Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act (S.C. 2000, c. 24) [Link]
Shareholder Scandal Guide
A Short Form of the Litigation Page Intro
March 12th, 2025
For Those With Short Attention Spans, and/or Those in a Hurry.
Print this page; its usefulness resides in informing the public what happened in the shareholder component of the scandal. With respect to admissibility, these images capture the species of scandal (R. v. Kahsai, 2023 SCC 20 paragraph 67; R. v. Davey, 2012 SCC 75, [2012] 3 S.C.R. 828, at paragraph 51; R. v. Wolkins, 2005 NSCA 2, 229 N.S.R. (2d) 222, at paragraph 89; and R. v. Khan, 2001 SCC 86, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 823, at paras. 69 and 73). Page references in the descriptors link to the "Big Affidavit" at the Links Page; namely, the SCC Motion for Reconsideration (here). Other references include expanded descriptors at the Litigation Page with a procedural history to follow, and the November 22nd, 2023 Affidavit (here).
Incorrect & Different Governing Shareholder Agreements
In 2016, the CAGE Issued a Shareholder Agreement that was Specific to Me.
-
Evidence concerning the CAGE shareholder records indicate that its CEO had no intention of honoring a shareholder agreement that was signed in 2016, while I was employed by the same. The Parties had entered into a Shareholder Agreement dated July 27th, 2016, as is denoted on pages 192 through 194 of the Big Affidavit.
-
It later became known that the remainder of CAGE employees had signed onto a materially different Shareholder Agreement dated July 25th, 2016, as is shown on pages 195-197, 199, and 200 of the Big Affidavit.
-
Page 231 of the Big Affidavit, depicting part of the CAGE Common Non-Voting Central Securities Register (“CSR”), denotes a share exchange agreement was executed on July 27th, 2016 with another entity, the same day my shareholder agreement was signed.
-
Page 204 of the Big Affidavit depicts the September 20th, 2020 merger and acquisition (“M&A”) memorandum, which details the terms of the proposed share transaction. The memorandum references the Shareholder Agreement dated July 25th, 2016. The 2020 M&A materials, including the same memorandum, did not reference my governing Shareholder Agreement, the same dated July 27th, 2016.
Share Transfer & Power of Attorney Agreement
"For Value Received"
-
Page 202 of the Big Affidavit exhibits a Share Transfer and Power of Attorney agreement which is unlinked to a specific transaction and/or dollar amount. The same agreement contained an independent signature field and was omitted from the collective digital signature record alongside other materials which were designated as “draft agreements”, as is shown in the Big Affidavit at page 201. By means of this document, I had irrevocably transferred ownership of his 360 CAGE Shares without remuneration.
-
Assuming no foul play was involved and under an immediate deadline to sign the materials, I had executed the documents received. The CAGE went silent thereafter, with only two responses via text message in the three months that followed as is shown at page 207 of the Big Affidavit, both of which indicated that the CAGE had “70 shareholders who all want to know what’s happening”. That shareholder count is further supported by a linkedin post dated September 23rd, 2019, and as disclosed in the September 18th, 2020 M&A draft materials, in accordance with the one-year stock option vesting cliff cited in the agreements.
Derecognition Policy
FY 2020 Share Transfers Remain Hidden
First Account of Perjury in the September 22nd, 2021 CAGE Affidavit
Partner Agreement & The BC Statute of Limitations Act
-
The CAGE gave notice of a canceled transaction on December 4th, 2020 as is shown on pages 205-206 of the Big Affidavit. Cancellation was predicated on an external entity who had used its partner agreement with the CAGE to block the transaction. The CAGE CEO advised me that should I request shareholder records from the his law firm (Osler, Hoskin, and Harcourt LLP), he would instruct the same firm to issue a service charge (page 205). Section 46 of the BC Business Corporations Act provisions that shareholders can request records information at any time without charge. Members of the public can likewise request partial records for a ten-dollar fee.
-
The CAGE CEO advised at page 208 of the Big Affidavit that the partner agreement between the CAGE and the related third-party blocking entity would be in effect until December 2022; “two years from now”. However, page 209 in the Big Affidavit, exhibiting paragraphs 20, 21, 23 and 27 of the September 22nd, 2021 Settlement Affidavit sworn by the CEO, demonstrates that the partner relationship between those two companies was in fact set to expire six months earlier on June 7th, 2022. This implicates the CEO in perjury, and invites enforcement action under section 222 of the Income Tax Act. The false date the CAGE CEO provided aligns with section 6(1) the BC Statute of Limitations Act, which precludes any actions beyond a two-year duration.
-
Paragraph 18 of the second Affidavit of the CAGE CEO in S-220956, sworn February 25th, 2022, claims that the September 22nd, 2021 CAGE Settlement Affidavit is entirely accurate except for one unrelated typographical error.
-
I continued to discover concerning data points related to the would-be acquisition company in January 2021, and engaged in periodic follow-up with the CAGE CEO, who had ultimately advised on April 13th, 2021 that no further communications regarding the matter would be answered (big affidavit, page 210).
1st Account of Perjury & Conflicting Tax Accounts in the Same Affidavit. This also concerns the partner company tax records, because the partner company wrote the agreement.
May 3rd, 2021 Disclosure Order from the BC Registrar, & the Deletion of CAGE Team Page
CAGE Ordered to Disclose Records Following Prolonged Refusal
-
On May 3rd, 2021, the BC Registrar, in finding the CAGE in contempt of section 46 of the BC Business Corporations Act, ordered the CAGE to disclose shareholder records (big affidavit, pages 211-213). On the same day the order was delivered, the CAGE deleted its employee team roster which the I had subsequently captured through https://archive.org, (big affidavit, page 238). The findings in the CAGE shareholder records deposit were startling.
CAGE CSR Records
Empty CSR Records Beyond April 2020 (Except for the Former VP Finance)
-
The CAGE Central Securities Register (“CSR”) records had shown an absence of any and all shareholder activity since April 2020; the same being five months prior to the proposed M&A transaction. At the time, the CAGE had nineteen (19) Common Non-Voting shareholders qualified to exercise stock options, and over fifty (50) Common B Non-Voting shareholders, again qualified to exercise stock options in consideration of their one-year vesting cliff. Each shareholder in the Common Non-Voting block had exercised shares at consistent and predictable intervals. These records are exhibited at pages 228 through 235 of the Big Affidavit, and on the Litigation page. There are no other share classes besides those shown: Common; Common Non-Voting; and Common B Non-Voting.
-
The Common B Non-Voting CSR, expected to have over fifty shareholders, was shown to be entirely empty, save for the CAGE VP Finance, who was shown to have resigned from the company several days following the disclosure order. A second records request was made on July 9th, 2021, which detailed the same results for all CSR blocks. This is shown at page 227 of the Big Affidavit. These CSR records had indicated that either the September 2020 M&A transaction had occurred, or that some other arrangement had taken place that I was excluded from, which is as yet unbeknownst.
-
CAGE employees who hold stock options for at least one year (ie., every employee with a one-year tenure or longer), can exercise their stock options to become CAGE shareholders when they exit the company and cease to be an employee. When stock options are exercised, a record of that action is shown in the CSR documents with the corresponding name and address of the shareholder. CSR records are exhibited in the big affidavit on pages 227 through 236. As such, former CAGE employees who departed the company between September 23rd, 2020 and onward are expected to appear on the CSR record, because reasonable persons are expected to exercise their stock options and get paid, instead of choosing not to, and throw away money. The glaring issue is that none of the former CAGE employees that departed the company between September 23rd, 2020 and July 9th, 2021 are listed in any CSR record, and presumably, none after that date. Former employee departure dates are listed in the big affidavit at pages 239 through 247 in accordance with their public linkedin profiles. At least eight (8) former CAGE employees are proven to have left the company without exercising shares, while another thirteen (13) are presumed to have done so by way of the public data concerning them. More than enough to preclude irregularity.
Common & Common Non-Voting
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
Common B Non-Voting
CAGE entity
Settlement Affidavit vs. CSR Records & Former Employee Data [2nd Account of CAGE Perjury]
CAGE entity
CAGE CEO
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
CAGE CEO
Former CAGE employee
CAGE CEO
CAGE CEO
Missing from Central Securities Registers:
-
8 Verified Tier-1 Former Employees
-
13 Verified Tier-2 Former Employees
Fifty (50) stock option holders as of September 23rd, 2019 with a one-year vesting cliff. Forty-one (41) fully vested stock option holders cited in the 2020 M&A document. Empty Common-B CSR.
An Estimated 21 former CAGE employees had voluntarily chosen to abandon their shareholding, were the CAGE Affidavit to be believed. Here are a few examples.
Former CAGE employee
Former CAGE employee
Former CAGE role
Former CAGE employee
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
CAGE entity
Former CAGE employee
Former CAGE employee
Former CAGE role
The Fiscal Year 2020 Audit Report
The CPA Firm & the Derecognized Transactions Accounting Policy
-
Page 214 of the Big Affidavit reveals the 2020 CAGE fiscal audit report, typically published each year between February and April, was “collecting signatures” on July 9th, 2021, despite the cover letter from the CPA firm reflecting June 25th, 2021, nine days beyond the CAGE Annual Reference Date, and in violation of the timetable required in the BC Business Corporations Act. It is unclear as to why a subsequent version of the audit record required sign-off.
-
Page 215 of the Big Affidavit details an accounting policy in the same fiscal audit report which was obtained on July 9th, 2021. This accounting policy derecognized any and all share transfers and/or purchases which may have occurred in the 2020 calendar year, and recognizes any gains and/or losses within the company’s consolidated statements of operations. By means of this accounting policy, share transfers in FY2020 involving the CAGE and/or any of its shareholders including the myself are concealed. This policy is unique to FY2020 and does not appear in the records deposit received, which dates back to 2014.
-
Page 216 of the big affidavit exhibits the CAGE's consolidated statements of operations for FY2020. A significant delta is visible in trade data which is otherwise absent from record trends in all previous years dating back to the 2014 inception. Foreign currency data is likewise omitted from the FY2020 record. The would-be acquisition company is domiciled in North Carolina.
-
On the foregoing points, and whereas the CAGE CEO had advised that a discretionary share buy-back would not be made available, I decided to retain a law firm in British Columbia to open a lawsuit in the BC Supreme Court.
Bad Faith Negotiations, Evidence of Collusion, and a Notice of Shareholder Default
My Retained Lawyer Violated the Shareholder Confidentiality Agreement, Inter Alia.
-
I retained legal counsel to act on my behalf in the 2021 shareholder dispute. Following a thorough review and critique of all materials to be filed, the same legal counsel filed the 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. The CAGE wasted little time in claiming I had violated my Shareholder Agreement, and requested a sealing order remedy. I consented to a sealing order remedy.
-
Per pages 217 through 219 of the Big Affidavit, 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.
-
Per page 216 of the Big Affidavit, 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. She then refused a request to file copies in accord with the redaction order. I was left to fend for myself. CAGE lead legal counsel, Emily MacKinnon, called the outrageous default notice “playing hardball”. I called out the CAGE CEO, who agreed to reinstate his original settlement terms following three days of heated argument, though absent any investigative provisions. I agreed, pending the CEO swear an Affidavit against a series of questions. Following another heated engagement, he did so (Big Affidavit, pages 222-226).
The law firm knowingly jeopardized my file in violating the shareholder confidentiality clause, redacted the investigation requests in the Petition beyond the scope of the court redaction order, ended the retainer contract, and later refused to correct the additional redactions that changed the contextual background. Collusion is the only reasonable inference.
The Second Law Firm
Settlement Completion Omitted from Counsel's Service Record, With $987 Written Off
-
I hired a second law firm, who had allowed the file to remain derelict for one week, and who had re-engaged one day prior to the CAGE settlement deadline. This 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
A Lot of Bad Things Began Happening.
-
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. Although a retaliatory hate crime may be postulated, the scope and sophistication of these events suggest complementary third-party interests. The CAGE could not have orchestrated something like this as an independent actor, although the Exodus 14:5-9 analogy is appropriate in the wake of the troubled settlement I had somehow managed to navigate.
-
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.
-
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 was compelled to file S-220956 as a de facto life insurance policy as it became clear my physical life was imperiled, living alone in Surrey, BC with ongoing break-ins, cyber attacks, and swarm encounters, with no help provided by local police. It was not my intention to explore the ethical problems evident in the 2021 settlement through a new legal proceeding under these extreme conditions, although the same is encouraged under normal conditions (Hawitt v. Campbell, 1983 CanLII 307 (BC CA). This is detailed in May 20th, 2022 Affidavit, sworn shortly following the April 1st, 2022 discovery order, when the BCSC ordered discovery, and prior to the same proceedings going terribly awry. The same is contemplated at the Litigation page in detail.
Exodus 14:5-9 CAGE "Pharaoh" Reference
Horse = RCMP
CAGE CEO
The BCSC Ordered Discovery Before the Proceedings Went Awry... For Three Years.
Unconstitutional Censorship of the Shareholder Records
The Scandal Cannot be Lawfully Censored in any Court
-
At the request of an out-of-province court, I filed an Affidavit on January 24th, 2025 which applies specific tests to the specific materials and characteristics of the file. The court sealed the entire file, and claimed the existence of “sensitive and confidential information” that "must be precluded from public disclosure", but the decision provides no specific definitions or content references that indicate what that actually means. In order to qualify for an exception to open court, there must be a competing public interest at stake that cannot be addressed in any other way besides a redaction order (Sherman Estate v. Donovan, 2021 SCC 25 at paragraph 13). The file contents, as measured against open court tests, yield no competing public interests. The file contents trigger private interests which do not satisfy thresholds for an exception to freedom of expression. While these materials are redacted, the originals are sealed by way of unconstitutional censorship. This Affidavit proves it, and likewise, further proves that legitimate authorities were leveraged to assist private interests and facilitate crimes in a post-democratic Canada.
Sierra Club of Canada v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [2002] 2 S.C.R. 522, 2002 SCC 41 at paragraph 55;
"In addition, the phrase “important commercial interest” is in need of some clarification. In order to qualify as an “important commercial interest”, the interest in question cannot merely be specific to the party requesting the order; the interest must be one which can be expressed in terms of a public interest in confidentiality. For example, a private company could not argue simply that the existence of a particular contract should not be made public because to do so would cause the company to lose business, thus harming its commercial interests. However, if, as in this case, exposure of information would cause a breach of a confidentiality agreement, then the commercial interest affected can be characterized more broadly as the general commercial interest of preserving confidential information. Simply put, if there is no general principle at stake, there can be no “important commercial interest” for the purposes of this test. Or, in the words of Binnie J. in F.N. (Re), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 880, 2000 SCC 35, at para. 10, the open court rule only yields “where the public interest in confidentiality outweighs the public interest in openness” (emphasis added)."
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Named Person, 2024 SCC 21 at paragraph 1;
“When justice is rendered in secret, without leaving any trace, respect for the rule of law is jeopardized and public confidence in the administration of justice may be shaken. The open court principle allows a society to guard against such risks, which erode the very foundations of democracy. By ensuring the accountability of the judiciary, court openness supports an administration of justice that is impartial, fair and in accordance with the rule of law. It also helps the public gain a better understanding of the justice system and its participants, which can only enhance public confidence in their integrity. Court openness is therefore of paramount importance to our democracy — an importance that is also reflected in the constitutional protection afforded to it in Canada.”
