Home / Trending / Funding a Lawsuit with No Savings Part 2: Third-Party Litigation Funding

Trending

Funding a Lawsuit with No Savings Part 2: Third-Party Litigation Funding

September 28, 2026

Commercializing the Chose in Action: Third-Party Litigation Funding, Superior Court Approval, and Defeating Financial Attrition (Part 2 of 3)

Opening Question

When a financially exhausted plaintiff relies upon a commercial third-party litigation funder to underwrite the costs of a complex commercial dispute, does the interjection of external capital violate the doctrine of champerty, or do superior courts explicitly authorize and supervise TPLF agreements to preserve the integrity of the adversarial process?

Direct Answer Paragraph

The deployment of commercial litigation capital affords absolutely no procedural sanctuary to well-resourced defendants. Relying upon the equitable maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia (the law does not compel the impossible), courts dictate that third-party litigation funding ensures equality of arms, rendering antiquated prohibitions against champerty absolute procedural nullities when judicially supervised.

Overview

In the realm of high-stakes commercial litigation, international arbitration, and class proceedings, the costs of justice are astronomical. When a mid-sized enterprise is defrauded by a multi-billion-dollar conglomerate, or when an insolvent mining company seeks to sue a multinational contractor for breach of contract, the defendant’s primary strategy is frequently not to win on the legal merits, but to win through financial attrition. The Goliath simply buries the David in hundreds of procedural motions, vast electronic discovery demands, and expert battles, knowing the plaintiff will run out of capital long before reaching a trial judge.

Contingency Fee Agreements (CFAs) alone cannot solve this crisis, as law firms cannot endlessly bankroll multi-million-dollar disbursements out of their own operating accounts. To level the playing field, the global capital markets engineered a revolutionary legal-financial instrument: Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF).

Under a TPLF agreement, a specialized commercial entity (the Funder)—such as Omni Bridgeway or Burford Capital—agrees to pay all ongoing legal fees and disbursements required to prosecute the plaintiff’s lawsuit. The Funder also frequently agrees to indemnify the plaintiff against any adverse cost awards if the case is lost. In exchange, the Funder receives a predetermined share of the financial recovery (typically a multiple of their invested capital, or 20% to 40% of the judgment/settlement). If the lawsuit fails, the Funder loses their entire investment, operating on a non-recourse basis.

Historically, this arrangement triggered violent collisions with the medieval common-law doctrines of maintenance (officious intermeddling in a lawsuit) and champerty (funding a lawsuit for a share of the spoils). However, the Supreme Court of Canada and provincial appellate courts have fundamentally modernized these doctrines. In landmark authorities such as McIntyre Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General) and Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. v. Romspen Investment Corp., 2020 SCC 11, the courts recognized that litigation funding is no longer an evil to be eradicated; it is an indispensable tool that facilitates access to justice and enables the monetization of a valid legal claim (a chose in action).

However, TPLF agreements are not immune from judicial scrutiny. Because commercial funders are motivated by profit, there is a systemic risk that the funder might attempt to seize control of the litigation strategy, force a premature settlement, or interfere with the independent solicitor-client relationship. Consequently, in class actions and insolvency proceedings, TPLF agreements must be explicitly approved by a superior court judge. The court reviews the agreement in camera to ensure the funder’s return is fair, that the plaintiff retains complete control over the litigation, and that solicitor-client privilege remains entirely intact.

By embracing and regulating TPLF, Canadian courts ensure that the merits of a civil dispute—not the size of a litigant’s treasury—dictate the ultimate outcome.

Legal Domain/Area Identification

Civil Procedure (Class Proceedings, Case Management, and Cost Rules), Commercial Litigation and Insolvency (CCAA Restructuring and Litigation Trusts), Professional Responsibility (Solicitor-Client Privilege and Conflict of Interest), Tort Law (Maintenance and Champerty), and the Doctrine of Nullity.

The Litigation Funding Approval & Deployment Matrix

Superior courts evaluate the legality and fairness of Third-Party Litigation Funding agreements through an objective, multi-stage matrix:

                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │       THIRD-PARTY LITIGATION FUNDING (TPLF) INQUIRY     │
                  │             (JUDICIAL APPROVAL & FAIRNESS AUDIT)        │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
                                               ▼
                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │    STEP 1: THRESHOLD FINANCIAL & PROCEDURAL AUDIT       │
                  │   • Plaintiff lacks capital to prosecute meritorious claim│
                  │   • Funder agrees to pay legal fees & adverse costs     │
                  │   • Non-recourse structure (Funder assumes total risk)  │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
                                               ▼
                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │    STEP 2: JUDICIAL SCRUTINY OF THE TPLF AGREEMENT      │
                  │   (Mandatory in Class Actions & Insolvency)             │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
           ┌───────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┐
           ▼                                                                       ▼
 [ UNLAWFUL CHAMPERTOUS AGREEMENT ]                                      [ APPROVED ACCESS-TO-JUSTICE TPLF ]
 • Funder granted veto power over settlements                            • Plaintiff retains absolute control of litigation
 • Funder directs lawyer's trial strategy                                • Solicitor-client relationship remains exclusive
 • Exorbitant/unconscionable percentage return                           • Funder's percentage is proportionate to risk
 • Fails to indemnify for adverse costs                                  • Sufficient capital to fund adverse cost awards
           │                                                                       │
           ▼                                                                       ▼
  [ AGREEMENT STRUCK DOWN IN LIMINE ]                                    ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
  (Fails to protect integrity of the court;                              │   STEP 3: DEPLOYMENT & PRIVILEGE SHIELD │
   Proceeding halted until defect cured)                                 │   • Common interest privilege recognized│
                                                                         │   • Funder receives updates under seal  │
                                                                         └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                                                                                              │
                                   ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────┐
                                   ▼                                                                     ▼
                       [ ADVERSARY ATTEMPTS TO DISCLOSE / PIERCE ]                           [ ADVERSARY ATTEMPTS COST ATTRITION ]
                       • Defendant demands copies of funding terms                           • Defendant files endless procedural motions
                       • Attempts to breach solicitor-client privilege                       • Defendant demands massive security for costs
                                   │                                                                     │
                                   ▼                                                                     ▼
                       [ COURT PROTECTS FUNDING CONFIDENTIALITY ]                            [ ATTRITION STRATEGY NEUTRALIZED ]
                       (Redacted terms produced; privilege upheld)                           (Funder posts security; capital matches capital)
                                                                                                         │
                                                                                                         ▼
                                                                                            ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
                                                                                            │       FINAL JURISPRUDENTIAL RELIEF      │
                                                                                            │   • Equality of Arms Achieved           │
                                                                                            │   • Case Decided on Legal Merits        │
                                                                                            │   • Judgment Enforced / Funder Paid     │
                                                                                            └─────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Complete 3-Part Lawsuit Funding Series Index

This comprehensive three-part legal treatise examines the statutory, procedural, and commercial mechanisms that empower impecunious plaintiffs to finance complex litigation across Canadian superior courts:

Part 1 of 3: The Jurisdictional Adjudication of Litigation Financing: Contingency Fee Agreements, Access to Justice, and the Annihilation of Maintenance and Champerty — Deconstructing the statutory architecture of the Solicitors Act, the transfer of litigation risk, standard form mandates, and superior court supervision of unconscionable fee agreements.
Part 2 of 3 (Current): Commercializing the Chose in Action: Third-Party Litigation Funding, Superior Court Approval, and Defeating Financial Attrition — Analyzing the rise of commercial litigation funders in class actions and complex commercial disputes, securing judicial approval of TPLF agreements under McIntyre Estate, and maintaining solicitor-client privilege.
Part 3 of 3: Cost Immunization and Interim Relief: After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance, Advance Cost Orders, and the Shield Against Adverse Costs — Formulating the strategic deployment of ATE insurance to neutralize the “loser pays” cost-shifting rule, and litigating exceptional advance cost orders under the Okanagan public interest doctrine.

Key Requirements / Elements to Secure Approval of TPLF Agreements

To successfully validate a Third-Party Litigation Funding agreement in superior court and defeat defense objections alleging unlawful champerty, counsel must structure the agreement to satisfy the following strict criteria:

The Retention of Plaintiff Control: The agreement must explicitly stipulate that the plaintiff (or the representative plaintiff in a class action) retains absolute, unfettered authority to instruct legal counsel, make tactical decisions, and accept or reject settlement offers. The Funder cannot purchase a “veto right.”
The Preservation of the Independent Legal Duty: The contract must codify that the plaintiff’s lawyer owes their fiduciary duty of loyalty and confidentiality exclusively to the plaintiff, not to the commercial Funder.
The Proportionality of the Funder’s Return: The compensation structure must be commercially reasonable. Courts routinely approve tiered returns (e.g., 10% if settled before discoveries, 20% after discoveries, 30% if won at trial), ensuring the Funder is fairly compensated for their risk without cannibalizing the plaintiff’s ultimate recovery to an unconscionable degree.
The Guarantee of Adverse Cost Indemnity: A valid TPLF agreement must ensure that the Funder commits to paying any adverse cost awards granted to the defendant if the lawsuit fails. A Funder cannot reap the upside of a victory while leaving an impecunious plaintiff to bear the ruinous costs of a defeat.
The Invocation of Common Interest Privilege: Counsel must structure information-sharing protocols with the Funder under the doctrine of “common interest privilege,” ensuring that sharing legal opinions and strategy memos with the Funder does not constitute an involuntary waiver of solicitor-client or litigation privilege to the opposing party.

Examples / Application

A. The Antitrust Class Action and the Capital Equalizer

A representative plaintiff files a $500 million national antitrust class action against three global technology conglomerates, alleging an illegal price-fixing cartel. The defendants deploy five different international law firms, inundating the plaintiff with hundreds of interlocutory motions, jurisdictional challenges, and demands for millions of pages of e-discovery. The plaintiff’s law firm cannot cash-flow the $5 million in required economic expert reports and discovery software.

Class counsel negotiates a TPLF agreement with a global litigation finance firm. The Funder commits $6 million to cover all disbursements and posts a $2 million letter of credit to satisfy the defendants’ demand for security for costs.

Counsel brings a motion under the Class Proceedings Act for judicial approval. The superior court reviews the funding agreement in camera. The judge notes that the Funder’s return is capped at 15% of the gross settlement, and that the representative plaintiff retains total control over accepting any settlement. The court approves the agreement, dictating that without the Funder’s capital, the massive price-fixing cartel would evade justice purely through financial attrition. The playing field is mathematically leveled.

B. The Insolvent Mining Company and the Monetized Chose in Action (The Bluberi Paradigm)

A Canadian mining exploration company is driven into bankruptcy due to the alleged fraudulent and oppressive tactics of its primary secured lender. The insolvent company’s only remaining asset is a massive $200 million civil lawsuit against the lender for breach of contract and corporate oppression. However, because the company is bankrupt, the court-appointed monitor has zero cash to pay lawyers to sue the lender.

The monitor enters into a TPLF agreement, securing $4 million from a litigation funder to finance the lawsuit in exchange for 30% of the eventual judgment. The secured lender (the defendant) attempts to block the funding, arguing to the bankruptcy court that selling a piece of a lawsuit to a third party is illegal champerty and an abuse of process.

The Supreme Court of Canada in Bluberi Gaming Technologies forcefully rejects the defendant lender’s argument. The Court dictates that a legal claim (a chose in action) is a valid corporate asset. In the insolvency context, litigation funding is often the only way a bankrupt company can pursue a meritorious claim and recover value for its defrauded creditors. The Court approves the funding, stripping the defendant of its financial advantage and forcing it to face a trial on the merits.

C. The Failed Funding Agreement: Unlawful Funder Control

A small software startup sues a massive competitor for patent infringement. The startup secures funding from an aggressive, unregulated private equity firm. The TPLF agreement contains a clause stating: “The Funder reserves the absolute right to replace the Plaintiff’s legal counsel at any time, and the Plaintiff agrees not to accept any settlement offer below $10 million without the express written consent of the Funder.”

The defendant discovers the terms during discovery and brings a motion to strike the proceeding for abuse of process and champerty.

The superior court immediately strikes down the funding agreement. Applying the principles of McIntyre Estate, the judge rules that the agreement constitutes illegal maintenance and champerty. The Funder unlawfully seized control of the litigation machinery, usurped the plaintiff’s autonomy, and compromised the lawyer’s fiduciary independence. The court stays the patent lawsuit until the funding agreement is completely rewritten to remove the funder’s veto and control mechanisms, demonstrating the strict limits of commercialized justice.

Regulatory Notes / Case Law

McIntyre Estate v. Ontario (Attorney General), 2002 CanLII 45046 (ON CA): The landmark Ontario Court of Appeal decision modernizing the doctrines of champerty and maintenance, confirming that properly structured third-party funding mechanisms promote, rather than hinder, access to justice.
Bluberi Gaming Technologies Inc. v. Romspen Investment Corp., 2020 SCC 11: The paramount Supreme Court of Canada authority validating Third-Party Litigation Funding in the insolvency (CCAA) context, ruling that litigation funding agreements can constitute interim financing and are essential tools for maximizing the value of debtor assets.
Houle v. St. Jude Medical Inc., 2017 ONSC 5129: Leading superior court decision establishing the rigorous criteria for approving TPLF agreements in class actions, ensuring the funder’s return is fair, that the plaintiff retains control, and that the defendants are guaranteed cost protection.
Class Proceedings Act, 1992, S.O. 1992, c. 6: The statutory framework governing class actions in Ontario, which has been interpreted by courts to mandate judicial transparency and prior approval of all external litigation funding agreements to protect absent class members.
Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194, Rule 56.01: Governing orders for security for costs, which litigation funders frequently satisfy on behalf of plaintiffs by posting irrevocable letters of credit to defeat defense attrition tactics.
Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71: The supreme authority on good faith and honest performance, establishing that litigation funders and counsel must act with complete candour and transparency when seeking court approval for financial arrangements.

nota bene: Mr. Kevin A. McLean (BA, JD, CIM) will hyperlink

Internal Links (Referrals to Other Blogs, Pages, Posts)

nota bene: Mr. Kevin A. McLean (BA, JD, CIM) will hyperlink

Funding a Lawsuit with No Savings Part 1: Contingency Fee Agreements
Cost Immunization and Interim Relief: After-the-Event (ATE) Insurance, Advance Cost Orders, and the Shield Against Adverse Costs (Part 3 of 3)
Frivolous Appeals and the Mechanics of Cost Securitization in Complex Commercial Litigation
The Legal Consequences of Misconceived Proceedings: Quashing Vexatious Claims Before the Merits Phase (Part 3 of 3)
Piercing the Corporate Veil in Family Law Disputes

External Authoritative Links

nota bene: Mr. Kevin A. McLean (BA, JD, CIM) will hyperlink

Ontario Superior Court of Justice – Class Action Practice Directions
Supreme Court of Canada – Judgments Repository (Bluberi)
Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) – Litigation Funding Decisions
Law Society of Ontario – Professional Conduct Rules on Third-Party Funding

FAQ Section

What is Third-Party Litigation Funding (TPLF)? Third-Party Litigation Funding is a financial arrangement where an outside company (the Funder) agrees to pay the massive legal fees and expert costs required to run a major lawsuit. If the lawsuit is successful, the Funder takes a pre-agreed percentage of the settlement or court judgment. If the lawsuit fails, the Funder loses their money, and the plaintiff owes them nothing. It allows plaintiffs with no money to fight massive corporations on an equal playing field.

Is litigation funding legal in Canada? Yes. Historically, it was banned under medieval laws called “champerty and maintenance” because courts feared strangers would stir up frivolous lawsuits for profit. However, the Supreme Court of Canada and provincial appellate courts have modernized the law. Today, TPLF is legally recognized and encouraged, especially in class actions and corporate bankruptcies, because it provides crucial “access to justice” for those who cannot afford hourly legal fees.

Does the litigation funder get to make the decisions in my lawsuit? Emphatically, no. In order for a TPLF agreement to be legally valid and approved by a judge, the contract must explicitly state that the plaintiff retains 100% control over the lawsuit. The funder cannot force you to accept a settlement, cannot veto your decisions, and cannot tell your lawyer how to run the trial. The lawyer’s ethical duty of loyalty remains exclusively to you, the client.

What happens if I use a litigation funder and we lose the case? A properly structured TPLF agreement operates on a “non-recourse” basis. This means if you lose the trial, you do not have to pay the funder back for the millions they spent on your legal fees. Furthermore, a court-approved funding agreement will require the funder to pay any “adverse costs” (the penalty where a losing plaintiff must pay the winning defendant’s legal bills), completely immunizing you from financial ruin.

Why does a judge have to approve the funding agreement? Because funders are profit-driven corporations, the court acts as a gatekeeper to protect vulnerable plaintiffs. In class actions and bankruptcies, a superior court judge will review the contract privately (in camera) to ensure that the funder’s percentage cut is fair (usually 10% to 30%), that the plaintiff hasn’t surrendered control of the lawsuit, and that the funder actually has the cash in the bank to pay the bills. If the contract is predatory, the judge will strike it down.

Law Cap Value Proposition

Law Cap Inc. (part of the “Search & Seizure Law Group Of Companies”) is a specialized legal‑forensics and digital analysis platform dedicated to sophisticated litigation strategy, constitutional oversight, and advanced asset tracking. Led by an editor with cross‑disciplinary expertise in law, securities, and behavioral psychology, Law Cap Inc. conducts high‑level blockchain forensics (including EVM‑network parsing), complex fraud analysis, metadata manipulation verification, and forensic document examination. The platform provides unrepresented litigants, counsel, and organizations with advanced, on a pro bono publico basis, analytical frameworks for navigating institutional overreach, administrative complexity, and regulatory terrain.

Law Cap exposes the strategic vulnerabilities of the administrative state. When federal tribunals attempt to weaponize silence, misdirection, and procedural delay to shield their actions from judicial review, LawCap provides the precise tactical blueprints to break the blockade. We translate complex prerogative remedies like structural mandamus, the prohibition against bootstrapping, and the doctrine of spoliation into actionable, high-impact legal strategy. By insisting on absolute algorithmic and statutory compliance. By insisting on absolute algorithmic and statutory compliance with the Federal Courts Rules, LawCap ensures that the foundational digital evidence—the raw truth of state action—is relentlessly extracted from the shadows and placed under the uncompromising scrutiny of the courts.

About the Founder, Owner, Executive Chair and CEO

Mr. Kevin A. McLean (B.A., J.D., CIM) (he/him) established Law Cap Inc. (“LawCap”) as a global platform for legal strategy, constitutional advocacy, and digital forensics. Operating within Ontario, Mr. McLean utilizes his background as a former barrister and solicitor in British Columbia, alongside credentials as a Chartered Investment Manager with the world famous and accredited Canadian Securities Institute located in Toronto, Ontario (Wellington West Avenue) (having passed in the span of eight months (eight multi-hour exams and ten if including the “mutual funds course” (see: infra): (i) the Canadian Securities Course: (ii) Wealth Management Essentials (with tax compendium modules); (iii) Investment Management Techniques; and (iv) Portfolio Management Techniques (along with although not required for the designation, the (v) the mutual funds course), to apply a broad and deep based analytical approach to Charter rights litigation and administrative accountability.

His background (the grind and lucky as they come)

Raised between the oceanfront calm of Spanish Banks in Vancouver and the warmth of Barbados, Mr. McLean grew up with a global perspective shaped by contrast — privilege without entitlement, exposure without complacency. The only father he knew, Mr. John Nugent (BA, JD, MBA, CFA Level I), legally adopted him at age nine (although ‘introduced’ at age three), marking Mr. McLean’s first direct encounter with litigation involving an absentee biological parent (father). He remains grateful to Mr. Jim Schuman, QC (as he then was), whose guidance during that process left a lasting impression on him.

Learning from the best through “osmosis” like a sponge in the Caribbean Sea

Living in Barbados part of each year throughout the 1980s and 1990s — never fully realizing how fortunate he was — Mr. McLean was introduced early to concepts such as trusts, tax residency requirements, capital gains, seed capital, convertible debentures, preferred shares, and other foundational elements of financial architecture. As his father often reminded him, “Education gets the foot in the door, but you learn and grow by doing — and you are either getting better or getting worse.”

Before his foray into junior mining on the West Coast — a sector many affectionately referred to as the “Wild West” — — Mr. Nugent served as President of Gardiner Group Stock Inc., where he managed more than 4,000 stock brokers, investment advisors, money managers, and analysts prior to the firm’s acquisition by TD Bank (a detail Mr. McLean now finds somewhat ironic). It was during this period that Mr. Nugent met Mr. McLean’s mother, then a stock broker and now a highly accomplished, world‑renowned professor and philanthropist with a Ph.D. The greatest compliment Mr. McLean has ever received came from Mr. Nugent himself, who once told him: “The best talker, salesman, and charismatic person I have ever seen. If he gets some substance, it will be a dangerous package in the real world.” Therein, the seeds of a dangerous truth-telling was born. Refinement and maturity were late blooming qualities – admittedly so.

Educational and Athletic Blessings: the infrastructure to form the public interest litigator

Mr. McLean was privileged and blessed to have attended the prestigious St. George’s School in Vancouver for both elementary and high school. When he realized that his then‑dream of representing Canada in a singular sport was becoming a reality, he transitioned to the Sports and Arts Program at Magee Secondary School, where he could begin classes an hour early and avoid elective and physical‑education requirements. This structure allowed him to train at an elite level, ultimately reaching number two in Canada in the U18 division and competing globally as a member of the Canadian National Tennis Team. He graduated from Magee Secondary School as the top student, earning the Principal’s List distinction with a 4.0 GPA in all courses.

Mr. Kevin A. McLean (BA, JD, CIM) carries on the Spanish Banks (Vancouver) running excellence tradition into the field of law nationwide (Canadian Bar Association 5 KM race)

While running a 15‑minute 5K at age 30 in the Canadian Bar Association race was an immense athletic accomplishment, Mr. McLean cherishes it most because he felt he was protecting the turf where his father had given him the privilege of growing up. His second most cherished athletic memory was winning the five‑kilometre race for the entire high school in Grade 9.

His earliest remains hitting two free throws with one second left — down by one — in Grade 7 to win the Vancouver city championship for St. George’s against St. Patrick’s. His earliest remains hitting two free throws with one second left — down by one — in Grade 7 to win the Vancouver city championship for St. George’s against St. Patrick’s.

The “McLean Name”: from the Highlands of Scotland and ode to William Wallace

The McLean name is Scottish, carried forward from Mr. McLean’s grandfather, Mr. Angus Alexander McLean, P. Eng. — the source of Mr. McLean’s middle name. Angus was married to Mrs. Margaret McLean, once the top tennis player in Canada in the 1940s and an accomplished field‑hockey athlete. She tragically passed away from cancer before Mr. She tragically passed away from cancer before Mr. McLean could meet her, though he has always understood why sport came naturally to him — the long stride, the biomechanics, and the competitive instinct. Angus suffered from macular degeneration, leaving him fully blind at age 60, and later Parkinson’s disease. He passed away in 2002, but Mr. McLean visited him every summer in Salmon Arm (having been born in Smithers, B.C.), often accompanied by his paternal grandmother, Ms. McLean visited him every summer in Salmon Arm (having been born in Smithers, B.C.), often accompanied by his paternal grandmother, Ms. Helen Elizabeth Lane (née Allsop), a pilot well into her 80s who passed away in 2012 and remains his favourite woman of all time. Mr. McLean often reflects on his grandfather’s resilience, noting: “I never heard him complain once — and if we could all be so grateful to be alive.” Through an eccentric yet uniquely detailed family tree, Mr. McLean learned that the McLean surname traces back to the 1300s in Scotland alongside none other than Sir William Wallace (later sensationalized by Mel Gibson in Braveheart). It thus became unsurprising to him why he has always been so staunchly stubborn and assertive about one’s rights, no matter the circumstance.

The Most Unique of Skill Sets at age 43 (March 25, 1983) (a “True Aries”)

Intersections of Law and Cryptography

The professional trajectory of Mr. McLean is defined by the deconstruction of unauthorized surveillance networks and the exposure of systemic irregularities.

Forensic Capabilities: His forensic data skills have frequently addressed complex anomalies within administrative and appellate contexts.
Blockchain Analysis: Following a 2014 incident involving an unauthorized RAM dump, Mr. McLean acquired proficiency in hexadecimal language to parse a one-million-page compressed architectural record.
Cross-Chain Tracking: He successfully traced unauthorized data disclosures across the Ethereum blockchain in Switzerland and EVM-compatible networks, such as the Binance Smart Chain (BSC).
Judicial Evidence: These findings provided significant blockchain evidence before the Honourable Justice Bowden of the British Columbia Supreme Court (BCSC) in December 2015 which was withheld from the BCSC (see: McLean v. Law Society of British Columbia, 2015 BCSC 661; McLean v. Law Society of British Columbia, 2015 BCSC 1431; McLean v. Law Society of British Columbia, 2015 BCSC 1972; McLean v Law Society of British Columbia, 2017 BCSC 987; Law Society of British Columbia (Re), 2018 BCIPC 37 (author was the successful unnamed respondent therein); and McLean v. Attorney General of British Columbia, 2019 BCCA 133 [defeated the AGBC at the Court of Appeal, no leave to appeal by AGBC]; and by change of legislation in 2024, the author has become the first to ever defeat in any motion, hearing and in finality a professional and regulatory association or body at all and in the field of public interest litigation involving the breach of Charter rights of members and clients of members

Adversity and Resilience

After transitioning to e-commerce ventures in the health and wellness sector in 2015, Mr. McLean navigated and is navigating as a result of CAT impairments (physical in nature but with mind-body connection) significant extralegal challenges and physical trauma.

Physical Recovery: Following a severe vehicular incident on August 31, 2022, which resulted in devastating spinal injuries, he maintains a disciplined daily regimen involving specialized orthotics and minimalist biomechanics to manage his recovery.
Procedural Strategy: Despite physical hardship, Mr. McLean utilized an extensive command of procedural law during a multi-jurisdictional detention to secure his release by demanding adherence to Criminal Code protocols, specifically Form 2 and Form 7 requirements.

Litigation and Procedural Discovery

This commitment to legal redress led to the discovery of a notable event in Canadian legal history: the post-facto falsification of a six-page “Information Package” (footer CCO-2–000-1).

Case Comparison: While historical precedents such as R. v. Silva (Quebec 2019/2020) involved the unauthorized use of a judicial stamp, the wholesale falsification of an entire six-page package is considered unprecedented.
Ongoing Oversight: Further irregularities, nullities (jurisdictional in nature) discovered involving various levels of the judiciary remain subjects of scrutiny and formal complaint.

Outside Interests: Athletics and mental health (lifelong journeys – not destinations)

Mr. Kevin A. McLean (BA, JD, CIM) has always lived life at full speed — sometimes literally. He still holds the record for the fastest five‑kilometre time ever run by a lawyer in the Canadian Bar Association’s annual 5K race, clocking an extraordinary 15:05 in one of the years he won the event. Before entering law, Kevin competed on the Canadian National Tennis Team (U16 and U18), representing Canada at the world‑renowned Orange Bowl — the largest junior tennis tournament on the planet. Winning a round there placed him among the top 20 junior players globally in his age category.

His athletic career continued at The Ohio State University, where he played NCAA tennis on scholarship beginning in 2001. To this day, Kevin remains a proud Buckeye, a donor to the university, and a familiar (or intentionally hard‑to‑find) face on eight or so College Football Saturdays each year in Columbus, Ohio. He still enjoys the tradition of “Kegs and Eggs,” though for him it’s now just the eggs — Kevin is a long‑retired drinker who speaks openly and gratefully about the role evidence‑based treatment including medication for ADHD played in transforming his life. He recommends (but does not advise) anyone struggling with any such symptoms to seek professional help from a qualified psychiatrist.

Kevin is single, unmarried, and a non‑parent — not out of absence, but out of purpose. As he likes to say, he is “married to the game,” and he believes “the public deserves it.” His work, his advocacy, and his commitment to building accessible legal knowledge platforms reflect that ethos: disciplined, service‑oriented, and driven by a sense of responsibility larger than himself.

The Philosophy of LawCap

LawCap is a movement where intellectual application and mental fortitude are prioritized over brute force. The philosophy maintains that systemic corruption is addressed through analytical capacity and a command of the law. LawCap seeks the engagement of individuals dedicated to improving society and achieving accountability through truth. Live your life within the boundaries of law and on your own terms.

GOOGLE MY BUSINESS

Contact Information and Helpful Links

Email: info@lawcap.ca and mclean@searchandseizure.ca

Confidential fax: (416) 352‑0055

Mailing address: Suite 314, 720 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario

Google My Business: LawCap Inc.

Feel free to check out our daily posts! We break the news before the so called “breaking news”! #breakthenewsbeforethebreakingnews (it is a mouthful but iron sharps iron and no pain no gain. If it was easy, everyone would be doing it. Feel free to chat with us on Google MyBusiness, email, text, call and if you are really fearful of government (and we have been there and nothing wrong with some out of an abundance of caution (ex abundanti cautela), you can confidentially fax at 1 (416) 352-0055). We honour strictly the duty of confidence found as precedent in the SCC and paying a little homage to No Limits Sportswear Inc. v. 0912139 B.C. Ltd., 2015 BCSC 1698 as per The Honourable Madam Justice S. Griffin (who in the Applicant’s estimation was and is a phenomenal judge but obviously he is most partial to The Honourable Madam Justice Gerow, The Honourable Mr. Justice Bowden, The Honourable Mr. Justice Grauer The Honourable Mr. Justice McIntosh, The Honourable Madam Justice Dickson, The Honourable Mr. Justice Masuhara, The Honourable Mr. Justice Goepel (as he then was) and The Honourable Mr. Justice Tysoe) (and oddly The Honourable Justice Matajawa as per the caselaw in LSBC v. Lawyer “A” as he found that the Applicant’s case against the LSBC involved him not consenting to any forensic copying (little did he or the Applicant know at the time that there was a Concealed RAM Dump).

Courage is contagious. A coward dies a thousands deaths but a warrior dies but one (Sir William Shakespeare). Lastly, to the extent that anything is shared via any medium, the recipient is under a strict duty of confidence and cannot be compelled to provide the same absent court order and to the extent any matter involves matters preparatory to litigation and/or ongoing litigation, it will be presumed to be protected by litigation privilege without any exceptions).

DISCLAIMER (generally)

It is strictly mandated that no constituent element of the information promulgated herein shall be erroneously construed as the provision of formal legal advisement; concurrently, the dissemination of such documentation ipso facto precludes the formation of any solicitor-client, attorney-client, or analogous professional relationship (the “Professional Relationship”). All articulated postulations, wherein they remain unanchored to demonstrable and objective empirical data, constitute the exclusive, prima facie perspectives of the underlying commercial enterprise (the “Commercial Enterprise”). Furthermore, all disseminated publications are incontrovertibly shielded by established jurisprudential defences (the “Jurisprudential Defences”), encompassing justification, fair comment promulgated strictly in good faith, and the rigorous execution of a moral, ethical, statutory, prescribed, and common law duty, coupled with recognized journalistic protections as elucidated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Grant v Torstar Corp, 2009 SCC 61 (the “Grant Decision”).

Potential Lawsuits (generally and this specific article, post or blog): Waiver of Personal Service and Cautionary Admonition

Regarding any subjective apprehension of a nascent cause of action within the jurisdiction of Ontario grounded in defamation, or any alternative tortious liability implicating this digital publication platform (the “Publication Platform”), the aforementioned commercial enterprise, or the individual proprietor, Kevin Alexander McLean, B.A., J.D., C.I.M. (the “Proprietor”, “CEO”, “Owner”, “Editor”)—who formerly practiced as a barrister and solicitor in the jurisdiction of British Columbia and maintains the professional designation of Chartered Investment Manager—it is unequivocally mandated that such grievances be addressed pursuant to the rigorous strictures of Canadian tort jurisprudence.

Should litigation be commenced against the commercial enterprise or the proprietor pertaining to allegations of defamation, irrespective of the underlying judiciousness of the antecedent legal advisement, service of process shall be accepted exclusively via electronic transmission at the previously designated electronic mailing addresses, thereby effectuating a binding waiver of the requirement for effectuating personal service. Notwithstanding this procedural concession, an unequivocal reservation of rights is maintained in limine for the explicit purpose of seeking security for costs, pursuing the summarily striking of the pleadings via summary judgment—strictly distinguished from a summary trial—and applying for elevated cost awards on a substantial indemnity or full indemnity basis against the initiating party in either a personal or corporate capacity. Furthermore, overarching rights are expressly reserved to seek interlocutory and injunctive relief, alongside the commencement of counterclaims seeking substantive damages for multifarious tortious infractions, expressly including the tort of abuse of process, and concurrently seeking remedial measures against any retained legal representatives. The prerogative to freely publish commentary delineating the procedural evolution of any such litigation, constituting public acta, is similarly and irrevocably reserved.

Given that causes of action sounding in defamation must be adjudicated before a superior court possessing inherent jurisdiction—specifically, a tribunal constituted pursuant to section 96 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (the “Section 96 Court”)—any party initiating such proceedings irrevocably attorns generally to the jurisdiction of the Province of Ontario and to that specific judicial echelon at first instance. Judicial resources remain intrinsically finite; their utilization necessitates the expenditure of the public treasury across multiple governmental strata. This encompasses the executive branch, financed by the provincial government via the taxation of the citizenry; the judicial branch, remunerated by the federal government; and tertiary municipal expenditures whereby auxiliary judicial officers are perpetually contracted through municipal law enforcement agencies, functioning effectively as a government institution (the “Government Institution”), such as the Toronto Police Services Board.

While the fundamental right to articulate dissenting opinions is rigorously respected, and electronic correspondence remains welcomed for the exclusive purpose of identifying substantive inaccuracies necessitating amelioration, it is unambiguously declared that no financial indemnification shall be disbursed, as no valid cause of action in defamation or otherwise is recognized to subsist. Consequently, should the instigation of formal litigation remain the finalized trajectory, the requisite tariff of fees must be remitted in strict accordance with the attendant regulations promulgated under the Administration of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. A.4. Subsequently, discrete copies of the formally issued—as rigidly distinguished from merely filed—statement of claim (the “Statement Of Claim”) must be concurrently served upon all respective respondents, whereupon subsequent procedural mechanisms shall be accordingly activated. Any deviation from these prescribed procedural modalities, constituting a direct contravention of statutory mandates, the equitable doctrines of fairness, or the strictures delineated within the Rules of Civil Procedure, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 (the “Procedural Rules”), shall categorically not be countenanced as a remediable irregularity. Rather, such defective origination or procedural non-compliance shall be definitively construed as an absolute nullity, functioning ultra vires the initiating party’s jurisprudential authority, and effectuating a compulsory reversion to the status quo ante.

Love Finding Topics in an Efficient Manner?

Do you need any help finding a topic or tag, in addition to our encyclopedia, please click our “Legal Topics & Investigative Index” and it will assist in you finding topics, posts, blogs, and pages on that specific topic or tag: https://lawcap.ca/legal-topics-investigative-index/

Feel free to check out “No Cap” © Legal Encyclopedia ©, which is updated and grows daily: https://lawcap.ca/law-cap-inc-s-proprietary-and-trademarked-no-cap-legal-encyclopedia/#jn-a