The Compromised BC Civil Proceedings

A Visual Exploration of the Litigation Page Contents

March 27th, 2025

Read The Related Background Pages First, With the Testimony [Here]

"A post-democratic society is one that continues to have and to use all the institutions of democracy, but in which they increasingly become a formal shell. The energy and innovative drive pass away from the democratic arena and into small circles of a politico-economic elite."
Dr. Colin Crouch, Post Democracy [Link] Dr. Colin Crouch, 2004, ISBN 0-7456-3315-3

1. AI-Assisted Review

2. BCSC S-220956

4. BCSC S-228567 / S-229680

5. A Word on Enabling Characteristics

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65, [2019] 4 S.C.R. 653 at paragraph 127;
"The principles of justification and transparency require that an administrative decision maker’s reasons meaningfully account for the central issues and concerns raised by the parties. The principle that the individual or individuals affected by a decision should have the opportunity to present their case fully and fairly underlies the duty of procedural fairness and is rooted in the right to be heard: Baker, at para. 28. The concept of responsive reasons is inherently bound up with this principle, because reasons are the primary mechanism by which decision makers demonstrate that they have actually listened to the parties."

Compelling Evidence of a Post-Constitutional Canada [Dr. Colin Crouch, Post-Democracy, 2004]

Court proceedings are expected to unfold in a manner informed by the evidence and the case law applied against it (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9 at paragraphs 29, 48). In accord with the foregoing, shareholder scandals like the one referenced (here) are not expected to result in a half-million dollar windfall for the perpetrator. Yet, this is exactly what happened in this case. The fact that it happened is able to shake public confidence in our current judicial system by way of appearance (R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89). The fact that it had eluded correction for over two years evidences a systemic problem, in that the same appearance is perpetuated and remains broken (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraph 91 and 110.). In a more digestible format than the Litigation page, this article will outline the key characteristics of the civil proceedings component. Please note that the cost scandal and the related criminal interference aspects are detailed on separate pages (see Blog table of contents).

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."

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). It must also acknowledge that while the accused is entitled to a fair trial, they are not entitled to a perfect trial, and “it is inevitable that minor irregularities will occur from time to time” (Khan, at para. 72)."

R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraph 69;
"Courts have found a miscarriage of justice based on perceived unfairness in a range of circumstances, including where the accused was forced to proceed without representation, despite their stated wishes and being faultless for their circumstance (R. v. Al-Enzi, 2014 ONCA 569, 121 O.R. (3d) 583; R. v. Pastuch, 2022 SKCA 109, 419 C.C.C. (3d) 447)."

R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraphs 77 & 78;
“There are two public interests at play: “the affront to fair play and decency” and “the effective prosecution of criminal cases”. Where the affront is “disproportionate”, the administration of justice is “best served by staying the proceedings” (R. v. Conway, 1989 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659, at p. 1667). In other words, when the conduct is so profoundly and demonstrably inconsistent with the public perception of what a fair justice system requires, proceeding with a trial means condoning unforgivable conduct.”

Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraphs 91 & 110;
"The mere fact that the state has treated an individual shabbily in the past is not enough to warrant a stay of proceedings. For a stay of proceedings to be appropriate in a case falling into the residual category, it must appear that the state misconduct is likely to continue in the future or that the carrying forward of the prosecution will offend society’s sense of justice. [...] An ongoing affront to judicial independence may be such that any further proceedings in the case would lack the appearance that justice would be done. In such a case the societal interest would not be served by a decision on the merits that is tainted by an appearance of injustice. The interest in preserving judicial independence will trump any interest in continuing the proceedings. Even in the absence of an ongoing appearance of injustice, the very severity of the interference with judicial independence could weigh so heavily against any societal interest in continuing the proceedings that the balancing process would not be engaged."

JE and KE v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region (Div Ct, 2020) at paragraph 39;
“Reasonableness, of course, finds its starting point in judicial restraint and respects the distinct role of administrative decision-makers. The Vavilov approach focuses on justification and methodological consistency because “reasoned decision-making is the lynchpin of institutional legitimacy (para. 74)."

R. v. Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 at paragraph 10;
"The cumulative effect of all these circumstances was sufficient to provide the objective basis for the arrest which then ensued.

Machine-Assisted Review

From the Procedural Angle

Supplemental to the AI Master Section,

The following machine-assisted review can act as a sounding board to provide additional assurance concerning the contents of the BC files, and what reasonable and unbiased persons might conclude upon reading them. That ultimately is the test concerning procedural unfairness, partiality, and/or miscarriage of justice (R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 SCR 484 at paragraph 111; and above, inter alia). Redacted and visual court exhibits will follow in the sections below it. The accolades below concerning the models used are likewise cited in the AI section.

How the 2022 BC Proceedings Started.

S-220956: The Cameron Hearing - Join CRA & Three Private Entities for Forensic Audit.

S-220956: The Tucker Hearing - Protective Gatekeeping.

S-220956: The MacNaughton Hearing - A Rush to Close the Proceeding.

Disproportionate Opposition From the Canada Revenue Agency (DOJ Counsel).

S-220956 Interlocutory Appeal & Stay of MacNaughton's Dismissal: The BCCA Van Oosten Hearing.

S-220956: The Majawa Petition Hearing - Dismissal & Summary.

Special Costs | See Billing Scandal [Here]

Is S-229680 a "Duplicate" of S-220956, and am I a "Vexatious Self-Represented Litigant" for Filing Both?

S-229680 (Charter Class Action): Procedural Containment

BC Supreme Court S-220956

S-220956, the "Compelled Civil Proceedings"

Investigators Should Recognize a Disturbing Outlier in the Filing of S-220956

S-220956 was filed prematurely on February 8th, 2022 by an unemployed and unrepresented victim of ongoing and life-threatening criminal mischief, a means to generate a record in the absence of help from police, with an Affidavit sworn on January 24th, 2022 incriminating the CAGE CEO (May 20th, 2022 Affidavit at paragraph 64).
While a retaliatory hate crime may be postulated (ie - the Exodus 14 reference below), the scope and sophistication of the disruptions that began occurring in the wake of the 2021 settlement suggests a third-party interest as the overarching perpetrator. The CAGE could not have orchestrated all of this independently. State sponsorship of this is the only viable explanation, and it remains constant.

These characteristics require AI-Assisted 4IR tools. Ongoing real-time or near-real-time surveillance accompanied by harassment had pre-dated the proceedings and is suffused throughout. It became evident midway through 2022 that my biometric data was (and is) available to bad actors in the dark web. The scandal concerns interests beyond the CAGE.

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

April 1st, 2022 Discovery Order

S-220956 Began on the Right Footing

On April 1st, 2022, the BCSC acknowledged the merit and substance in S-220956, having reviewed the shareholder evidence (here). Master Cameron ordered the service of case files on Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”), and ordered the Parties to seek direction on how to serve the same materials on three private entities related to a 2020 M&A notice that allegedly did not transpire (not “if”, but “how”), with the intention of obtaining privileged audit data, and the testimony of CRA Officials.
The benefit of CRA discovery likewise would apply to the criminal cohort related to and supporting the CAGE.

Forensic Audit Can Trace Related Criminal Contractors Related to the Proceedings

Integrity of the Proceedings Compromised Through Criminal Interference

Surveillance, Private Hearings, Criminal Interference, and a Baffling Threat to Strike

On May 24th, 2022 a hearing in private chambers in violation of BCSC Rule 22-1(5) took place, during which the CAGE advised of an intent to strike S-220956 without explanation, just a few weeks after the aforementioned discovery order was entered. Whereas a motion to strike would be frivolous in wake of a forensic discovery order, one must assume that the CAGE had received assurances. Concurrently, my as-yet undisclosed May 20th, 2022 Affidavit was enroute to British Columbia via courier, which first chronicled external criminal mischief related to the CAGE CEO beginning in November 2021 (see the Zersetzung page). I decided not to file the May 20th, 2022 Affidavit immediately, and whereas, the CAGE threat to strike had dissipated. I had not informed the CAGE of the existence of said Affidavit until July 2022.
On June 14th, 2022, and similar to the above, the CAGE filed an application for a protection order, specifically citing a September 20th, 2020 M&A share purchase memorandum that its CEO had issued. One day earlier, and as yet undisclosed, I had sworn the same memorandum into an Affidavit. The same memorandum had not been mentioned since October 2020, and it was the first time the document had appeared in any materials intended for filing; any at all. The same is further indicative of an ongoing privacy / surveillance violation.

CAGE Counsel Introduced a False Narrative, and the Judge Signed-Off

Another Unlawful Private Hearing, and the Violation of Res Judicata

On June 27th, 2022 at the protection order hearing, counsel for the CAGE, Emily MacKinnon, admitted her concern regarding a breach of the sealing order was speculative in nature, but nonetheless asked that the application be granted. At the hearing, I had likewise shown proof that there was no service of materials to the third parties outlined in the Cameron Order. Justice Sheila Tucker, in an unfounded and unnecessary act of obstruction, placed a protection order over an already-sealed file, which required me to seek leave (permission) to carry out the mandate of the April 1st, 2022 order. Furthermore, she suggested that the protection order was necessary for the sealing order to function, regardless of the agreement the Parties had arrived at in writing concerning the April 1st, 2022 order. Finally, justice Tucker had validated the concept of preemptive justice as an actionable tenet, which is doubly problematic in view of the evidentiary context. Justice Majawa, in written reasons concerning S-220956, wrongfully stated that I had violated the sealing order prior to the Tucker hearing.
On August 22nd, 2022, in a Leave to Appeal application concerning the unfounded Tucker protection order, BC Court of Appeal justice Wilcock awarded security of costs to the Respondents as a condition of the Appeal advancing, in contrast to the test requirements in Williams Lake Conservation Co. v. Kimberly-Lloyd Developments Ltd., 2005 NSCA 44 at paragraphs 11, 15. In doing so, the court disregarded the requirement for “exceptional circumstances” as a prerequisite, and moreover, overlooked the record materials in the file that had demonstrated a clear account of fraud, perjury, and evidence of collusion. Similarly, justice Wilcock replicated the above-mentioned Tucker protection order in the BCCA file, likewise ignoring the open court tests and reasonable discretion. The same provisions concerning sealing orders, protection orders, and security of costs were replicated in all BC Court of Appeal matters going forward, again irrespective of the applicable legal tests, including those concerning Constitutional law.
By way of the Court's approval of the MacKinnon false narrative, the CAGE had essentially begun a course-correction in reconfiguring the direction of the proceedings away from the April 1st, 2022 Cameron Order. A reconfiguration based on lies which was duplicated in Appellate venues, which likewise began revealing the appearance of a post-constitutional adjudicative environment.

The CRA Vigorously Opposed Discovery

Revisionist Draft Orders, Signed by BCSC Judges, Reconfigured the Proceedings.

Counsel for the CRA expressed unfounded, biased, and disproportionate resistance in addressing the order pronounced April 1st, 2022 concerning the introduction of testimony by CRA officials, which is baffling in that CRA is expected to be a neutral entity, likewise responsible for the enforcement of the Income Tax Act in any court of competent jurisdiction under section 222 (pages 254-258, Slattery (Trustee of) v. Slattery, [1993] 3 S.C.R. 430). This is compelling as there is an actionable tax violation in the September 22nd, 2021 Settlement Affidavit of the CAGE CEO concerning the partner entity it had listed - there are in fact two separate tax histories in the same document. For reasons unbeknownst to me, CRA counsel Nicole Johnston was intent on having the CRA "bow out" as quickly as possible.
BCSC Registry staff, as Provincial public service employees, authorized the scheduling of the CRA hearing on August 12th, 2022 in a short-chambers appearance alongside four other short-form Applications filed by the Respondents. This was done contrary to my filed requisition under BCSC Rule 8-1(21.1) reflecting a hearing date in September 2022, to address the outstanding components in the April 1st, 2022 order.
On August 12th, 2022, justice MacNaughton, identifying as a referral judge citing she had no prior knowledge of the file, signed a pre-drafted order provided by CAGE counsel that authorized Petition S-220956 to be heard as a summary matter with a proximate hearing date, irrespective of the outstanding discovery order pronounced April 1st, 2022. Ignoring res judicata, Justice MacNaughton acquiesced to CAGE counsel's suggestion that I could argue the merits of discovery at the petition hearing; an argument which was already litigated and rejected by the court on April 1st, 2022. The judge signed a draft order to that effect, which was prepared in advance and delivered by hand. Applicable legal tests concerning abuse of process were again ignored (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), [2007] 1 S.C.R. 350, 2007 SCC 9 at paragraphs 22, 23, 27, 29, and 48 ; R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraph 85). I appealed.
On September 13th, 2022, BC Court of Appeal justice DeWitt Van Oosten dismissed my application for a stay of execution concerning the MacNaughton order, which forced a premature Petition hearing prior to the April 1st, 2022 discovery order unfolding. The fact that the stay was dismissed under the weight of an outstanding order for forensic discovery is unprecedented. The judge immediately closed chambers when I cited section 241(3.1) of the Income Tax Act concerning charitable donation records as they relate to the related online criminal actors, while pointing to evidence suggesting they are relevant. The alignment among adjudicators in supporting the CAGE, by that time, had been established beyond any semblance of doubt by way of the appearance test (R. v. Kahsai, Supra, at paragraph 67).
In written submissions following the Court of Appeal dismissal, and in accordance with Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, and R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraphs 76 through 78 among other case law, I advised I would not attend a proximate summary Petition hearing that had violated res judicata, as to do so would be to signal compliance with a procedural scandal.
The CAGE filed to have S-220956 heard in my absence. On September 27th, 2022, justice David Crossin granted the request of the CAGE, irrespective of being privy to the outstanding discovery order, the shareholder records that occasioned it, evidence of criminal interference in the proceedings, and evidence a procedural tampering since May 2022.

R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraphs 76-78;
"A stay may be justified for an abuse of process under the residual category when the state’s conduct “contravenes fundamental notions of justice and thus undermines the integrity of the judicial process” (R. v. O’Connor, 1995 CanLII 51 (SCC), [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411, at para. 73). A stay may be justified, in exceptional circumstances, when the conduct “is so egregious that the mere fact of going forward [with the trial] in the light of it [would] be offensive” (Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, 1997 CanLII 322 (SCC), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391, at para. 91). There are two public interests at play: “the affront to fair play and decency” and “the effective prosecution of criminal cases”. Where the affront is “disproportionate”, the administration of justice is “best served by staying the proceedings” (R. v. Conway, 1989 CanLII 66 (SCC), [1989] 1 S.C.R. 1659, at p. 1667). In other words, when the conduct is so profoundly and demonstrably inconsistent with the public perception of what a fair justice system requires, proceeding with a trial means condoning unforgivable conduct.”

Summary Petition Hearing by BCSC Justice Andrew Majawa in S-220956

Among the Most Scandalous Affronts to Judicial Integrity Ever Recorded.

Justice Andrew Majawa, the Petition judge, received a request to adjourn in view of the discovery order, accompanied by detailed written submissions concerning how S-220956 was opened, proof of shareholder fraud and collusion concerning the CAGE, proof of perjury, evidence of collusion, evidence of criminal interference, and the outstanding order of Master Cameron to obtain forensic audit data which was obstructed through the abuse of process. He dismissed the Petition, pronounced a sealing order, and allowed costs for the nine short-chambers hearings to be assessed by the BCSC Registrar.
The nature of the dismissal was fraught with palpable dishonesty and bias as is shown in his reasons, which had violated a wide berth of applicable legal tests, including the standards he had pronounced in A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914 concerning the object of justice.
Justice Majawa subsequently rejected a motion for reconsideration in November 2022, which was supported by an Affidavit that responded to his written decision line-by-line with supporting evidence and case law. It is unclear as to whether he had accepted a bribe, or whether he was serving some other interest or principle in delivering a miscarriage of justice of this scale, especially given the circumstances.

Shareholder Scandal [Click]

Punished For Informing the Police of Related Criminal Interference

Held in Contempt and Fined for Emailing a Heavily Redacted Affidavit to Police

On November 3rd, 2022, the BC Court of Appeal heard a contempt Application filed in response to my disclosure of a redacted Affidavit to specific law enforcement agencies and media outlets. I had redacted biographical and commercial details in the Affidavit, irrespective of the fact that the affidavit itself did not evoke a competing public interest for an exception to open court, and was unlawfully sealed to begin with. A Registry officer in an out-of-province court, which sealed the entirety of a file detailing the scandal, and having filed a false narrative on its website, advised that a sealing order could not be broken because no confidential information had been posted.
Despite the double-standard and applicable case law, the court found me in contempt. The applicable legal tests included the findings in R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, 2001 SCC 24, R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973, Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79, and R. v. Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509 among others, though, it must be reiterated that the Affidavit was unlawfully sealed to begin with, and whereas, the proceedings were suffused with criminal interference. Furthermore, the presiding judge knew I was self-represented.
The BCCA Registrar certified costs in the amount of $36,726.09 in fees for the same one twenty minute hearing, plus a $5,000 fine. The $36,726.09 was predicated on 89.9 billable hours by three lawyers assigned to overlapping tasks, who had claimed the amounts were reasonably required for the hearing. The contempt hearing itself was under thirty minutes in duration and had involved one 11-page written submission from CAGE counsel. Customary tariffs for a similar scope are not expected to exceed $500 all-inclusive. Counsel Christian Garton wrote the Registrar after the fact and asked for a correction in the reasons for “one small mistake in the cost calculation reasons”, citing that his personal pronouns were incorrectly cited. The Registrar immediately addressed the pronouns request, but discarded my protests concerning a clear scandal concerning retainer fees for the hearing. This palpable account of abuse might have ideological underpinnings. The Q/A II page (here) provides copious examples of ideological overreach in Canadian institutions.
The visual immediately below compares the BCCA hearing with a hearing of the same scope and complexity in an out-of-province court.

Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), paragraph 44;
"Special costs are fees a reasonable client would pay a reasonably competent solicitor to do the work described in the bill."

BC Supreme Court S-228567/S-229680

An Unconstitutional Sealing Order in S-228678, and the Extrajudicial Seal of its Replacement, S-229680

Censorship of the Charter Matter

Shortly following the dismissal of S-220956, I filed S-228567 under the BC Class Proceedings Act to be heard alongside an appeal of the latter. S-228567 concerned modalities of interference in S-220956 as well as the related criminal element that was not addressed at any time. Whereas S-229567 was incorrectly brought as a Petition, I had discontinued it and filed Claim S-229680, on the advice of CAGE counsel. I was subsequently advised that the BCCPA was the required Style of Proceeding given the various components involved, including related criminal actors, and two police agencies that discarded legal tests concerning reasonable grounds including HRP, which had filed a false report (here). The Affidavit in S-228567 contained no body of statements, and contained no biographical or commercial information. It solely consists of public social media content concerning criminal mischief related to the CAGE. On November 7th, 2022, justice David Crossin placed a temporary but complete sealing and protection order over the entire file, which included the entirety of that Affidavit.
On December 13th, 2022, the pleadings of S-229680 were sealed by justice Matthew Kirchner in an extrajudicial capacity, prior to the CAGE actually accepting service of the pleadings. This extraordinary event was confirmed by BC Court Services Online (“CSO”) on the following day as pictured at the bottom visual in this section. The service acceptance email by CAGE counsel Christian Garton arrived in my inbox within twenty seconds of being logged into CSO, where I had initially made the discovery. Among the many other milestones recorded, this is further indicative of a sophisticated real-time or near-real-time privacy crime, which is expected to be available through an invasive BCI application (here).

A Concurrence of Censorship Measures

BCSC chambers judge Crossin presided over a sealing order Application brought by CAGE counsel in S-228567 (image at the immediate right). The Affidavit I filed is 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. Either the judge did not read it, or he lied. 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 (immediate right). Again, the Affidavit only contained public social media content. Irrespective of that, the test at Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55 precludes the lawful sealing of the CAGE commercial data because the Parties are not bound by a shareholder agreement (here). Likewise, the test in Nguyen v. Dang, BCSC 1409 at paragraph 23(c) precludes a lawful sealing of the the settlement Affidavit data because the settlement is at issue. This miscarriage of justice was replicated numerous times.

Proof of Extrajudicial Censorship

The Procedural Scandal in S-229680: Like a Kangaroo Court.

Procedural Requirements under the Class Proceedings Act

On January 27th, 2023, I filed a request for a Case Management Judge and Case Conference in S-229680 as is required under BCSC Practice Direction 5 and the Class Proceedings Act [RSBC 1996] chapter 50, by which the Charter Claim was brought, having replaced Petition S-228567 in the proper style of proceeding. An Appeal of S-220956 was likewise intended to be intertwined in Case Management.

BCSC Court Scheduling Acknowledged the Practice Direction 5 Filing

Aware of the Distinctions in Procedure

On January 27th, 2023, by way of an email sent to the Parties, BC Supreme Court Scheduling acknowledged my filed request for a Case Management Judge and Case Conference in S-229680 pursuant to BCSC Practice Direction 5 and the Class Proceedings Act [RSBC 1996] chapter 50.

AG Counsel Asked the BCSC to Ignore Nine (9) Rules the Governed the Style of Proceeding

"Rules..? We Only Require Those When They Support Our Cause."

Three days later on January 30th, 2023, Loretta Chun, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, advised (not asked, but advised) that S-229680 would instead be heard by BCSC chambers judge Andrew Majawa, the same who had dismissed S-220956 in a miscarriage of justice. The same assertion is a direct violation of nine (9) procedural rules involving legislation in the BCSC Civil Rules, the Class Proceedings Act [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 50, and BCSC Practice Direction 5, which was authored by its Chief Justice.

___ Feb. 14, 2023

For reasons unbeknownst to me, the court appears to have made the Petition dismissals political. A normal court stamp appears on the left. To its right, the filing stamp for my motion to justice Majawa contains a feather. That's not a smudge; it's a feather.

See [Guide] Page Concerning Criminal Interference

BC Supreme Court Staff Acted in Solidarity With the Attorney General and the CAGE

A Violation of Nine (9) Key Procedural Rules is Not a Frivolous Irregularity. It is a Scandal.

The BC Supreme Court remained silent after the January 30th, 2023 email by AG counsel. I filed five (5) letters under BCSC Practice Direction 27 over a ten (10) week time period requesting corrective action, all of which were ignored by the BCSC scheduling manager and his staff. Phone solicitation was likewise declined. BC Provincial public service employees had refused to enforce nine (9) rules of procedure that had governed the Style of Proceedings, all of which were fundamental in characteristic, after initially advising they would be followed.
On February 1st, 2023, both Respondent parties filed Applications to have S-229680 dismissed by chambers judge Andrew Majawa on Valentine’s Day; the same judge that dismissed S-220956, irrespective of the PD-5 filing. These Applications omitted the appropriate style of proceeding (BCSC Rules 22-3(5), 22-3(6)(a)) on their title pages, but were nonetheless accepted at the filing counter, again irrespective of the fact that the clerks would have recognized the correct Style of Proceeding.
On February 8th, 2023, counsel for Halifax Regional Police (“HRP”) refused to acknowledge personal service of my Application to join HRP to Charter matter S-229680 concerning denial of service and obstruction of justice, in accord with Rules 4-5(1) and 4-3(2)(b)(iii) of the BCSC Rules and section 10 of the BC Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act. The BCSC remained silent, despite an Affidavit of Service being filed in accordance with the rules.
On February 23rd, 2023, BCSC chambers judge Andrew Majawa dismissed S-229680 in violation of nine (9) rules of procedure (January 9th, 2025 Affidavit at page 129). The common issues were not considered nor tried, a case management judge was not assigned, and the case planning conference BCSC scheduling initially acknowledged was not scheduled. Justice Majawa’s written reasons are suffused with false accusations, omitted evidence, and discarded legal tests. The order included a blanket sealing order over the entirety of its contents (see censorship page), and a vexatious declaration which claimed that S-229680 was a duplicate of S-220956. He denounced the detail applied to my written submissions, which an out-of-court judge had subsequently praised. The groundless vexatious order, tantamount to a “SLAPP” action, was relied on heavily in subsequent proceedings, and by police. By contrast, S-229680 was a Charter matter intended to address the totality of state interference beginning November 2021, which had likewise impacted the proceedings in S-220956. The appeal of S-220956, which I had also filed, was expected to be introduced at the assigned Case Management Conference that was precluded from happening. By way of irony, counsel for the CAGE had asked me to discontinue S-229567 so the correct style of cause could be used.
The unfounded vexatious order likewise prevented me from filing additional documents in the BCSC without leave, and prevented any actions filed in the BC provincial court “pertaining to or in any way connected with the subject matter of the proceedings”. Relevant legal tests in Pintea v. Johns, 2017 SCC 23, [2017] 1 S.C.R. 470, Jonsson v Lymer, 2020 ABCA 167, and Girao v. Cunningham, 2020 ONCA 260 were likewise discarded, among a plethora of Constitutional tests concerning abuse of process under section 7 of the Charter. Finally, justice Majawa’s own precedent in A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914, likewise relevant to the subject matter, was ignored in a palpable double standard (J.R. v. Lippé, [1991] 2 S.C.R. 114). An inference of state interference is easily discerned by way of the cumulative events that unfolded (Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72 (CanLII), [2013] 3 SCR 1101 at paragraph 76; R. v. Harding, Supra), in accordance with all other evidentiary components prior.
On April 11th, 2023, BCSC Chief Justice Hinkson expressed that the court would not address my letters filed under BCSC Practice Direction 27 concerning the violation of nine (9) procedural rules in S-229680, and by extension, my application to join HRP and the RCMP to the then-dismissed Charter matter. It should be likewise noted that BCSC Practice Direction 5 was authored by the same Chief Justice.

Redacted RGC Affidavit sworn Feb 25 2025d_26.png

Redacted RGC Affidavit sworn Feb 25 2025d_27.png

Redacted RGC Affidavit sworn Feb 25 2025d_34.png

Redacted RGC Affidavit sworn Feb 25 2025d_35.png

CAGE SLAPP Applications: An Unjust Reverse Onus and a Vexatious Contempt Order

Appellate Recourse Was Blocked.

On April 11th, 2023, once it became apparent that I would continue seeking relief through the Charter concerning the common issues in S-229680, the CAGE filed an application to find me in civil contempt for a second time. The object of the Application focused on a letter I had sent to PM Justin Trudeau almost three months prior on January 27th, 2023, regarding the events over the course of 2021 and 2022, and concerning the use of legitimate authorities to facilitate felonies, as had happened one day prior at the BCCA Registrar hearing. PM Trudeau was in fact a party in the Style of Proceeding ("the Crown"), thereby mitigating any manner of breach, and whereas, the letter contained no confidential information that could satisfy an exception to the open court principle. The tests I rely on are; 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 BCCA pronounced a contempt order, which amounted to just shy of $25,000 for sending a letter to a Party in the file to raise awareness and request help. Again, I was unjustly punished for seeking recourse when customary avenues were unavailable. Likewise, paragraph 36 of the written decision denied the existence of filed Affidavit evidence concerning police negligence and the false report filed by HRP (here).
On an Application to extend time to Appeal S-229680 and related matters, whereas a four-day delay past deadline was occasioned through my recourse to the BCSC concerning its rule violations in the same file, a BCCA judged used the two unfounded contempt rulings to impose an unjust reverse onus on granting a time extension to appeal. A trial of the common issues in S-229680 will address the factors that had necessitated my efforts to seek aid through extraordinary means (Carey v. Laiken, 2015 SCC 17, [2015] 2 S.C.R. 79 at paragraphs 37, 62; R. v. Hibbert, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 973 at paragraph 59; R. v. Ruzic, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 687, 2001 SCC 24 at paragraph 35; and R. v. Bellusci, 2012 SCC 44, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 509 at paragraph 25, inter alia.
In a 15-minute dissertation, read from a document prepared prior to the hearing immediately following my oral submissions, the judge advised a trial of the issues in S-229680 “may cause social unrest”. This extraordinary remark was not provided to me thereafter via transcript, in violation of section 1.11.1 of the BC Courtroom Access Policy. The remark indicates that the court was of the opinion that I should accept the impacts of the state crimes involved in the scandal as a scapegoat. The same is in direct violation of my rights under the Constitution, which trumps any political and/or national security concern (Charkaoui v. Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2007 SCC 9 [2007] 1 SCR 350 at paragraphs 22, 23, and 27). Because the reasons were drafted in advance of the hearing, the hearing itself was meaningless. Refusal to address the common issues likewise enables criminal actors to escape prosecution, and prevents disclosure of a scandal concerning the public service which would be expected to impact other victims.
These added characteristics took further advantage of the fact that I have been compelled to act for myself without legal representation, and bear all the hallmarks of third-party interests within the context of a post-democratic institutional fabric. For the layperson that reads this, an ongoing appearance of injustice is obvious (R. v. Wolkins, Supra). The comments in this article are especially germane: https://macdonaldlaurier.ca/unchecked-judicial-power-thats-chief-justice-wagners-vision-for-canada-stephane-serafin-and-kerry-sun-for-the-national-post/

SCC Docket, Billing Scandal, & Enforcement

Please Access Through the Links Below.

NS Court & SCC

Billing Evidence

AI Billing Analysis

Scandals Require Enabling Characteristics

The Effects of the Scandal Prompt Serious Questions

The Disposition of Proceedings Compels the Consideration of Terrible Possibilities

The disposition of proceedings, and the conduct of public servants in the associated ecosystem with respect to compliance with procedural rules, invites serious questions. It is the alignment and consistency that is unnerving as measured against the subject matter that was brought before the court. Facts were ignored to the extent that it could be compared to a desiccated man seated next to a water fountain.

The legal test for miscarriage of justice concerns community. It originates from and is guided by an informed public opinion (R. v. S. (R.D.), [1997] 3 SCR 484 at paragraph 111; R. v Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2 at paragraph 89; R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828 at paragraphs 51, 87; R. v. Khan, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823, 2001 SCC 86 at paragraph 69; R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 at paragraphs 67-68). Trust is currency. Reasoned decision-making is the lynchpin of institutional legitimacy (JE and KE v. Children’s Aid Society of the Niagara Region, 2020 ONSC 4239 at paragraph 39). Likewise, discretionary decisions must avoid the appearance of patent injustice (Colburne v. Frank, 1995 NSCA 110 at paragraph 9).

A number of issues need not be considered in the ambit of review. One such example beyond the shareholder records (here), concerns the enforcement of retainer fees in excess of 89 x customary tariffs. Although I was denied customary corrective recourse concerning the above, it is equally compelling that it had unfolded in the first place. Smart readers will recognize that certain characteristics are required to yield an event of that magnitude. The legal test in Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.), paragraph 44 states, "Special costs are fees a reasonable client would pay a reasonably competent solicitor to do the work described in the bill". The analysis is easy; a reasonable litigant would not agree to a $400,000 retainer to support nine (9) short court hearings which are usually tabulated at $500 apiece. A reputable law firm (in this case, an AM 100 law firm), would not propose that retainer. An unbiased and reasonable judge would not certify nor enforce it. Finally, a scandal like that is not in any way likely to be rejected at the SCC, by way of Iacobucci J.’s docket entry test in R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at para. 137. Yet, all of those boxes were ticked. To orchestrate that outcome, each of the persons and entities involved would have required assurances from a stakeholder or stakeholders capable of providing them. That likewise requires some measure of oversight concerning the conduct of state institutions. An investigator's next question would concern the "who" and the "why". Again notwithstanding the AI-assisted covert torture documented (here), a scenario like this requires the involvement third-party interests to make any sense.

Thus concerning the "why", only a few viable options might explain an unnatural concurrence among adjudicators that have elicited unconstitutional effects. The BCI page (here) explores these options in detail. For the sake of brevity, the only viable options concern (1) a post-constitutional stakeholder framework, which would have been developed through discretionary vetting; (2) a project interest robust enough to compel the agreement of key stakeholders at every touch point; (3) a systemic ethics crisis in the public service (thus facilitating the latter), and/or (4), a public health scandal concerning internet connectivity through the Covid-19 vaccine. The Vaccine page (here) details research, whereas the amyloid fibrils found in live blood samples might be an enablement vector to access the human nervous system remotely. Again, the conduct of five courts and three police agencies in three provinces, over the course of four years requires a compelling explanation. As does its relationship to the organized criminal elements detailed at the Zersetzung and Guide pages. There is too much substance to sweep under the rug. Finally, I present the compelling details of my testimony (here). Not unlike how the existence of strong wind can be discerned through a window which would otherwise go unnoticed inside a building, I reasonably infer I am the subject of experiments concerning 4IR technologies.

The Jab vs. a Frozen Career. Were the Covid Mandates Disproportionate? [4IR Portal]

"It's Just the Flu.."

Note the Dog Whistles: "Disarmed Authorities. Shamed Counsel. Condemned Already"

Symbolism & Beliefs Matter.

The CBC Said it Best

Persons and networks of influence, and also organized criminal groups like those detailed (here) , make copious use of symbolism and dog whistles (a verbal form of symbolism) in circumstances where discretion is desired. Media might show a disproportionate interest in such symbolism, but the same principle applies. The same forms a basis for the taxonomic classification methods used in the criminal analysis page, which rely on an epistemology of coherence. Soft power implies a mode of actual power.

It's Common Sense.

Open-minded readers (or alternatively, those considering themselves intellectually honest), must take time to review links and quotes in the 4IR Portal (here). Likewise, read Prime Minister Mark Carney's text "Value(s)", and connect the dots. None of this is discussed openly in media venues, nor the "alternative media" for that matter, if there is indeed such a thing. Note the imagery and textual allusions. As I state in my testimony, absent a neurotech crime (here & here), it would be nigh impossible for a practical and otherwise sedentary person such as myself to make four meaningless road trips across Canada in 2021, which is what had happened following an anomalous health event. Big tech is experimenting with Brain-Computer-Interface technologies with the blessing of the state, and the irresistible authority of courts is at stake.

I note that the views expressed in His Majesty King Charles III's text, "Harmony" (here), rooted in a discovery-centric hermeneutic, appear to categorically detract from the pragmatic tenets of transhumanism that drives 4IR, described (here). While 4IR most certainly has potent applications that can benefit humanity (including, I might add, the use of precognitive tools to fight crime), 4IR adaptations should never be used in crime, considered a supplement for virtue, or contemplated under an assumption that humanity can, or should, forget its Creator.

You Can't Make This Up.

Find an Exhaustive List of Quotes & Citations [here]

Value(s): Building a Better World for All [Link] Prime Minister Mark Carney, 2021, ISBN 0008485240, P. 36, 95, 494
[36] “Moral sentiments are not inherent. To use the modern terminology of Richard Dawkins, they are social memes that are learned, imitated and passed on. Like genetic memes, they can mutate, in behavioural cascades and tipping points."

[95] “Magna Carta was a desperate and probably disingenuous attempt at a peace treaty that failed almost immediately. Brokered by the Church, and issued by King John in June 1215, the Charter sought to placate the disgruntled barons. [...] If Magna Carta was such a product of its time, how did it become to be so venerated? And once we cut through the legend, what is its significance for economic governance today?"

[494] "The world is being reset. Now we are on the cusp of what some have called a Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR). Applications of artificial intelligence are spreading due to advances in robotics, nanotechnology and quantum computing. Our economies are reorganising into distributed peer-to-peer connections across powerful networks – revolutionizing how we consume, work and communicate. Solidarity will determine the success of the 4IR, where the need for new institutions that live the value of solidarity is the greatest.”

On the History and Potential of CRISPR and Gene Drive (deleted but archived) [link]
By Geoff Ralston, Former CEO, Y-Combinator, w/ Sam Altman, Craig Cannon, Karen Lien, and Jon Ralston
“The very nature of the human race is about to change. This change will be radical and rapid beyond anything in our species’ history. A chapter of our story just ended and the next chapter has begun. [...] CRISPR techniques are getting better and better. More accurate. More predictable. Cheaper. And we are learning more and more about the genetic code (partially thanks to our ability, now using CRISPR, to see what happens when we poke out one gene and replace it with another). The trends are unstoppable and the conclusion unavoidable: in the not very distant future we will be able to program most any animal in most any way we wish, including human beings. [...] One might argue that it is immoral to modify human embryos in this fashion and that politicians, religious leaders, and ethicists will outlaw using CRISPR and, especially, gene drive to change humanity. But on the other hand, think of the benefits. What’s more, as our understanding of the genome improves, think of the advantages we might confer on our children, and with gene drive, our children’s children. What will stop people from attempting to drive desirable characteristics into a population? What will stop a government from mandating those changes in their population? And what will competing governments then choose to do?"

Vs.

Harmony: A New Way of Looking at our World [Link] His Majesty King Charles III, Monarch of Canada, 2010, ISBN 9780007348053, P. 13-14
"Think of something as basic as a conversation that might take place in a biology lesson where a science teacher is called upon by pupils to address the moral and ethical questions of whether or not it is a good thing to manipulate genes. At that point, does the teacher act as a philosopher or remain a science teacher? I am pretty sure that the majority of teachers would certainly feel very uncomfortable about assuming the role of spiritual guide when such questions arise. The essential point here is, how far our empirical knowledge can go before it begins to encroach on territory it is not qualified to discuss. Let me be clear about it. Science can tell us how things work, but it is not equipped to tell us what they mean. That is the domain of philosophy and religion and spirituality. Let me say again - empiricism has its part to play, but it cannot play all of the parts. And yet, because it tries to, we end up with the general outlook that now prevails. The language of empiricism is now so much in the ascendant that it has authority over any other way of looking at the world. IT decides whether those other ways of looking at things stand up to its tests and therefore whether they are right or wrong."

Klaus-Gerd Giesen: Transhumanism as the Dominant Ideology of the Fourth Industrial Revolution, 2018 [Link]
Translated and edited by Cadenza Academic Translations. Translator: Ruth Grant, Editor: Matt Burden, Senior editor: Mark Mellor Pages 189 to 203
“Transhumanist thought can be broken down into three main premises, each with an eminently political intent: Human beings in their ‘natural’ state are obsolete and ought to be enhanced by technology, which then becomes a means of artificially extending the hominization process. Thus, transhumanism sweeps human taxonomy into the political arena. An observation by Michel Foucault, written in 1976, comes to mind: ‘What might be called a society’s threshold of modernity has been reached when the life of the species is wagered on its own political strategies. Modern man is an animal whose politics places his existence as a living being in question.’ In other words, transhumanists believe we have a duty to replace the category of human with a new creature, a post-sapiens sapiens.” [...] “Transhumanist ideology is driven by certain factions within the state and, above all, by mighty multinational corporations that, it is fair to say, have the most to gain from seeing the NBIC revolution unfold without a hitch. In this respect, transhumanism is already a dominant ideology, as it crushes all other ideological positions regarding technological change — particularly those of humanists of all stripes and subscribers to “deep ecology” — under the sheer weight of money. [...] These tech giants have already poured staggering amounts of money into the fourth industrial revolution and are currently spending equally eye-watering amounts on political lobbying and social engineering initiatives. [...] There is every reason to fear that the world will launch into the fourth industrial revolution without too much debate over what is waiting in the wings: the global political project that is transhumanism. Today, it is as if the metamorphosis, via the “NBIC Great Convergence,” to a posthuman being, technologically enhanced and fully integrated with the machine, were already written in stone.”