in any Court

At the request of an out-of-province court, I filed an Affidavit on January 24th, 2025 which applies specific tests to the specific materials and characteristics of the file. The court sealed the entire file, and claimed the existence of “sensitive and confidential information” that "must be precluded from public disclosure", but the decision provides no specific definitions or content references that indicate what that actually means.

Likewise, the decision omits mention of the specific open court tests which were applied to every aspect of the file by way of the Affidavit below. The specific file contents, much of which detail the scandal outlined on this website, fail to meet criteria for an exception to the Constitutionally enriched open court principle (Charter of Rights and Freedoms at section 2(b)).

The court then published a revisionist narrative that contrasts widely from the evidence-based chronology filed into the same action number on June 27th, 2024. It omits the characteristics of the scandal, positions the CAGE as the victim, and myself as a perpetrator. In doing so, the court had acted on an assumption that the truth will remain buried. It underscores strong third-party interests. It happened in Canada.

R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89;
"..there can be no “strict formula to determine whether a miscarriage of justice has occurred”: R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86 (CanLII), [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823 per LeBel, J. at para. 74 [...] A miscarriage of justice may be found where anything happens, including the appearance of unfairness, which is so serious that it shakes public confidence in the administration of justice: R. v. Cameron (1991), 1991 CanLII 7182 (ON CA), 64 C.C.C. (3d) 96 (Ont. C.A.) at 102; leave to appeal ref’d [1991] 3 S.C.R. x."

The Affidavit

The Extrajudicial Sealing of Charter Matter S-229680

The BCSC Registry Censored a File Prior to the CAGE Accepting Service of its Pleadings

As pictured elsewhere on this website, S-229680 was made confidential prior to the CAGE entity accepting service of its originating pleadings, and prior to a duly scheduled hearing. A representative from BC Court Services Online ("CSO") confirmed the same on the following day, as is shown in their email below. It is unclear whether a BCSC judge signed an ex-parte order, or if Registry staff had instructed CSO.

I logged in at 4:38pm Atlantic time on December 13th, 2022 (12:38pm Pacific Time), to discover that the Charter matter had been censored. Thirty seconds later, counsel for the CAGE entity (one of the seven lawyers assigned), acknowledged acceptance of service for the CAGE. The Clerk's Notes below the same visual below prove that a judge opened chambers concerning an interim sealing order at 2pm pacific (6pm Atlantic) that same day, whereas the earliest an order could have been made would be 3:07pm Pacific (7:07pm Atlantic). Similarly, there is the lead time to consider in getting that order to CSO. BCSC court staff had thus censored the file in an extrajudicial capacity.

This compelling event underscores a theme of criminal interference supported through the cooperation of public service employees, and adds further substance to a near-irrefutable inference of real-time surveillance, as is expounded upon in the Testimony and 4IR Portal as it pertains to the overarching scandal. Further obstructions and procedural violations (not irregularities, but palpable acute violations) are detailed at the Litigation page. It underscores third-party interests. It happened in post-democratic Canada.

R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraph 67;
"He will establish a miscarriage of justice if the gravity of the irregularity would create such a serious appearance of unfairness it would shake the public confidence in the administration of justice (R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828, at para. 51, citing R. v. Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2, 229 N.S.R. (2d) 222, at para. 89). This analysis is conducted from the perspective of a reasonable and objective person, having regard for the circumstances of the trial (Khan, at para. 73).

Thirty Seconds After I had Logged into BC Court Services Online...

Don't I Just Love Being the Subject of a Clandestine Program Sponsored by CSIS. Canada. It's a Post-Democratic State.
If Somebody Could Torpedo the Unconstitutional Sealing Orders, the Public Could Draw their Own Conclusions.

Event captures like this require AI-Assisted 4IR tools. UN General Assembly Resolution A/HRC/57/61 has confirmed the use and proliferation of neurotech crimes that impact privacy and cognitive liberty. The findings in Sheridan et al., 2020 reflects the potential scope. The interests required for this exceed the CAGE.

As above, per the fabricated HRP report that was fed to EHS. Actual event details at the HRP Page (Here).

That's what Stakeholder Interference Looks Like.