Home / Forensic Documentation / Striking Contested Factums at the SCC: Rule 56(a) and Admissibility of Foreign Regulatory Letters in OSC v. Binance (Part 9 of 10)

Striking Contested Factums at the SCC: Rule 56(a) and Admissibility of Foreign Regulatory Letters in OSC v. Binance (Part 9 of 10)

September 25, 2026

Striking Contested Factums at the SCC: Rule 56(a), The Admissibility of Foreign Regulatory Support Letters

Opening Question

When a regulatory appellant attempts to bolster a Supreme Court leave application by annexing an unsworn letter of support from a foreign sister-agency detailing extra-record policy anxieties, does the overarching public interest permit the evidentiary injection, or does Rule 56(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada demand absolute excision, rendering the procedural bypass an absolute nullity?

Direct Answer Paragraph

The strategic insertion of extra-record political support letters affords absolutely no procedural immunity to appellate litigants. Relying upon the strict procedural mandate of Rule 56(a) and the equitable maxim vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt (the laws aid the vigilant), the Supreme Court dictates that smuggling unsworn evidence into a leave application shatters appellate discipline, rendering the offending exhibits and referenced paragraphs absolute procedural nullities struck in limine.

Overview

In the rarified procedural atmosphere of the Supreme Court of Canada, the battle for leave to appeal is not merely a contest of substantive legal theory; it is governed by an unyielding, microscopic adherence to the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (SOR/2002-156). When a party attempts to creatively bypass these rules to inject favorable, out-of-record policy arguments, the Court responds with severe procedural decapitation.

This precise scenario erupted on the docket of Ontario Securities Commission v. Binance Holdings Limited (SCC File No. 42156), culminating in a definitive May 21, 2026, order from the Court.

The procedural conflict ignited during the leave application phase. The Ontario Securities Commission (OSC), seeking to convince the Supreme Court that the Court of Appeal’s restrictive ruling on regulatory summonses presented an existential threat to all regulators, attempted a highly unconventional maneuver. The OSC inserted “Tab 4A” into its application materials: a letter of support from the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Quebec’s powerful financial regulator.

In this letter, the Executive Director of Enforcement for the AMF explicitly expressed concern that the Court of Appeal’s approach to the relevance threshold would impede the AMF’s own ability to conduct effective and timely regulatory investigations into crypto-asset platforms. The OSC then explicitly referenced this letter in paragraph 31 of its formal Memorandum of Argument.

Binance’s litigation counsel executed a lethal counter-strike. Binance filed a formal Motion to Strike under Rule 56(a), arguing that the OSC was attempting an impermissible end-run around the strict rules of appellate evidence.

The rules of appellate litigation are absolute: an appeal must be fought strictly on the evidentiary record built in the courts below. If the AMF wished to voice its policy concerns to the Supreme Court of Canada, the lawful procedural mechanism was to apply formally for Intervener Standing under Rule 55, subjecting its arguments to cross-responses from Binance. By slipping an unsworn letter from the AMF directly into its leave application, the OSC attempted to import fresh, highly prejudicial political opinion evidence without subjecting the AMF to the rigorous intervener screening process.

The Supreme Court of Canada decisively sided with Binance. In its formal judgment granting leave to appeal, the Court simultaneously granted Binance’s motion to strike. The Court ordered the complete excision of the AMF letter from Tab 4A and physically struck the offending sentence from paragraph 31 of the OSC’s Memorandum of Argument, citing a direct failure to comply with Rule 56(a).

This procedural skirmish serves as a profound warning to appellate litigators: the Supreme Court will not tolerate the contamination of the appellate record. Attempting to smuggle external regulatory anxieties into a factum through un-docketed letters constitutes an abuse of process, ensuring the immediate annihilation of the offending material in limine.

Legal Domain/Area Identification

Appellate Civil Procedure (Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, Rule 56, Rule 55), Evidence Law (The Record on Appeal, Fresh Evidence, and Hearsay), Administrative Law (Intervener Standing and Regulatory Policy Coordination), and the Doctrine of Nullity.

The Supreme Court Rule 56(a) Admissibility Audit Matrix

The Supreme Court of Canada evaluates motions to strike offending appellate materials through an objective, strict-liability procedural matrix:

                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │       SUPREME COURT RECORD ADMISSIBILITY INQUIRY        │
                  │             (RULE 56(a) STRIKING AUDIT)                 │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
                                               ▼
                  ┌─────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
                  │    STEP 1: IDENTIFY THE CHALLENGED EVIDENTIARY ARTIFACT │
                  │   • Is the document part of the certified lower record? │
                  │   • Is it an unsworn letter, news article, or opinion?  │
                  └────────────────────────────┬────────────────────────────┘
                                               │
           ┌───────────────────────────────────┴───────────────────────────────────┐
           ▼                                                                       ▼
 [ VERIFIED LOWER COURT RECORD ]                                         [ EXTRA-RECORD / FRESH ARTIFACT DETECTED ]
 • Affidavits sworn in superior court                                    • "Support letter" from foreign agency (AMF)
 • Certified transcripts of cross-examination                            • Document created post-appeal for lobbying
 • Exhibits formally entered at trial                                    • Attempt to bypass Rule 55 Intervener motion
           │                                                                       │
           ▼                                                                       ▼
  [ EVIDENCE ADMITTED ON APPEAL ]                                        ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
  (Proceeds to substantive review)                                       │    STEP 2: THE RULE 56(a) GAUNTLET      │
                                                                         │   • Does the material fail to comply    │
                                                                         │     with the Rules of the Court?        │
                                                                         └────────────────────┬────────────────────┘
                                                                                              │
                                   ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────┴──────────────────┐
                                   ▼                                                                     ▼
                       [ VALID FRESH EVIDENCE MOTION ]                                       [ PROCEDURAL BYPASS / SMUGGLING ]
                       • Meets strict Palmer test requirements                               • No formal motion to adduce fresh evidence
                       • Essential to prevent miscarriage of justice                         • Purely political/policy support narrative
                       (Admitted under strict judicial discretion)                           • Circumvents adversarial cross-checking
                                                                                                         │
                                                                                                         ▼
                                                                                            ┌─────────────────────────────────────────┐
                                                                                            │       JURISPRUDENTIAL CONSEQUENCES      │
                                                                                            │   • Motion to Strike Granted            │
                                                                                            │   • Document physically excised (Tab 4A)│
                                                                                            │   • Referencing paragraphs struck out   │
                                                                                            │   • Absolute Procedural Nullity         │
                                                                                            └─────────────────────────────────────────┘

The Complete 10-Part OSC v. Binance Series Index

This exhaustive ten-part treatise deconstructs the monumental Supreme Court of Canada battle in OSC v. Binance, examining regulatory powers, crypto-asset enforcement, and Charter remedies:

Part 1 of 10: Regulatory Summonses and Section 8: The Inquiry Relevance Threshold in OSC v. Binance
Part 2 of 10: Section 24(1) Charter Remedies: The Return of Unlawfully Seized Documents in Regulatory Investigations
Part 3 of 10: Intervener Influence at the SCC: The Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Jarvis Penal Shift
Part 4 of 10: The Asymmetry of Information Doctrine: Why White-Collar Regulators Are Granted Exploratory Latitude
Part 5 of 10: Constitutional Limits on Borderless Finance: Regulating Offshore Crypto-Asset Trading Platforms
Part 6 of 10: The Exhaustion Doctrine in Administrative Law: Premature Judicial Reviews and the Capital Markets Tribunal
Part 7 of 10: Privacy in the Corporate Veil: Do Corporations Possess Section 8 Rights Over Business Communications?
Part 8 of 10: Corporate Sabotage and Evasion: Vishing, Signal Auto-Delete, and Obstructing Regulatory Probes
Part 9 of 10 (Current): Striking Contested Factums at the SCC: Rule 56(a) and the Admissibility of Foreign Regulatory Support Letters
Part 10 of 10: (Forthcoming) The Future of Part VI Investigations: Predictive Compliance, Cross-Border Summonses, and Market Integrity

Key Requirements / Elements to Strike Defective Appellate Materials

To successfully bring a motion under Rule 56(a) to strike out an opponent’s factum or application materials at the Supreme Court of Canada, moving counsel must establish:

The Identification of the Extra-Record Defect: Counsel must forensically compare the appellant’s leave materials against the certified record from the lower courts, proving that the impugned document (e.g., a support letter or newly minted affidavit) was never sworn, tested, or entered into evidence below.
The Exposure of the Procedural Bypass: The moving party must demonstrate that the opposing side is attempting an “end-run” around the Rules. If a third-party organization (like the AMF) wishes to be heard, the mandatory procedural conduit is a formal Motion for Leave to Intervene under Rule 55, not a casual letter annexed to a primary litigant’s factum.
The Failure of the Fresh Evidence Threshold: If the opponent claims the document is necessary context, counsel must establish that the document completely fails the stringent Palmer test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal (relevance, due diligence, credibility, and decisiveness).
The Prejudicial Impact of the Contamination: Counsel must argue that allowing unsworn, untested political or policy opinions into the leave application fundamentally prejudices the respondent’s right to a fair hearing, as the respondent cannot cross-examine the author of a letter.
The Demand for Physical Excision: The motion must specifically identify the exact tab numbers (e.g., “Tab 4A”) and specific paragraph/sentence numbers in the Memorandum of Argument that must be physically struck and redacted from the official Court registry.

Examples / Application

A. The AMF Support Letter Excision (The OSC v. Binance Paradigm)

In its application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Ontario Securities Commission included a letter from the Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF) expressing grave concern that the Ontario Court of Appeal’s ruling would cripple the AMF’s ability to regulate crypto platforms in Quebec. The OSC referenced this letter in paragraph 31 of its factum to demonstrate the “national importance” of the appeal.

Binance’s counsel immediately filed a Motion to Strike under Rule 56(a). Binance argued that the AMF letter was unsworn, extra-record political opinion evidence improperly smuggled into the application to bypass the formal intervener rules.

On May 21, 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada delivered its judgment on the leave application. Concurrently, the Court granted Binance’s motion. The Court explicitly ordered: “The letter included at Tab 4A… and the sentence at paragraph 31 of the applicant’s Memorandum of Argument… are struck from the record for failure to comply with Rule 56(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.” The attempt to inject external regulatory anxiety was repelled, affirming absolute procedural discipline.

B. The Intervener “Cheerleading” Strike

A national environmental organization is granted intervener status in a major constitutional challenge regarding inter-provincial pipelines. Under Rule 59, an intervener must present useful and distinct submissions that do not duplicate the parties’ arguments. However, the intervener’s filed factum abandons its unique legal perspective and instead launches a blistering factual attack on the respondent corporation’s safety record, annexing three new unsworn newspaper articles to its brief.

Counsel for the respondent corporation brings a Rule 56(a) motion to strike the intervener’s factum.

The Supreme Court grants the motion. The Court dictates that an intervener must take the evidentiary record as they find it; they possess absolute zero jurisdiction to tender fresh factual evidence or newspaper articles to ambush a party on appeal. Furthermore, the factum devolved into duplicative “cheerleading” rather than distinct legal analysis. The offending paragraphs and newspaper annexes are struck in limine as absolute procedural nullities.

C. The Post-Judgment “Correction” Affidavit

Following a disastrous loss at the provincial Court of Appeal, a corporate appellant files an application for leave to the Supreme Court of Canada. Realizing that their primary expert witness at trial made a devastating mathematical concession, appellate counsel drafts a new affidavit for the expert, wherein the expert “clarifies” and “corrects” his trial testimony. Counsel attaches this new affidavit to the Supreme Court leave application.

The respondent files a motion to strike the affidavit under Rule 56.

The Supreme Court strikes the affidavit entirely. Applying the doctrine of finality and the strict rules governing the appellate record, the Court holds that a leave application is not a forum to rewrite history or fix trial blunders. Attempting to introduce a post-judgement “correction” affidavit without bringing a formal motion to adduce fresh evidence under the Palmer test is a flagrant abuse of appellate procedure. The affidavit is declared an unauthenticated nullity and excised from the docket.

Regulatory Notes / Case Law

Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, Rule 56(a): The paramount procedural rule governing the striking of documents, explicitly authorizing a judge or the Registrar to strike out any document, or a portion of it, that does not comply with the Rules or an order of the Court.
Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, Rule 55 (Leave to Intervene): Mandating the strict procedural gateway for any third party wishing to be heard in a proceeding, requiring a formal motion demonstrating how their intervention will be useful to the Court and different from those of the other parties.
Palmer v. The Queen, [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759: The foundational Supreme Court of Canada decision establishing the definitive four-part legal test for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal (due diligence, relevance, credibility, and expected impact on the result).
Public School Boards’ Assn. of Alberta v. Alberta (Attorney General), [2000] 1 S.C.R. 44: Leading authority on the role of interveners, reiterating that interveners are strictly prohibited from adding to the evidentiary record or raising new substantive issues not advanced by the primary parties.
Bhasin v. Hrynew, 2014 SCC 71: The supreme authority on good faith and honest performance, establishing that litigating parties cannot deploy deceptive procedural maneuvers or smuggle unauthenticated records to bypass formal adjudicative rules.

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

Intervener Influence at the SCC: The Criminal Lawyers’ Association and the Jarvis Penal Shift (Part 3 of 10)
The Jurisprudence of Intervener Standing: Navigating Public Interest Thresholds in Constitutional Challenges
Fresh Evidence vs. Record Incompletion on Appeal: The Palmer Framework, Procedural Fairness Affidavits, and Constitutional Remedies (Part 3 of 3)
The Advocate-Witness Dilemma on Appeal: Trial Counsel Affidavits, In-Chambers Conferences, and Disqualification (Part 2 of 3)
The Judicial Annihilation of Contaminated Briefs: Striking Pleadings In Limine and Abuse of Process under Toronto v. CUPE (Part 20 of 20)

External Authoritative Links

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

Supreme Court of Canada – Docket 42156 (OSC v. Binance)
Supreme Court of Canada – Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada (SOR/2002-156)
Supreme Court of Canada – Guidelines for Interveners
Canadian Legal Information Institute (CanLII) – Supreme Court Procedural Decisions

FAQ Section

What is a “Motion to Strike” under Rule 56(a) at the Supreme Court? Under Rule 56(a) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, if a party files a document, factum, or affidavit that breaks the Court’s strict procedural rules, the opposing lawyer can file a Motion to Strike. If successful, the Supreme Court judge will order that the specific document, or specific offending paragraphs, be physically deleted (excised) from the official court record, treating them as if they were never filed.

Why did the Supreme Court strike the AMF’s letter from the OSC’s application? In OSC v. Binance, the OSC tried to include a letter of support from the Quebec AMF to show that all regulators were worried about the lower court’s ruling. Binance successfully argued this was illegal under the rules. The Supreme Court struck the letter out because the AMF was not a party to the lawsuit. If the AMF wanted to voice its opinion, it was required to follow Rule 55 and formally apply to be an “Intervener,” which it failed to do.

What is the rule about “fresh evidence” on an appeal? When a case goes to an appellate court, the lawyers are legally locked into using ONLY the evidence (witnesses, emails, documents) that was actually presented at the original trial. You cannot introduce new “fresh evidence” on appeal unless you pass the incredibly strict, four-part Palmer test, which requires proving that you could not have possibly found the evidence before the trial ended and that the evidence would likely change the verdict.

Can an Intervener introduce new facts to help the Supreme Court decide? Emphatically, no. An intervener (a third party granted permission to argue in an appeal, like a civil liberties group) is strictly confined to arguing questions of law and policy. Under Canadian law, an intervener must “take the record as they find it.” If an intervener tries to attach new factual documents or newspaper articles to their factum to prejudice a party, the court will strike those documents out as an absolute nullity.

What happens to a factum if a paragraph is struck out by the Court? When the Supreme Court strikes a paragraph or a sentence from a Memorandum of Argument (as it did to paragraph 31 of the OSC’s factum), that sentence becomes an absolute procedural nullity. The justices are legally forbidden from considering the argument contained in that sentence when deciding whether to grant leave to appeal or when deciding the final outcome of the case.

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