Home / Trending / Mistrials Part 3: The Retrial – Starting from Scratch

Trending

Mistrials Part 3: The Retrial – Starting from Scratch

October 16, 2026

The Retrial – Starting from Scratch like a CZ from Binance coming out of federal prison

Opening Question

When an aborted criminal proceeding is remitted for a second trial on the original indictment, how do litigators and trial judges empanel an impartial jury free from prior-trial contamination, what strategic adjustments govern the recalibration of witness cross-examinations using prior sworn testimony under the Canada Evidence Act, and what systemic mechanisms mitigate the profound financial and psychological toll of relitigating serious criminal charges?

Direct Answer Paragraph

The procedural necessity of relitigating an aborted criminal indictment affords absolutely no license to duplicate tactical errors or compromise adjudicative fairness. Relying upon Herbert Broom’s equitable maxim ad ea quae frequentius accidunt jura adaptantur (laws are adapted to those cases which most frequently happen), superior courts dictate that while a retrial operates de novo regarding the evidentiary record, counsel are legally bound to prior sworn transcript admissions under Sections 10 and 11 of the Canada Evidence Act, rendering opportunistic shifts in witness testimony fatal to curial credibility.

Foundational Post

For an extensive investigation into how statutory drafting, digital governance, and forensic frameworks intersect across modern corporate and regulatory jurisdictions, consult our primary briefing: https://lawcap.ca/smart-legislation-law-for-a-digital-age/

Overview

When the assignment court clerk calls an indictment for a retrial following a judicial order of mistrial, the procedural slate is nominally wiped clean. A fresh panel of prospective jurors gathers in the body of the courtroom; the trial judge delivers preliminary remarks; the indictment is re-read; and the accused enters a plea of not guilty.

To the lay observer, the proceeding appears identical to the trial that collapsed months earlier. To seasoned criminal litigators, however, a retrial is an entirely different operational species.

A second trial never starts from pure scratch. It operates as a high-stakes sequel where both the Crown and the defense enter the arena armed with total tactical hindsight. Every opening address, every direct examination, every cross-examination angle, and every judicial ruling on voir dire applications from the first proceeding has been indexed, scrutinized, and stress-tested.

Part 3 of this three-part treatise deconstructs the trial mechanics of Round Two:

Empanelling the Blank Slate: The rigorous procedural safeguards required during voir dire and challenge for cause under Section 638 of the Criminal Code to prevent prospective jurors from learning about the aborted first trial, deadlocked deliberations, or excluded prejudicial evidence.
The Strategic Recalibration: How Crown prosecutors repair evidentiary holes exposed by the first jury, how defense litigators adapt their cross-examination themes, and the forensic execution of prior inconsistent statement impeachment under Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Canada Evidence Act.
The Human and Systemic Toll: Analyzing the acute financial attrition, witness fatigue, and psychological trauma inflicted on accused persons, victims, and the public purse when serious indictments must be tried twice.

                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │            THE RETRIAL OPERATIONAL TIMELINE             │
                  │             (COMMENCING ROUND TWO DE NOVO)              │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
                                               ▼
                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │    STEP 1: PRE-TRIAL RE-ALIGNMENT & JURY SELECTION      │
                  │   • Section 638 Challenge for Cause (Pre-trial Publicity│
                  │   • Total shielding of jury from prior mistrial facts   │
                  │   • Refreshing witness summonses and subpoenas          │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
           ┌───────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┐
           ▼                                                                       ▼
 [ THE PROSECUTION'S RECALIBRATION ]                                     [ THE DEFENSE TRANSCRIPT OFFENSIVE ]
 • Trimming weak or non-credible civilian witnesses                     • Indexing word-for-word transcript inconsistencies
 • Calling expert witnesses to resolve ambiguities                      • Preparing Sections 10/11 CEA cross-examinations
 • Pre-empting defense self-defense theories                            • Enforcing strict limits on shifting Crown theories
           │                                                                       │
           ▼                                                                       ▼
 ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐                             ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
 │       STEP 2: EVIDENTIARY MERITS        │                             │    THE WITNESS IMPEACHMENT GAUNTLET     │
 │ • Opening statements re-framed          │                             │ • Confront witness with prior sworn oath│
 │ • Evidence tendered de novo             │                             │ • Establish contradiction on record     │
 │ • Prior voir dire rulings re-argued     │                             │ • Shatter credibility before new jury   │
 └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘                             └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                      │                                                                       │
                      └───────────────────────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┘
                                                      │
                                                      ▼
                                         ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
                                         │       STEP 3: DELIBERATIVE RESOLUTION   │
                                         │   • Full jury charge delivered          │
                                         │   • Verdict reached: Acquittal/Guilty   │
                                         │   • Section 11(h) jeopardy attaches     │
                                         │   • Finality restored to the record     │
                                         └─────────────────────────────────────────┘

Legal Domain Identification

Criminal Law and Procedure (Section 638 Challenge for Cause, Section 653 Discharge of Jury, Section 653.1 Mistrial Powers of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46; Section 11(d) Fair Trial Rights), Constitutional Law (Section 11(b) Unreasonable Delay under R. v. Jordan, Section 7 Fundamental Justice), Evidence Law (Sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Canada Evidence Act, Cross-Examination on Prior Sworn Transcripts, Collateral Facts Rule), and the Law of Costs in Criminal Proceedings.

The Retrial Strategic Recalibration Matrix

Trial judges, Crown prosecutors, and defense counsel navigate a second trial through an objective diagnostic matrix balancing fresh evidence against prior sworn testimony:

                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │          THE RETRIAL STRATEGIC DECISION MATRIX          │
                  │               (TACTICAL REALIGNMENT & TRIAL)            │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
                                               ▼
                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │    STEP 1: PRE-TRIAL JURY CONTAMINATION AUDIT           │
                  │   Does the community know the first trial deadlocked?   │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
           ┌───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┐
           ▼                                   ▼                                   ▼
 [ 1. HIGH PUBLICITY RETRIAL ]       [ 2. WITNESS MEMORY DECAY ]         [ 3. FINANCIAL / ATTRITION STRAIN ]
 • Intensive local media coverage    • Passage of time erodes memory     • Accused's legal funds exhausted
 • Move for Section 638 Challenge    • Complainant reluctant to testify  • Rowbotham state-funded counsel
   for Cause on partiality           • Crown relies on s. 715 read-in    • Systemic Jordan delay threshold
           │                                   │                                   │
           ▼                                   ▼                                   ▼
 ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐ ┌─────────────────────────────────┐
 │ STATUTORY VOIR DIRE GATE        │ │ TRANSCRIPT ANCHORING TEST       │ │ SYSTEMIC CAPACITY SCREEN        │
 │ • Jurors questioned individually│ │ • Pin witness to first-trial    │ │ • Assess total delay under      │
 │   on media exposure             │ │   transcripts under CEA s. 10   │ │   the 30-month Jordan ceiling   │
 │ • Tainted jurors discharged     │ │ • Impeach on factual shifts     │ │ • Defense brings s. 11(b) motion│
 └─────────────────┬───────────────┘ └─────────────────┬───────────────┘ └─────────────────┬───────────────┘
                   │                                   │                                   │
                   └───────────────────────────────────┼───────────────────────────────────┘
                                                       │
                                                       ▼
                                          ┌─────────────────────────────┐
                                          │ STEP 2: TRIAL PRESENTATION  │
                                          │ • Re-Opening Statements     │
                                          │ • Prior Inconsistent Proof  │
                                          │ • Clean Evidentiary Record  │
                                          └──────────────┬──────────────┘
                                                         │
                                  ┌──────────────────────┴──────────────────────┐
                                  ▼                                             ▼
                      [ MERITS VERDICT DELIVERED ]                    [ COLLATERAL PROCEEDINGS ]
                      • Jury returns unanimous verdict                • Section 24(1) costs application
                      • Conviction or absolute acquittal              • Rowbotham funding reviews
                      • Retrial cycle permanently terminated          • Appellate review on retrial rulings

The Complete 3-Part Series Index: Navigating the Legal Reset

Part 1: Mistrials Part 1: Anatomy of a Mistrial – Why Trials Self-Destruct — Deconstructing the legal baseline of a mistrial, differentiating it from an acquittal, analyzing the high discretionary bar of curative instructions, and examining the primary triggers: hung juries, incurable evidentiary prejudice, juror misconduct, and force majeure.
Part 2: Mistrials Part 2: The Post-Mistrial Chess Match – What Happens Next? — Analyzing the strategic window immediately following trial termination: the prosecutor’s charging dilemma (retry, plea bargain, or enter a stay), the parameters of Section 11(h) Charter double jeopardy protections, the bad-faith provocation exception, and leveraging first-trial transcripts as a tactical dress rehearsal.
Part 3 (Current): Mistrials Part 3: The Retrial – Starting from Scratch (With a Twist) — Examining the mechanics of re-trying an indictment: empanelling an uncontaminated jury, recalibrating witness cross-examination strategies, managing transcript impeachment under the Canada Evidence Act, and the financial, psychological, and systemic toll of relitigating criminal proceedings.

Key Requirements / Elements Governing Retrial Procedure

When a criminal retrial commences, counsel and the presiding judge must govern themselves according to five foundational principles of criminal procedure and evidence:

The Absolute Shielding of the New Jury from Prior Trial History: The second jury must decide the case solely upon the evidence admitted before them under oath. Under established Canadian practice (R. v. Corbett, R. v. Park), the new jury must never be informed that a previous trial occurred, that a previous jury deadlocked, or that an earlier proceeding was aborted due to prejudicial errors. When counsel cross-examine witnesses using transcripts from the first trial, they must refer neutrally to “a prior legal proceeding” or “sworn testimony given on [Date],” never using the word “mistrial” or revealing the prior jury’s existence.
The Scope of Challenge for Cause (Section 638(1)(b)): Where a mistrial was caused by high-profile courtroom misconduct, juror exposure, or where the first trial attracted intense media coverage, moving counsel can invoke Section 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code to challenge prospective jurors for cause on the ground that they are not indifferent between the Queen and the accused. Potential jurors are questioned individually to ensure they have not formed biased opinions based on news reports detailing the aborted first trial.
The Evidentiary Mechanics of Sections 10 and 11 of the Canada Evidence Act: Under Section 10 of the Canada Evidence Act, a witness may be cross-examined on prior statements made in writing or reduced to writing (which includes certified verbatim trial transcripts). If counsel intends to contradict the witness using the transcript, counsel must: (1) direct the witness’s attention to the specific parts of the transcript that are to be used for contradiction; (2) give the witness an opportunity to read or hear the prior testimony; and (3) ask whether they made that prior statement. Under Section 11, if the witness denies or equivocates, counsel may prove the prior inconsistent statement by tendering certified transcripts into the record.
The Rule Against Inconsistent Crown Theories: While the Crown is entitled to present its case afresh, prosecutors cannot radically reverse their core theory of liability simply because their initial narrative failed to persuade the first jury. Under the Supreme Court of Canada’s jurisprudence on abuse of process and curial integrity (R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63), shifting to an irreconcilably contradictory factual theory between trials can constitute an abuse of process that taints the fairness of the retrial.
Managing Witness Unavailability (Section 715 of the Criminal Code): Because months or years often elapse between a mistrial and a retrial, key witnesses may become deceased, incapacitated, or refuse to cooperate. Under Section 715 of the Criminal Code, the evidence of a witness taken at a previous trial may be read into evidence at the retrial if it is proven that the witness is dead, insane, too ill to travel, or absent from Canada, provided that the accused had a full opportunity to cross-examine the witness at the first proceeding.

Examples / Application

A. The Challenge for Cause and the High-Profile Retrial

An accused is tried before a jury in a mid-sized Ontario judicial district for attempted murder involving an altercation outside a nightclub. On the third day of deliberations, the jury reports an intractable 6-to-6 deadlock, resulting in a mistrial under Section 653 of the Criminal Code. Local media extensively reports the deadlock, quoting anonymous courtroom spectators discussing inadmissible gang-affiliation allegations that were excluded during pre-trial voir dires.

Fourteen months later, the retrial is called before a fresh jury panel:

Defense counsel files an application under Section 638(1)(b) of the Criminal Code for challenge for cause, submitting media monitoring metrics proving that 70% of the local jurisdiction was exposed to news coverage detailing the excluded gang allegations;
The trial judge grants the application, establishing a standardized screening question: “Have you read, heard, or seen media reports concerning the previous proceedings in this case, and if so, does that exposure prevent you from deciding this case impartially based solely on the evidence inside this courtroom?”;
Two prospective jurors admit they read the news reports and believed the accused “must be guilty because the first jury split”; they are immediately excused for lack of indifference; and
An uncontaminated jury panel is successfully empanelled, insulating the second trial from the prejudicial taint that doomed the first.

B. The Section 10 Impeachment of the Recalibrated Police Officer

In a prosecution for possession of a loaded restricted firearm for a dangerous purpose, the primary issue is whether police officers had reasonable grounds to search the accused’s backpack. At the first trial, the arresting officer testified under oath: “I opened the backpack immediately because I felt an unidentifiable hard metallic object from the exterior; I did not see any part of the weapon before unzipping it.” The trial resulted in a hung jury on the substantive weapon charge.

At the retrial, recognizing that the defense had built an aggressive Section 8 Charter argument around the warrantless search, the officer attempts to tighten his testimony on direct examination: “As I approached the backpack, the zipper was partially open, and I plainly observed the distinct checkered grip of a semi-automatic handgun protruding through the opening.”

Defense counsel steps to the cross-examination podium armed with the certified transcript of the first trial:

Counsel: “Officer, today you told this jury under oath that you saw the checkered grip of the firearm protruding before you touched the bag, correct?”
Officer: “Yes, that is my recollection.”
Counsel: “You testified in this exact courthouse under oath sixteen months ago regarding this exact arrest, correct?”
Officer: “Yes.”
Counsel: Counsel invokes Section 10 of the Canada Evidence Act, presents the officer with page 84 of the first trial transcript, directs his attention to lines 12 through 20, and compels the officer to read aloud his prior sworn admission that he never saw any part of the weapon prior to unzipping the bag; and
The officer is completely discredited before the new jury. The trial judge finds that the officer fabricated the “plain view” observation to cure his constitutional vulnerability, excludes the firearm under Section 24(2) of the Charter, and enters an immediate acquittal.

C. The Section 715 Read-In of the Deceased Expert Witness

During a complex arson and commercial insurance fraud trial, the Crown calls a specialized electrical forensic engineer who testifies that the commercial building fire was deliberately ignited using chemical accelerants and customized timer delays. Following three weeks of evidence, a juror falls critically ill and the remaining panel drops below statutory quorum, compelling the trial judge to declare a mistrial under Section 653.1.

Prior to the commencement of the retrial eighteen months later, the electrical engineer tragically dies in an automobile accident. The Crown applies under Section 715 of the Criminal Code to have the engineer’s complete testimony from the first trial read into evidence before the new jury.

Application: The defense opposes the read-in, arguing that reading transcripts strips the jury of the ability to observe the expert’s demeanor and assess credibility live in the courtroom.

The superior court rules in favor of the Crown: the statutory criteria of Section 715 are strictly met—the witness is deceased, the testimony was taken under oath in the presence of the accused, and defense counsel had a full, unrestricted opportunity to cross-examine the expert during the first proceeding;
The court directs that the official court reporter read the questions and answers aloud from the certified transcript to the new jury; and
The trial judge delivers a balanced limiting instruction commanding the jury not to penalize the defense because the witness was unavailable for live cross-examination, preserving evidentiary continuity while respecting trial fairness.

Regulatory Notes / Case Law

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, Section 638 (Challenge for Cause): Granting the statutory right to challenge prospective jurors for cause where there are grounds to doubt their impartiality, critical in retrials following public mistrials.
Criminal Code, Section 715 (Evidence on Previous Trial): Authorizing the reading-in of sworn testimony from an earlier proceeding where a witness has died, become mentally ill, or is otherwise permanently unavailable, provided the opposing party had an opportunity to cross-examine.
Canada Evidence Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-5, Sections 9, 10 & 11: The paramount statutory framework governing prior inconsistent statements, empowering counsel to confront and impeach witnesses who alter their testimony between trials.
R. v. Corbett, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 670: Landmark Supreme Court of Canada authority regarding juror prejudice and judicial limiting instructions, underscoring the mandatory rule that juries must decide cases solely on admissible evidence before them.
R. v. Mahalingan, 2008 SCC 63: The supreme authority on issue estoppel and abuse of process in criminal retrials, confirming that the Crown cannot re-litigate issues decided in the accused’s favor or deploy fundamentally contradictory factual theories between successive proceedings.
R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27: Establishing the 18- and 30-month constitutional ceilings under Section 11(b) of the Charter, dictating that the state must re-schedule retrials expeditiously or face a permanent stay of proceedings for systemic delay.
R. v. Rowbotham, (1988), 25 O.A.C. 321 (C.A.): Leading constitutional precedent establishing the right to state-funded counsel where an accused lacks financial resources to retain counsel for a complex retrial and the interests of justice demand representation.
Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71 (Comparative Ethical Jurisprudence): Affirming the universal expectation of curial honesty and candid disclosure, paralleling the criminal law rule that the state cannot manufacture artificial tactical advantages across successive retrials.

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

Mistrials Part 1: Anatomy of a Mistrial – Why Trials Self-Destruct (Part 1 of 3)
Mistrials Part 2: The Post-Mistrial Chess Match – What Happens Next? (Part 2 of 3)
The Judicial Annihilation of Contaminated Briefs: Striking Pleadings In Limine and Abuse of Process under Toronto v. CUPE
The Section 8 Constitutional Tipping Point: Stripping Wiretap Evidence Under Section 24(2)
Systemic Integrity under Section 31.2 of the Canada Evidence Act: Admissibility of AI-Harvested Telemetry
Smart Legislation: Law for a Digital Age (https://lawcap.ca/smart-legislation-law-for-a-digital-age/)
Coram Non Judice: The Absolute Jurisdictional Nullity of State Overreach

External Authoritative Links

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

Department of Justice Canada – Criminal Code of Canada (Jury Selection ss. 631–644)
Supreme Court of Canada – Judgments Repository (R. v. Mahalingan, R. v. Jordan, R. v. Corbett)
Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) – Retrial and Prior Inconsistent Statement Case Law
Law Society of Ontario – Trial Advocacy Rules and Cross-Examination Ethics

FAQ Section

Does the new jury know that a previous trial ended in a mistrial? No. The new jury is strictly forbidden from learning about the first trial, the deadlock, or the reasons the previous case aborted. Canadian law demands that jurors judge the accused purely on the evidence presented directly to them in their own courtroom. If counsel or a witness accidentally mentions that a previous jury “couldn’t agree” or that a mistrial occurred, the judge may be forced to declare another mistrial to prevent prejudice.

Can a witness change their story during the second trial? They can try, but it is exceptionally dangerous. If a witness changes their timeline, adds new facts, or contradicts their earlier testimony, cross-examining counsel will invoke Section 10 of the Canada Evidence Act. Counsel will produce the certified word-for-word transcript from the first trial and force the witness to read their prior sworn words aloud to the new jury. Impeaching a witness with their own prior sworn testimony is one of the most effective ways to destroy credibility in a retrial.

Who pays for a retrial if the defendant has run out of money? Retrials impose a crushing financial burden. Many defendants exhaust their life savings, home equity, and family loans paying for the first trial. If an accused cannot afford a lawyer for the retrial and Legal Aid refuses coverage, defense counsel can bring a Rowbotham application. Under the Canadian Charter, if a case is complex and carries the risk of imprisonment, the superior court can stay the proceedings until the government agrees to fund the accused’s defense lawyer.

Can the prosecution introduce new evidence at the second trial that they didn’t use in the first? Yes, generally. Because a retrial is a trial de novo (from the beginning), both the Crown and the defense can adjust their strategies. The Crown can call new witnesses, present new expert forensics, or omit witnesses who performed poorly during the first trial, provided they fulfill their constitutional duty under R. v. Stinchcombe to disclose all new evidence to the defense well in advance of the retrial.

What happens if the second trial also ends in a deadlocked jury? While rare, juries occasionally deadlock twice. If a second jury cannot agree on a verdict and reports an intractable impasse, the judge must declare a second mistrial. At that point, superior courts and the prosecution face an extraordinary dilemma: pursuing a third trial borders on an abuse of process under R. v. Babos. In the vast majority of two-mistrial cases, the Crown exercises its discretion under Section 579 of the Criminal Code to enter a stay of proceedings, permanently ending the prosecution.

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