Preclusion of Fiduciary Legal Support

Collusion in Retained Counsel, Preemptive Service Denials, & The Law Society

March 23rd, 2025

A Systemic & Unmistakable Trend from Inception

Beginning with evidence of collusion in 2021, and continuing with a trend of a priori preclusion of support from November 2021 and following, these cumulative effects contribute to a discernible trend (R. v. Harding, 2010 ABCA 180 at paragraph 10; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Tobiass, [1997] 3 S.C.R. 391 at paragraphs 91; and Canada (Attorney General) v. Bedford, 2013 SCC 72, [2013] 3 S.C.R. 1101 at paragraph 76). The machine-assisted audit reports were added in July and August 2025.

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)."

A Brief Machine-Assisted Audit Review: Ongoing & Preemptive Rejection

A Brief Machine-Assisted Audit Review: Collusive Patterns w/ Retained Counsel

Legal Counsel: Evidence of Collusion

The First Law Firm Retained in the 2021 Shareholder Oppression Matter

My Retained Lawyer Knowingly Violated a Shareholder Confidentiality Agreement in 2021

I retained legal counsel to act on my behalf in the 2021 CAGE shareholder dispute. Following a thorough review and critique of all materials to be filed, the same lawyer filed my Petition and its supporting Affidavit at the BCSC Vancouver Public Registry without applying for a sealing order. These documents were then served on the CAGE on August 4th, 2021. My lawyer was aware that the same act would violate the Shareholder Confidentiality Agreement I was under at the time, as she compiled and critiqued the Affidavit. The CAGE wasted little time in claiming I had violated my Shareholder Agreement, and requested a sealing order remedy. I consented to the sealing order.
The CAGE filed a Notice of Shareholder Default one week after a consensual sealing order remedy was entered. The notice sought to force a share buy-back at $3.60 per share, as opposed to the $688.37 per share cited in the original M&A memorandum. Such an action would collapse the value of the shareholding.
My lawyer called this “an act of bad faith”, but ended our contract after filing redacted copies of the pleadings that were edited beyond the scope of the court redaction order, which erased any semblance of wrongdoing on the part of the CAGE. She then refused a request to file corrected copies in accord with the redaction order. I was left to fend for myself. I later filed corrected copies at the Registry counter. These combined and serious actions leave little room for doubt concerning a collusive arrangement in support of the CAGE.

My Lawyer Breached my Shareholder Agreement. She Knew the File Contents.

The CAGE Immediately Filed a Notice of Default, Collapsing my Share Value.

My Lawyer Then Backs Away From the File, With No Additional Support From the Firm.

The CAGE Default Notice Followed the Entry of a Consensual Sealing Order Remedy. My Lawyer Then Redacted the File Beyond the Scope of the Court Order; Removing Any Evidence and Text that incriminates the CAGE. She Later Refused to Fix it. The Retainer Bears the Hallmarks of Collusion.

The Second Law Firm Retained in 2021

Settlement Completion Omitted from Counsel's Service Record, With $987 Written Off

I hired a second law firm in the midst of new talks with the CAGE following the default notice. They agreed to take on the case, but allowed the file to remain derelict for one week, re-engaging just 24 hours prior to the settlement deadline. The firm advised me to sign at the eleventh hour, and I did. The settlement check received from Respondents’ counsel was unable to be cashed in the weeks that followed according to TD Bank, and counsel's service record omitted details of the closure of the settlement from its formal service record.
In the wake of periodic follow-ups, I eventually received a separate “statement of time written-off” from the law firm three weeks later along with the bank deposit, which did confirm closure of the settlement and the check (big affidavit, page 221), albeit with a file number that differed from the consent order. $987 was written-off in the supplemental service record, which was odd as the firm appeared to be disproportionately focused on up-front fees. I enjoy saving money as much as the next person, but it is helpful to understand the context given the circumstances. The law firm advised on its preference to keep the two service record documents separate.

Post-Settlement Disruption

Bad Things Began Happening in November 2021 After the CAGE Settlement

A few weeks following the closure of the 2021 settlement and in an ongoing cadence, the I began experiencing online harassment by way of remote PC intrusions, as is contemplated in the Zersetzung, Guide, and Q/A pages. These had featured caricatures of the CAGE CEO stating “power that can’t be insulted”, with reference to the settlement. Alongside threatening narratives, these intrusions telegraphed proximate physical events such as on-heels stalking, home and vehicle break-ins, electronic harassment, and physical attempts to implicate me in public venues.
The scope of these events likewise involved “Diffuse & Disrupt” characteristics, a term originally coined by former CSIS Deputy Director of Operations Jack Hooper (The Globe and Mail, May 31, 2006). By means of this, my personal and professional engagements were disrupted to the point where life became functionally unlivable, including engagements with law firms and notaries.
The local policing agency of jurisdiction, Surrey RCMP, was privy to multiple reports of criminal mischief, but had declined to offer support. The threshold for police response is modest, as is detained at the Review page. Police are required to “investigate what might be crime” (495793 Ontario Ltd. (Central Auto Parts) v. Barclay, 2016 ONCA 656 at paragraph 51). RCMP negligence is detailed at the CRCC page. I ended up filing S-220956 as a de facto insurance policy as it was evident I was in physical danger.
Most aspects of the same disruptive activities continued following an expeditious retreat from BC in February 2022 in further consideration of the above. It later became evident that my body was connected to the internet (see neurotech crimes at UN Resolution A/HRC/57/61).

Event captures like this require AI-Assisted 4IR tools. Canada is testing biodigital convergence modalities on Citizens in partnership with big tech, with the support of individuals, corporations, and agencies in the public service. Including police stakeholders. Review the findings in Sheridan et al., 2020 with respect to the potential scope.

As above, per the fabricated HRP report that was provided to EHS. Event details at the HRP Page (Here).

Preemptive Service Denials

A Priori Preclusion of Fiduciary Legal Support from November 2021 & Onward

Preemptive Behaviors May be the Result of an IA Program (Influence Activities)

I state this by way of its consistency with the other characteristics that became evident in late November 2021. Per the same Affidavit referenced below, I was in fact approached by persons identifying as members of the Canadian Armed Forces ("CAF") who described the events in the Guide page in a preemptive capacity. CAGE Counsel is a uniformed CAF legal advisor, which may or may not be relevant. Notwithstanding, there is very little reason to believe that someone with my background and living habits would engage in legal proceedings without representation, unless the circumstances had compelled it.

Denial of Services Included ProBono Programs

The Same Trend Applied to ProBono Programs & Private Firms Alike

Two examples below among many concerning an a priori denial of services that one would otherwise expect to be available. No information was given, and no feedback was provided. AFreshWord, shown below in a snippet, features prominently in the online criminal cohort. Timely pop-ups and messaging appear relevant to the event (see Cosmic Wifey above concerning the May 13th, 2023 event, and numerous other examples in the Guide page. Consistent preemptive service denials bear the hallmarks of an CAF or CSIS IA program.

Consistency Across Time & Venue

I Engaged Constructively in Fact-Finding

Obviously in some cases, a denial of legal services might have to do with the specialty of the solicitors in practice. Boutique and smaller firms might have challenges with respect to time and personnel bandwidth. However, when large full-service firms consistently deny services on an a priori basis, something is wrong. The court files are under sealing orders, and I had made no mention of personal details, or this website. Even so, the firms in BC that had preemptively rejected me in 2022 were not privy to any details about myself, or the subject matter involved.

The Law Society

Post-Democratic Conditions: A Further Layer of Analysis

The Regulator is Tasked With Uncovering the Truth, and Protecting the Public.

The Nova Scotia Barrister’s Society (“NSBS”) is a regulator funded by the legal profession. Its role is to uphold standards among its members, promote access to justice, and protect the public (here). I filed a complaint vectored toward CAGE counsel in October 2024 pursuant to section 3.2-7 of the lawyer’s code of conduct as written. The text is codified as follows, alongside its commentary;

"A lawyer must never: (a) knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct; (b) do or omit to do anything that the lawyer ought to know assists in or encourages any dishonest, fraud, crime, or illegal conduct by a client or others; or (c) instruct a client or others on how to violate the law. [...] If a lawyer has suspicions or doubts about whether he or she might be assisting a client or others in dishonesty, fraud, crime or illegal conduct, the lawyer should make reasonable inquiries to obtain information about the client or others and, in the case of a client, about the subject matter and objectives of the retainer."

If you the reader are not yet familiar with the characteristics of the scandal, I encourage you to review the pages in the Blog table of contents (here) before proceeding further. The complaint was dismissed summarily on July 3rd, 2025 without investigation, on an assertion that it “lacked substance or a factual basis”. The dismissal bears the same thematic problem inherent to the court venues and police agencies involved, insofar as there was no acknowledgement or recognition of the factual evidence presented to it. Despite the evidence being compelling and obvious, no agency nor authority had been willing to recognize it orally or in print, with the exception of a live audio recording involving Halifax Regional Police (here). This “evidentiary black hole”, and the concurrent narrative among agencies bears the hallmarks of a post-democratic environment, where agencies and adjudicators algin themselves in support of a stakeholder interest. The court files are unconstitutionally sealed in their entirety (here). Every article that details event milestones in the scandal features the same characteristics. I filed a similar complaint concerning the CAGE BC Counsel at the Law Society of British Columbia ("LSBC") which has not been investigated, whereas I was advised the complaint resides in an indefinite holding pattern.

Interpreting the Role of a Canadian Law Society (or Barrister's Society).

As is customary in my articles, I would open with a citation of relevant case law. In this case, I cite A Lawyer v. The Law Society of British Columbia, 2021 BCSC 914 (“Lawyer”); concerning the powers of the NSBS’ BC counterpart as a relevant analogue. While the case law in Lawyer aligns with customary precedents in other matters, it should be noted that justice Andrew Majawa is the same judge that had facilitated the miscarriage of justice in BC, in ignoring facts, violating case law, ignoring rules, abusing process, and ignoring an outstanding order for forensic audit (here).

In Lawyer, Majawa ordered a sweeping investigation of an entire law practice on the basis of a hypothesis made during a routine audit. Anneke Driessen, a LSBC staff lawyer, wrote on February 11th, 2022;

"The auditor identified, among other things, that you may have allowed clients to use your trust accounts for the flow of funds in the absence of substantial legal services related to those funds and/or in the absence of making reasonable inquiries," wrote Anneke Driessen, a law society staff lawyer on Feb. 11, 2020.”

This is notable insofar as there was no concrete proof of wrongdoing in the audit that triggered a response by the regulator. By contrast, I had cited the characteristics of the BC cost scandal that CAGE Counsel is working to enforce in this Province, which had likewise followed the miscarriage of justice shown (here & here), amid the related criminal elements of the scandal (here & here). The disparity in response is commensurate with the characteristics of the scandal.

Justice Majawa wrote the following at paragraph 63 in Lawyer concerning the objective and scope of the regulating Law Society, in that it should actively conduct investigations where appropriate to uncover the truth and protect the public;

“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.”

Paragraph 64 in the case law outlines that when an investigation has begun, its scope should encompass as broad a scope as would be required;

“The broad scope of investigations conducted pursuant to s. 36(b) of the LPA and R. 4-55 of the Law Society Rules is consistent with the context, scheme, object, and purpose of the LPA and the Law Society Rules. The context within which these provisions are found is informed by the statutory objective and duty of the Law Society as set out in s. 3 of the LPA which provides that the duty of the Law Society is to “to uphold and protect the public interest in the administration of justice”. Section 3 goes on to provide the means by which this duty is fulfilled including by “ensuring the independence, integrity, honor and competence of lawyers”, by “establishing standards and programs for the education, professional responsibility and competence of lawyers” and by “regulating the practice of law”. [...] “Moreover, the jurisprudence suggests that the investigatory powers of a regulator should be interpreted broadly in the context where a member of that self-regulating body has a duty to cooperate with such investigations: Gore at para. 20; Wise at para. 18. The petitioner in the present case was required to cooperate with the investigation. Section 36(d) of the LPA provides the Law Society with the authority to require its members to cooperate with an investigation authorized under s. 36(b) (i.e., a R. 4-55 investigation).”

At paragraph 60 in Lawyer, the public interest in the responsiveness and willingness of the regulator is underscored;

“Public trust in professionals, and their important role in society, is directly related to the extent regulators are able to supervise the conduct of those professionals. A professional regulator, in this case the Law Society, has an onerous obligation to ensure the protection of the public. The Supreme Court of Canada reviewed the importance of the role of the professional regulator in Pharmascience Inc. v. Binet, 2006 SCC 48.”

At paragraph 74 in Lawyer, justice Majawa insists on a flexible approach to interpreting the statutory scheme, in an interest of preventing technical encumbrances from imposing an obstacle to discovery;

“If the petitioner’s view is correct and the scope of a R. 4-55 investigation must be related to the specific misconduct concerns giving rise to the chair’s reasonable belief, then it seems to me that the Law Society would be required to open a new R. 4-55 investigation each time a new area of concern was uncovered in order to conduct a broad investigation of a member’s practice. In my view, such a requirement would effectively negate the ability of the Law Society to broadly investigate a member’s practice when circumstances warrant it and would render investigations under R. 4-55 essentially the same as investigations under R.3-5. An interpretation that renders a provision duplicative of another is an absurdity that should be avoided: Jorgensen v. Surface Rights Board, 2021 BCSC 396 at para. 98.”

Finally at paragraph 121, justice Majawa argues in favor of a stay of proceedings where the object of justice is consistently hindered;

“A permanent stay of a proceeding as a remedy for an abuse of process is only appropriate in the “clearest of cases”: R v. Babos, 2014 SCC 16 at para. 31. Such cases are generally those where state conduct compromises trial fairness or where state conduct does not threaten trial fairness but risks undermining the integrity of the judicial process.”

These citations are relevant when exploring another layer of partiality concerning the overarching scandal detailed on this website. There is no stronger indicator of partiality than a double standard. The specifics of the complaint and its response matrix are detailed below. An AI-assisted review of the same materials is furnished below these documents.

The NSBS Position: A Factual Void