This page contains the Applicant’s Motion Record for Notice of Motion #2 in McLean v. TDHA et al, served and filed on January 31, 2025 in the Divisional Court. The Motion Record forms the evidentiary and procedural foundation for the Applicant’s urgent opposed motion under Rules 37.05(3), 37.12(4), and 37.13(2)(a), seeking (i) preliminary judicial assignment directions, (ii) determination of unresolved issues from Motion #1, (iii) recusal‑based relief concerning Madam Justice Shore, (iv) conversion of the motion in writing into a motion for Judgment, and (v) administrative and costs‑related orders under Rule 68 and the Divisional Court Practice Direction.
The Motion Record includes the Notice of Motion (Form 37A), the Affidavit of Service (Form 16B), the Applicant’s JRPA Application, the Factum of December 10, 2024, the Application Record of December 12, 2024, Affidavit #2 (December 30, 2024), Affidavit #4 (January 18, 2025), the Certificate of Perfection, tendered requisitions, and all supporting materials referenced in the Applicant’s Factum for Motion #2 and his COI Recusal Submissions. It also incorporates the Applicant’s oral outline and compendium materials to be uploaded to Case Center upon invitation.
The Motion Record documents the Tribunal’s continued non‑compliance with section 10 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act and section 20 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, including its failure to file even a single document from the Record of Proceeding. It further records the Applicant’s discovery — made possible only after the launch of the Ontario Courts Public Portal in October 2025 — that none of the Respondents had filed or delivered their Notices of Appearance in accordance with Rule 38.07 and Rule 1.03 (“deliver” meaning serve and file with proof of service). This procedural revelation demonstrates that the Respondents were not properly before the Court and had not taken the mandatory steps required to participate in the JRPA proceeding, fundamentally undermining the Tribunal’s prematurity objection and reinforcing the Applicant’s position that the matter is ripe for disposition.
The Motion Record also addresses the Tribunal’s discretionary deadlines, technological failures, removal of counsel’s business address from the Law Society directory, and its pattern of evasive communications. It situates these issues within the broader jurisprudential framework governing judicial review, including Payne, Savone, CIBC Trust, Zurich v. Chubb, Awada, Mansuri, Heegsma, and the Divisional Court’s Judicial Review Guide. The Record supports the Applicant’s argument that this is a “proper case” for conversion to a motion for Judgment under Rule 37.13(2)(a), given the absence of a filed Record of Proceeding, the AGO’s waiver of participation, the urgency of the rule‑of‑law issues, and the Tribunal’s inability to meet its statutory obligations.
This page forms part of LawCap’s public‑interest archive documenting procedural fairness, judicial independence, record‑integrity doctrine, statutory compliance, and the Divisional Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over administrative decision‑makers. It reinforces the Applicant’s broader position that the JRPA Application is ready for final determination and that continued delay would risk a failure of justice.
About the Founder: Kevin A. McLean
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, to apply an analytical approach to Charter rights litigation and administrative accountability.
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 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 discovered involving various levels of the judiciary remain subjects of scrutiny and formal complaint.
Outside Interests
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 accountabilitythrough truth. Live your life within the boundaries of law and on your own terms.
Disclaimer: Nothing provided herein is to be construed as legal advice, nor does it create any solicitor-client, attorney-client, or professional relationship. All opinions expressed, where not grounded in objective facts, are the exclusive opinions of the business. All publications are protected by the legal defenses of truth, fair comment, and journalistic defenses recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada.