Compromised Civil Proceedings

A Short Form Excerpt of the Litigation Page Contents

March 27th, 2025

Read the Related Background Pages First

Shareholder Scandal

Social Influence | IA

Retainer Fee Scandal

Preclusion of Counsel

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."

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.

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.

Event captures like this 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. This 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.

Follow The Money

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 Lied, 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.

Biased CRA Counsel & Res Judicata 2.0

Revisionist Draft Orders Reconfigured the Proceedings. The BCCA Turned a Blind Eye.

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 (And Sealed)

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

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."

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.

Kangaroo Court Proceedings

The Procedural Scandal in S-229680

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

The Court Did as AG Counsel Asked

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

An Unjust Reverse Onus & Another Frivolous Contempt Order

All the Hallmarks of a Weaponized & Post-Democratic (Post-Constitutional) Judiciary

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/

An Intermingled Cooperation Between Courts

The Supreme Court of Canada & the BC Retainer Fee Enforcement Hearings

In June 2023, I was served an execution order concerning the first portion of the BC cost scandal, concerning $41,217.53 in fees for just one twenty minute hearing. The certificate was predicated on 89.9 billable hours by three lawyers assigned to overlapping tasks, being another manifestation of the cost scandal in a different venue. The twenty-minute hearing involved one 11-page brief. The Registrar signed the draft certificate provided by counsel, irrespective of customary tariffs that reside in the neighborhood of $500 all-inclusive for matters of comparable scope. CAGE counsel wrote the Registrar after the fact and asked for a correction in the reasons for “one small mistake in the cost calculation reasons”, advising that his personal pronouns were incorrectly cited. The same visual is exhibited near the top of this page.
I later filed a motion to stay the execution order filed in an out-of-province court in consideration of the above. I did that because I had filed Leave to Appeal Applications concerning the BC court files just a few days prior at the Supreme Court of Canada ("SCC"), along with a separate motion to stay all costs concerning them. I had also filed a motion to expedite the same motion to stay stay these costs.
An out-of-province court can stay an execution order under the Enforcement of Canadian Judgments and Decrees Act (“ECJDA”) so long as an appeal concerning the execution order is pending. The text is the same for each province (ie - section 6 of the same in BC). So long as the ECJDA criteria is met, a judge can then decide to grant a stay, or refuse to grant it, way of discretion.
At the July 2023 hearing, the out-of-province judge acknowledged my legal right under the ECJDA because of the SCC motions. But, he then refused to grant a stay of costs, claiming that "the likelihood of SCC docket entry would be remote". In saying this, he wrongly claimed at paragraph (1) of his written decision that the $41,217.53 was a result of me being sued in BC by the CAGE CEO. That of course is a palpable and overriding error, and a surprising error given the fact that none of the submissions by either party had stated that. The submissions had clearly stated the dollar amount was entirely predicated on retainer fees. The CAGE was awarded $500 in costs, which likewise accentuates the species of scandal in BC, including the hearing that the execution order had stemmed from. Both hearings had in fact involved one short hearing, and one 11-page written submission.
The disposition of the above out-of-province hearing is crucial because while being sued in a private dispute would not satisfy the threshold for SCC docket entry, the actual contextual of the scandal would. Iacobucci J. held in R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at paragraph 137;

“There is no basis to believe that a serious argument pointing to a miscarriage of justice would not meet the public interest standard for leave to appeal to the Court [...] The Supreme Court would and does exercise its leave requirement in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”
I appealed the out-of-province dismissal because of its palpable error. The basis of Appeal was simple; to set the record straight on contextual background. Shortly after the Notice of Appeal was filed, an out-of-province appellate judge adjourned a consensual motion to redact modest portions of the file, and ordered the entire file to be made confidential on an interim basis. The confidentiality order was a direct violation of Constitutional law, and further, had demonstrated a double-standard compared to a previous matter she had adjudicated, where she advised that a provincial supreme court could "not relitigate settled Constitutional law". As a result, the public could not view the file, which concerned an argument for SCC docket entry.
Concurrently, Federal Employees at the SCC Registry violated Rules 51(1) and 54(4), and refused to submit my SCC motion to stay costs (and the motion to expedite) to the court within the timetables prescribed. Rule 54(4) requires motions such as these to be submitted to court within ten days of receiving response materials. That didn’t happen. Both motions remained derelict for over five (5+) months, despite a SCC registry officer acknowledging that they ought to have been heard quickly, irrespective of the deadlines set by the rule.
It must be observed that the characteristics of both files (the out-of-court appeal and the SCC motions) are necessarily interrelated. This is because what happens in one file can and does influence what happens in the other. An out-of-province order to stay costs because issues related to those costs might be heard at the SCC would be expected to inform a SCC decision to permit docket entry. This is because in granting the stay, the out-of-province judge would need to recognize the merit of the matter filed in Canada's top court.
Conversely, if the SCC motions to stay costs were heard before the out-of-province appeal, a decision either way would shape the disposition of the latter hearing. Either way, the out-of-province appellate court would have had to admit that the original matter was dismissed in palpable error, and whereas, the motion should have been granted (which again affects the SCC leave application). Either way, the SCC Registry kept the motions derelict, in direct violation of its rules. Readers will again note that SERIOUS errors were made in both venues that had coincided to achieve a specific effect.
The out-of-province appeal to stay the cost scandal execution order was eventually heard on December 4th, 2023. A panel of three judges dismissed the appeal in less than five minutes, claiming it was “entirely without merit”, irrespective of the fact that there was only one glaring and palpable error to correct. Although I had attended the hearing via remote teleconference, the judge seemed flustered and rushed in the audio. The file was then sealed in its entirety, permanently. Less than three weeks later, that dismissal informed an SCC decision to reject docket entry on December 21st, 2023, which was rendered without any written reasons. This episode bears an appearance of collusion, which is underscored by the remainder of troubling issues that characterize the overarching scandal, both within and beyond the courtroom. December 21st, 2023 was day 666 of the Russia/Ukraine war; a data point that might seem inconsequential were it not for the fact that occult symbolism is suffused in the related criminal element. A few images to that effect are shown further down at this page.
Of note, an Affidavit by out-of-province CAGE counsel states the following:

“On December 4, 2023, a three-judge panel unanimously dismissed Mr. Dempsey's appeal, and permanently sealed the entire record, and motion for confidentiality. The panel made these findings and orders without needing to hear from counsel for the Respondents.”
The same pattern repeated in early 2024 when the CAGE brought a $300,000 execution order for a portion of the cost scandal in the BCSC action numbers (see the Cost Scandal page for details). The out-of-province court ignored discretion and erected unreasonable barriers such as unbelievably onerous security of cost orders, while the SCC Registry sat on my motion for reconsideration, likewise ignoring timetables for the reconsidered motions. My Motion for Certiorari was ignored altogether.

BC Retainer Fee Scandal [Click]

Felony Facilitated through Legitimate Authorities

On June 28th, 2023, counsel for the CAGE issued a bill of costs in an amount of $376,201.97 for the nine (9) short-chambers appearances the Respondents made in S-220956 and S-229680. Seven hundred and thirty seven point seven (737.7) billable hours were cited. Customary tariffs would tabulate the same proceedings at $4,500 ($500 maximum tariff * 9 hearings under one hour). The one hearing in S-229680 was tabulated at $80,620.86. S-228567, likewise concerning the same review cycle and single hearing on November 8th, 2022, was tabulated at $1,601.60 by way of customary tariffs. These estimates considered seven (7) lawyers and two paralegals assigned to overlapping tasks in the file at egregious time blocks. Irrespective of the disposition of these files, the cost estimates occasion felony. The same scandal implicates the CAGE, his BC law firm, and the adjudicators that approved and enforced it. Similarly, it must be noted that neither of the persons and entities above would be expected to proceed with the stunt without receiving assurances from a stakeholder who could back them.
Click the link in the heading descriptor above to access the CAGE Affidavits, and draw your own conclusions. The visuals appended to the CAGE notification email mark the milestone event, as is typical (see GUIDE page). Below that, the online cohort telegraphs the freezing of by bank account, which occurred on June 27th, 2024, whereas I had discovered it upon attempting to use my bank card on July 3rd, 2024.

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”.

Gichuru v. Smith, 2014 BCCA 414 at paragraph 155;
“When assessing special costs, summarily or otherwise, a judge must only allow those fees that are objectively reasonable in the circumstances. This is because the purpose of a special costs award is to provide an indemnity to the successful party, not a windfall.”

By way of further analogy, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Golberg, 2018 BCSC 151 at paragraph 50 cites special costs in an amount of $333,000 for three hundred and seventy (370) actions, at $900 per action. Again, I was billed $376,201.97 for just nine (9) thirty-minute hearings, and was denied customary corrective recourse. For further context, the customary tariff allocates a maximum of $500 per any hearing under one hour in duration. Thus, when I characterize the “cost scandal” as “a prima facie account of felony facilitated through legitimate authorities”, there is ample reason for doing so.

The SCC Pushed Aside Docket Entry Tests & a Serious State-Assisted Collusion Matter

The SCC Hit the Silent Kill Switch

On December 11th, 2023 and pursuant to SCC Rule 32(2), I submitted a filed copy of an Affidavit that was permanently sealed in the out-of-province appeal on December 4th, 2023. It was within the Registrar's discretion to accept the document, which concerns the violation of a basic right under section 2(b) of the Constitution. It was not accepted for filing, and no reasons were provided.
On December 21st, 2023, and ironically, day 666 of the Russia/Ukraine war, SCC justice Suzanne Côté dismissed my Leave to Appeal Applications and my motions to stay costs and expedite the stay, irrespective of the SCC docket entrance test criteria being satisfied (R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at paragraph 137), irrespective of the retainer fee scandal, and irrespective of the related criminal elements, all of which were detailed in the submissions. No written reasons were provided, and no mention was made of my Motion for Certiorari.
The collage of accompanying visuals again depicts related criminal actors conducting ongoing harassment per event milestone.

Per Justice Iacobucci in R. v. C.P., 2021 SCC 19 at paragraph 137 concerning the Supreme Court of Canada Docket Test

“There is no basis to believe that a serious argument pointing to a miscarriage of justice would not meet the public interest standard for leave to appeal to the Court. [...] The Supreme Court would and does exercise its leave requirement in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

The Related Criminal Element is Drenched in Occult Symbolism

Côté J. Denied Docket Entry W/O Reasons

Another Unconstitutional Confidentiality Order

Biased Consensus & Professional Interests vs. the Constitution

A permanent confidentiality order was placed over the contents of an out-of-province appellate file. Per the chambers transcript, the judge grappled with the idea of departing from a concurrence of unconstitutional sealing orders made by his peers in two provinces, irrespective of the fact that he was shown proof that he was sealing public information, and materials that did not satisfy a competing public interest for a exception to the open court mandate. The provincial rule requires judges to adhere to Constitutional law and their applicable tests. This judge, alongside many others, prioritized his alignment with an unconstitutional consensus out of concern that he might stick out as an outlier by making the right ruling. It is behavior characteristic of a post-constitutional environment.
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, as well as commercial data that triggers a private interest but does not satisfy a competing public interest for an exception to the open court principle (Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55). The judge admitted the concurrence, but was reluctant to correct the trend in accordance with applicable legal tests, as was his duty.
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.
Finally, the written decision made wild claims. Per the text in the bottom visual, the judge claimed that the "public interest in the file is weak". That statement is incredible. Whereas the file was sealed to begin with, and is sealed in BC, how might the public learn of it? The judge went on to write a critique of the materials itself, which is far beyond the scope of a judge. A judge is not a critic, nor a thought police agent. The role of a judge is the CAGE confidentiality motion was is limited to measuring the contents against applicable open court tests. In that, he and his colleagues before him had acted in violation. His last comment concerning comity between jurisdictions suggests that it is in the public interest for adjudicators to be aligned in opposing the constitutional rights of Citizens. Again, the order was incredible. A copy of the supporting Affidavit can be found (here).

If the File is Already Sealed, How Might it Generate Public Interest..? (wow)

Incarcerated, Beaten, Starved, & Urinated On After Opposing a Felony

Arrested on a False Pretense, and Coerced to Remove this Website

On July 10th, 2024, an out-of-province judge pronounced a contempt order. At the hearing, I relied heavily on my brief filed in that court on June 27th, 2024, which included 16 pages of event chronology, and 42 pages of case law. A comparable analogue is found on the Links page (here), absent the 110 case law citations, some of which are found on the Authorities page (here). The document was filed in an effort to preclude idiosyncrasy, and any doubt concerning what had happened. The judge advised that the document was immaterial because he was not presiding over a reviewing court, such as an appellate venue. The distinction was disingenuous, because he was nonetheless required to rely on an accurate contextual background (Charkaoui, Supra; R. v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 309 at paragraph 85). He went on to provide an ad-hominem characterization in his reasons that positioned my factual and legal background as theoretical and subjective. CAGE counsel relied on the same characterizations at paragraph 44 of his brief, citing “legal theories and versions of the facts”, without providing actual specifics or challenging them, as though a court should accept unsupported submissions at face value.
On August 13th, 2024, I was arrested by two Sheriffs and was taken to the Burnside Correctional Facility in handcuffs. I was told the arrest “had to do with social media content the other Party wanted removed”, and that the sentence “would be shortened if the content were removed”. I have no social media accounts, and as a result, no social media posts. I can only assume it referred to this website, which the CAGE knew about since February 2024 as I had informed them. I later learned the arrest had instead pertained to my failure to respond to a discovery subpoena in aid of the Retainer Fee scandal. As such, the arresting Sheriffs were acting on false information. A representative from NS Legal Aid also referenced online content, making no initial mention of the contempt order. The origin of this narrative is unknown to me, and it does require an origin. She likewise advised people are rarely, if ever, arrested in civil disputes.
Upon imprisonment, I was assaulted within forty minutes by inmates who swarmed into my cell. I had not previously seen those inmates before. I was overpowered, pinned to the floor, repeatedly beaten, and then spat on before being instructed to keep my cell door locked. I had no sensation in my left thigh muscle, for three months following the event. On my second day of incarceration, inmates in the detention block retained my food tray, whereas I was forced to go without food and drink tap water because the guards were inattentive. One inmate tossed a cup of urine under my cell door, which coated much of the floor. The same inmate would bang on my door and chant, “Cell 8, hang yourself”. It was a zoo. An attentive guard, with the support of a Captain, was able to relocate me to a different detention block on the morning of the third day, which resolved the problem.
While detained, I was unable to obtain legal counsel. The NS Legal Aid rep advised it was not in position to provide a lawyer because the arrest involved a civil matter, yet, section 10(b) of the Constitution Act provisions access to counsel on any loss of liberty, without further context. Similarly, the conduct of the agency ignored section 15(1) of its governing Act.
Per CHAPTER 252 OF THE REVISED STATUTES, 1989 amended 1999 (2nd Sess.), c. 8, s. 8; 2020, c. 15, at section 15(1) concerning entitlement to duty counsel;

“The Commission may grant legal aid in any area of law involving the liberty or civil rights of an individual and for matters involving the integrity and protection of an individual’s family, including; (a) Criminal law; (b) Family law; (c) Social justice or administrative matters, if the matter affects the individual’s income, housing, entitlement to benefits, ability to earn a livelihood, family integrity or mental health; and (d) Any other matter as directed by the Attorney General.”
By means of the related criminal element involved, likewise germane to sections 7, 8, and 24(1) of the Charter, section 15(1)(c) in the foregoing ACT is applicable. The Duty Counsel agency had not asked for any details concerning these matters. Following my release, I had contacted the NS Legal Aid representative and had asked that the matter be escalated with their head office. This correspondence was not returned. I was unable to identify any other agencies in the Province that provide Duty Counsel in response to the requirements of the ACT.

A Serious Autoimmune Response Had Manifested While Imprisoned

Prolonged Exposure to Gluten Particles at 10 PPM Per Day or More is Expected to be Fatal

Daily meals at the correctional facility were of good quality and well-balanced, though they had elicited a severe autoimmune response within the first ten days of being moved into a detention block where I could actually eat. The gluten-free diet regimen I requested upon being processed had contaminants.
My initial Celiac diagnosis at age 23 was accompanied by a basket of related liver issues including Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis (“PSC”), Chron's Disease, Inflammatory Bowel Disease, and Ulcerative Colitis, and was found to be closely related to the same. My gastroenterologist advised and wrote that the "even smallest amount of gluten will trigger an autoimmune response that will last for weeks.". Prolonged exposure to even trace amounts of gluten (> 10 PPM per day) is expected to result in liver failure in my case. Gluten is at times impossible to avoid as a result of shared cook surfaces and airborne kitchen particles. Several years later I had surgery for the removal of my colon. I have been reliant on ostomy bags on a daily basis since 2006, and had received treatment for PSC, a chronic and unpredictable disease, for several months following the initial Celiac diagnosis. The only reason I have lived this long is due to an ironclad adherence to a special diet, under controlled conditions.
Dermatitis Herpetiformis ("DH") occurs in some Celiac patients when gluten is reintroduced into their body. It is commonly treated with Dapsone, a safe and innocuous drug that has been around for years. DH acts like a canary in a coal mine with respect to internal damage caused by gluten. It manifests on the skin in specified areas in painful sores. I had a severe case of DH within ten days of being incarcerated. I obtained health records from the Province shortly following my incarceration. A prolonged subsequent detention is expected to be life threatening, and is expected to be disproportionate to the intent of the judge, should I be found in contempt again and should such an order be made. Having said that, and given the nature of the other orders a concurrence of judges have made across three provinces, I do genuinely fear for my life at the time of this posting. This scandal has asked me to weigh my core beliefs and dignity against my physical health and quality of life. Without the former, what kind of life can one expect to have?

Yet Another Unconstitutional Sealing Order, This Time Accompanied by a Revised Narrative

This Truly Signals the Gravity of the Scandal

In early 2025, an out-of-province judge sealed the entirety of the action number concerning the BC cost scandal. The sealing order violates a basic Constitutional right under section 2(b) concerning freedom of expression and NS Rule 85.04. The legal tests were not applied to the characteristics of the file. 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 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. The Affidavit I filed (here) demonstrates by way of the same case law and CAGE agreements that none of the file contents are lawfully sealed, including its four-year-old commercial information (redacted HERE). The judge cited "confidential information", but did not address specifics. I went granular on the details of the file and case law. Not a speck of content is lawfully sealed, and the public has been prevented from learning about it.
In the wake of the foregoing, the out-of-province court published a decision that had entirely mischaracterized the contextual background. Furthermore, a “Schedule A” was published to develop a new revisionist narrative, which was widely disproportionate to the scope of the motion that was before the judge; the same being limited to measurement of the case contents against applicable open court tests. The judicial assistant advised that the decision should be published because it contains no confidential information. By comparison, my June 27th, 2024 brief containing a full chronology of events with Affidavit page links was presented in the same format as the published decision, but was permanently sealed. Through this scandalous double-standard, the court had violated the most basic tenets of independence and impartiality. It bears the hallmarks of a post-constitutional environment where legitimate authorities serve private interests.
Soon after, a Provincial Attorney General, being served a constitutional question under customary rules, turned a blind eye to the unconstitutional sealing order over the out-of-province file, and the revisionist narrative that the court published in its wake. Counsel for the AG offered a nonsensical response in refusing to address a clear violation of Constitutional law coupled with a fabricated public narrative. By his own admission, the same AG counsel had in fact acted as a chaperone at a hearing in 2024 in support of the CAGE.

Scandals Require Enabling Characteristics

The Disposition of Proceedings Compels the Consideration of Terrible Possibilities

On February 19th, 2025, a Federal Court Judge dismissed an exceptionally well-evidenced application for judicial review concerning a decision by the Office of the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner. The Application sought a writ of mandamus for an RCMP investigation into the related criminal matters affecting this file and related files (the RCMP had in fact apologized for denial of service, but did not agree to take further action, as is shown at the CRCC page). The judge then overturned a consensual cost settlement the Parties had agreed to in writing (AG Canada and myself) that she was privy to, and ordered a cost award to the Attorney General of Canada. That is unprecedented, especially given the substance and customary practices. The same matter is under appeal.
At first glance, I might suggest that the stakeholders and persons I had interacted with over the course of the past four years were drunk. Either that, or morally bankrupt. The species of scandal involved is unnatural. Having said that, the species of scandal involved likewise occasions a very limited scope of possibilities, given the facts and case law concerning the overarching matter. 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 an explanation. As does its relationship to the online criminal framework detailed at the Zersetzung and Guide pages. There is too much material to sweep under the rug at this stage.
At present, the CAGE is attempting to incarcerate me once again, despite the contents on this website, and despite the health issues that manifested during my August 2024 incarceration. I had advised the out-of-province court that procedural frameworks do not matter if a persistent intention is shared by the adjudicators and public servants involved (Tobiass, Supra). Whistleblowers are required.

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

"It's Just the Flu.."