Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]
The Cost Scandal Affidavits
The Redacted CAGE Retainer Fee Affidavits of Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP. Would you pay those retainers..?
March 3rd, 2025
A Felony Facilitated Through Legitimate Authorities.
As a companion to my Felony Affidavit (here), this blog page exhibits true redacted copies of the October 17th, 2023 Affidavits of Emily MacKinnon, lead counsel for the unidentified and federally-sponsored CAGE entity referenced in the Testimony and Litigation pages. These Affidavits demonstrate a palpable scandal involving the CAGE entity’s retainer fees in British Columbia. Namely, 737.7 billable hours (like the jumbo jet) to service nine (9) short-chambers actions under thirty (30) minutes in duration, with modest preparation and filings; $376,201.97 total. The same pattern had been replicated in the BC Court of Appeal in the form of separate and likewise egregious billings.
Who Provided the Assurances?
In stating at paragraph ten (10) that the full dollar amount was billed to the CAGE CEO as a retainer, the MacKinnon Affidavits implicate the CAGE, its law firm Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP, the adjudicators that had signed the draft certificates provided by counsel, the adjudicators that enforced the felony out of province, and the SCC for refusing docket entry. None of the aforementioned persons and entities would have facilitated a scandal such as this in their respective capacities under normal circumstances without receiving assurances from a source capable of providing them. Whereas it is obvious to most persons that $400,000 for nine brief court appearances in general chambers is a serious scandal (most court tariffs cap fees at $500 for hearings under one hour), the same is likewise confirmed by a plethora of legal tests. These include but are not limited to; Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.) at paragraph 44; Grewal v. Sandhu, 2012 BCCA 26 at para. 106; Smithies Holdings Inc. v. RCV Holdings Ltd., 2017 BCCA 177 at para. 56; Nuttall v. Krekovic, 2018 BCCA 341 at paragraphs 26 & 29; Tanious v. The Empire Life Insurance Company, 2019 BCCA 329 at paragraphs 49 & 53, inter alia. Specifically in the text;
Bradshaw Construction Ltd. v. Bank of Nova Scotia (1991), 54 B.C.L.R. (2d) 309 (S.C.) at 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”.
By way of further analogy, Northmont Resort Properties Ltd. v. Golberg, 2018 BCSC 151 had determined special costs in an amount of $333,000 for three hundred and seventy (370) actions, being $900 per action, at paragraph 50. Again, I was billed $376,201.97 for just nine (9) thirty-minute hearings (very short actions), and was denied customary recourse. That's an average of $41,217.53 per action in my case, which paragraph 10 in the MacKinnon Affidavits state were reasonably required, and were billed to the CAGE. There were seven (7) lawyers and two (2) paralegals assigned to the file, alongside one who represented the CAGE as an articled student. No reasonable litigant would agree to that. No reputable law firm would propose it. No self-respecting and unbiased adjudicator or registrar would approve it. The Clerks Notes are shown below the Affidavits. The data and legal tests yield a prima facie account of felony facilitated through legitimate authorities. It happened in Canada.
​
It must likewise be noted that these costs arrived on the heels of a miscarriage of justice, which is explored at the Litigation page in a loosely chronological fashion, likewise supported by redacted exhibits. I was denied customary recourse concerning all aspects of the scandal, including this felony that exceeds my life savings. The matter was likewise denied docket entry at the Supreme Court of Canada. The RCMP has not yet agreed to investigate this scandal in all of its related parts, despite the same being actionable under Part IV of the Criminal Code. The Affidavits below must be read alongside the account in the Litigation page, as many the claims therein are as unfounded as the arithmetic.
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.”
S-220956
Court Hearings in S-220956 (Nine Short-Chambers Appearances, one Short Paper Application)
​[1] February 11th, 2022. Interim sealing order. Judge orders my 2021 CAGE Affidavit into the file. 10 minute hearing. No costs to either party.
[2] March 3rd, 2022. Interim sealing order (extension). 30 minute hearing. No costs to either party. Legacy materials used.
[3] April 1st, 2022. Acknowledgement of fraudulent commercial records and perjury in the CAGE Settlement Affidavit. Order to serve Canada Revenue Agency with all court materials. Parties ordered to seek direction on how ("how", not "if") to serve three private entities related to the 2021 CAGE shareholder oppression matter. 40 minute hearing. No costs to either party.
[4] April 14th, 2022. Request to allow a local process-serving agent to retrieve orders in the file. 17 minute hearing. No costs to either party.
[5] May 24th, 2022. Interim sealing order. 20 minute hearing in private room, in violation of BCSC Rule 22-1(5) . No costs to either party. Legacy materials used.
[6] June 27th, 2022. Protection order hearing based on a false accusation by the Respondents that I had served third parties without obtaining direction from the court on method. Ms. MacKinnon admitted at the hearing that the same was a speculative concern. 30 minute hearing in private room, in violation of BCSC Rule 22-1(5). Respondents awarded costs in the cause, and a protection order was made atop an existing sealing order, thereby requiring me to seek the permission of a judge to execute the terms of the April 1st, 2022 order (res judicata).
[7] August 12th, 2022. Referral judge allows Respondents to re-litigate the April 1st, 2022 order, and approves a summary hearing of the Petition without the required forensic audit (res judicata). Signs the Respondents' pre-drafted order. 30 minute hearing. No mention of costs in the order.
[8] September 27th, 2022. Judge schedules summary Petition hearing irrespective of the outstanding discovery order (res judicata), after a BC court of appeal hearing rejected a motion to stay the execution of the summary hearing date, while an appeal of the August 12th 2022 order was being pursued. 5 minute hearing. Legacy materials used. No mention of costs in the order.
[9] October 4th, 2022. Justice Andrew Majawa dismisses S-220956 in a miscarriage of justice tantamount to what one might expect in a kangaroo court. He ignores proof of fraud, perjury, and evidence of collusion, and he ignores the outstanding discovery order. By way of irony, he is the same judge that ordered the investigation of a solicitor's trust accounts on the basis of a hunch (A Lawyer v The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914 at paragraph 63). Awards Respondents special costs, which by definition, are commensurate with customary retainer fees (Bradshaw, Supra). Seals entire file permanently. Hearing was one hour in duration.
[10] November 7th, 2022. Justice Majawa dismisses my paper reconsideration motion, being privy to an Affidavit that treated his reasons line by line with the facts and case law. CAGE counsel emailed his decision several days later.
Why would the CAGE CEO agree to pay a retainer in the amount of 580.8 hours at $295,581.11, knowing that customary tariffs are pennies by comparison (ie., $500 per)? The answer is he wouldn't. It is felony facilitated through legitimate authorities. It happened in Canada.
S-228567
Court Hearing in S-228567 (One Short-Chambers Appearance)
[1] November 8th, 2022. Interim sealing order. This was contested, by way of contrast to the Affidavit. The one Affidavit in this file was limited to public visual exhibits, similar to those on the Zersetzung page. Judge wrongly claimed the file contained shareholder information, which would not be able to be sealed in any event (Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55). 10 minute hearing. No costs to either party. The CAGE later claimed a customary tariff of $1,616.60. This file was discontinued as it was a Charter class action that was brought under the incorrect Style of Proceeding, as a Petition.​
S-229680
Court Hearing in S-229680 (One Short-Chambers Appearance)
[1] February 14th, 2023. Summary dismissal by BCSC chambers judge Andrew Majawa; the same who had dismissed S-220956. Upon an emailed request of Loretta Chun, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada, the BCSC discarded nine (9) rules of procedure that governed the Style of Proceedings, after BCSC scheduling confirmed that a Case Management Judge would be assigned, as was required under BCSC Practice Direction 5. This file, in all respects except the format, was a duplicate of the aforementioned S-228567, and contained the same filing materials. Justice Majawa dismissed the matter in ten (10) minutes, declared me vexatious for the duplicate (which CAGE counsel requested), ordered a permanent sealing order over both files, blocked my participation in any BC court henceforth, and ordered special costs. The hearing was billed at $78,385.36, which is comparable to a good annual salary in Canada. As mentioned, S-228567 and S-229680 were of essentially the same substance, except for the label on the front page of the pleadings. 156.9 hours or $78,385.36 vs. $1,616.60 for the standard tariff. Why would the CAGE CEO agree to that retainer? The answer is he wouldn't. It is felony facilitated through legitimate authorities. In Canada.​​​
BCSC Clerks Notes
Short-Chambers Hearings With Modest Filings
These hearings concerning the Affidavits above were of the same complexity, and whereas, the hearings that required more work were brushed aside quickly by referral judges who knew nothing about the file, and sometimes in private rooms. Mr. Garton was an Articled Student during the initial hearings, albeit seven (7) lawyers and two paralegals (2) from Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP were assigned in overlapping capacities. If we consider the cost division in S-220956 at parity, each hearing would have been billed at $41,217.53, which is more than what some Citizens in Canada earn on an annual basis. A standard tariff schedule is shown below. Most of these hearings are within the $250 to $500 range apiece. I had participated in each by way of physical appearance and/or through written submissions, with the exception of the extrajudicial sealing order on December 13th, 2022 in S-229680. By means of the Clerk's Notes, and irrespective of the scandal as shown at the Shareholder and Civic pages, customary costs would range between $7,250 and $12,000 for all three BCSC action numbers; not a half-million-dollar felony.
Finally, we must recall that paragraph 10 in the MacKinnon Affidavits state that the CAGE CEO was billed the amounts shown in the same Affidavits and had paid them, which is as equally relevant as the cost amounts themselves. It must be assumed that Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP had received assurances that a scandal such as this would proceed unanswered. There is absolutely room for error in declaring that a felony that was facilitated through legitimate authorities, which was subsequently denied correction.
Comparison With the CAGE Out-of-Province Retainer Fees
Same Manner of Hearings, Costed 83x (83 times) Higher in British Columbia
The Out-of-Province collection enforcement proceedings provide another powerful data point concerning the BC retainer fee scandal. We see this in comparing the time and materials involved in similar appearances between Provinces. Side-by-side, we see thirty-minute hearings with comparable paper filings and review. The cost metric is shown to be 83 times higher in BC for the same work. An Affidavit excerpt from an out-of-province CAGE solicitor is shown below. One overarching matter required four (4) hearings to complete; roughly half of S-220956. That overall matter was billed at $2,500, but counsel's claimed fees were $6,518.50, or $1,629.62 per hearing; an immense departure from the outrageously inflated fees in British Columbia. It is worth noting however that the manner of obstruction in the out-of-province proceedings was comparable to BC, and whereas the BC cost scandal was enforced without anyone batting an eyelash. See the Litigation page for details.​​
Related Criminal Mischief
S-220956
Criminal Actors Track Event Milestones Through the Dark Web
As detailed in the Testimony, Guide, and Q/A pages, the BC civil proceedings, which I had no intention of opening under the conditions described, are an enablement component of the scandal described on this website. The scandal is not primarily about a private shareholder dispute with a federally-sponsored CAGE entity, nor the latter with peripheral criminal mischief orchestrated by that CAGE. A CAGE entity cannot be expected to shape the conduct of five courts and three police agencies across three provinces to support its commercial interests. Likewise, an emerging CAGE cannot be expected to retain an online criminal framework that uses algorithms and direct cyber intrusions for any length of time. The CAGE is a participatory agent in a scandal involving robust third-party interests involving 4IR technologies (see 4IR Portal). The same is true of Osler, Hoskin, & Harcourt LLP, Ms. MacKinnon, who is a uniformed legal advisor to the Canadian Military, her colleagues, and the participatory stakeholders in various agencies.
As is detailed in the Guide page, and partially in the Review page concerning reasonable grounds, the bad actors in this scandal are understood to have real-time access to my biometric data, presumably through a remote graphene quantum-dot (GQD) interface (see 4IR Portal, and United Nations General Assembly Resolution A/HRC/57/61). The actors depicted below regularly use event milestones as vehicle of harassment, as well as sundries germane to my day-to-day activities. This has been ongoing since December 2021 in acute capacities, shortly following the close of the initial CAGE settlement, though an evidentiary footprint extends back to 2013 as is detailed in my Testimony. Absent a collusive framework coupled with robust interests, investigators might be hard-pressed to explain how and why a plethora of public service agencies would dispense with their Constitutional mandates to support the interests of one man that runs an emerging tech company, with the help of approximately fifty (50) scripted social influencers, with one of them being the biological mother of my estranged Nephew (Ms. Partrick; "My Father Is Joy"). There are too many irons in the fire, and there is no analogue in case law or common sense concerning the retainer fees that were certified.
The visual exhibit below highlights the issue of overlapping counsel ("look for the overlap, your talent is multiplying, wanted you quieted, it's payback time", etc.) with corresponding timestamps, which BCSC Master Scarth acknowledged, before nonetheless signing the pre-drafted cost certificates provided by counsel. The exhibit below that concerns my frozen bank account ("icing on the cake, lump sums, wealth of the wicked, cashing out, huge payback, god is breaking the rules for you", etc.), likewise with time stamps. Whereas most every major milestone is categorized with similar examples, a cumulative pattern should be readily obvious to investigators. As is contemplated at the CRCC and Q/A pages, the fact that police continue to meet a scandal with this much substance with false reporting and negligence is indicative of collusion.
The scandal likewise raises serious questions concerning a mode of centralized, or multi-stakeholder governance, as is treated in UN documents.
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. 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. Sgt. Topham’s subjective belief in his grounds for arrest was clearly established and was objectively seen and established under the circumstances.”
Recourse to Regulators
The Matter Ricocheted Past Appellate Venues, the CJC, and the LSBC
Commensurate with matters concerning miscarriage of justice and the denial of police response concerning the above, the glaring scandal involving retainer fees was met with a sclerotic apathy. Courts and regulators cannot construe their statutory schemes and/or review processes in a manner that ignores glaring issues, or reasonably expect to pass the buck without conducting the appropriate due-diligence. Likewise, neither the CJC nor the LSBC had agreed to file a motion to overturn the protection order over the BC files, which operates independently of the unconstitutional sealing orders, and which likewise violates settled constitutional law. The citation below in A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914, by way of irony, is from the same judge that had adjudicated the BC files denoted in the Affidavits (Andrew Majawa). There is no greater indicator of bias than the double-standard. Influential networks and private interests shape the conduct of legitimate authorities on a case-by-case basis in today's post-democratic environment.
A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914 at paragraph 63;
“A key principle derived from these cases is that the investigatory powers of a regulator should not be interpreted too narrowly as doing so may “preclud[e] it from employing the best means by which to ‘uncover the truth’ and ‘protect the public’” (Wise v. LSUC, 2010 ONSC 1937 at para. 17 [Wise], citing Gore at para. 29). Thus, in my view, the powers granted to the Law Society by s. 36(b) of the LPA, and as operationalized by R. 4-55 of the Law Society Rules, should be read broadly to permit the investigation of a member’s entire practice, as that may in certain circumstances be the best means to “uncover the truth” and “protect the public” and to determine whether disciplinary action should be taken. Given the context within which lawyers and their trust accounts operate, the broad investigatory power authorizing the Law Society to conduct an “investigation of the books, records and accounts of the lawyer” provided for in s. 36(b) of the LPA and in R. 4-55 should not be distorted to mean something narrower without explicit statutory language suggesting the same: Wise at para. 17.”
Canada (Attorney General) v. Power, 2024 SCC 26 at paragraph 26;
"The Charter must be given a generous and expansive interpretation; not a narrow, technical or legalistic one (Hunter v. Southam Inc., [1984] 2 S.C.R. 145, at p. 156). Charter provisions must be “interpreted in a broad and purposive manner and placed in their proper linguistic, philosophic, and historical contexts” (Reference re Senate Reform, 2014 SCC 32, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 704, at para. 25)."
Smith v. Jones, [1999] 1 S.C.R. 455 at paragraph 55;
“A second exception to solicitor‑client privilege was set out in Descôteaux v. Mierzwinski, supra. Lamer J. for the Court, held that communications that are criminal in themselves (in this case, a fraudulent legal aid application) or that are intended to obtain legal advice to facilitate criminal activities are not privileged. At p. 893 this appears: There are certain exceptions to the principle of the confidentiality of solicitor‑client communications, however. Thus communications that are in themselves criminal or that are made with a view to obtaining legal advice to facilitate the commission of a crime will not be privileged, inter alia.”
Exodus 14:5-7 Reference
Shortly following
CAGE Settlement
