In yet another assault upon fundamental human dignity and decency, Whitelaw-Twining/DWF Group's Partner has inflicted yet another round of emotional distress upon his Insurer Client's Named Insured and his spouse, by refusing a simple Freedom of Information Act request for unprivileged personal information. Although only tangentially relevant to the gravamen of the subject of this public interest website, Whitelaw-Twining's intransigent refusal further frustrates RB's efforts obtain a standard Customer Experience letter from the Insurer. According to Whitelaw-Twining's website, under its 2022 acquisition by the DWP Group, its Privacy Officer is a T. Ryan Darby https://wt.ca/privacy-policy who, despite an unctuous "Commitment to Privacy" vacuous assurance of compliance with the BC Office of Information and Privacy Commissioner (OIPC) ease of access to personal information, Mr. Darby ignores all requests and other correspondence. Has the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's intransigent stance countermanded Privacy Officer Darby's statutory obligations? Since Whitelaw-Twining (DWF) has opened offices in several provinces, including Québec, thus constructively maintaining RB's personal information in each, its BC office's cooperation would obviate the necessity of Requests for Information in the other provinces. Even more so than the OIPC of BC, its counterpart, the Privacy Commissioner of Ontario enforces Freedom of Information requests aggressively. Requiring a court Order to compel compliance with the Freedom of Information Act is yet another stark reminder that Whitelaw-Twining's relentless tactics are calculated to generate even more tainted legal fees, with the open defiance of Court Rules, designed to conserve the Court's precious time and resources! The legislature's intent is the facilitation of Freedom of Information, without counterproductive, frivolous, albeit costly Orders for pretrial injunctive relief! On a separate note, due to an oversight, the Complaints specified herein, were not sent to the Law Societies of BC, Alberta or Ontario. Thus, in the event that Whitelaw-Twining should reconsider voluntary compliance with the subject of said Complaints, then a Representative of the firm should contact RB, without further ado.

20 JANUARY 2025 As the result of Whitelaw-Twining's relentless malicious, vexatious two (2) SLAPP actions and other unethical acts and omissions, the Defendant of the firm's SLAPP actions has decided not to rely upon the possibility of litigative support of BC Attorney General Niki Sharma, or BC Premier David Eby (both of whom are ardent supporters of anti-SLAPP legislative and judicial initiatives). Thus, in the event that Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer Clients, Plaintiffs of its two (2) SLAPP actions, should fail to timely accept the Defendant's unconditional offer to literally strip the public interest website of all words that they should consider defamatory (per the below, formal offer), then the final version of the below draughted Motion to Dismiss will be filed and pursued. Once the Motion shall have been filed, it will not be withdrawn, and will proceed to hearing! Under the circumstances, enhanced Costs will be sought!

In an email of 15 January 2025, Whitelaw-Twining confirmed that it would convey to its SLAPP actions Clients the unconditional offer (below) to grant them the right to strip the subject website of all words that any of them should believe defamatory. As of 20 January 2025 there has been no response to the offer, which per its terms, will automatically expire, per the countdown to the right.

19 JANUARY 2025 WITHOUT PREJUDICE/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS On 23 December 2024, a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining fired off an email (excerpted below), wherein he threatened to widen the already contentious, costly litigation of the subject case before the BC Supreme Court (BCSC case no. VLC-S-S-244577). It is respectfully brought to Whitelaw-Twining's attention that this threatened action is highly inimical to the strict policy objectives that the Court requires; to wit: The British Columbia Supreme Court Civil Rules, such as Rule 9-1, include provisions designed to encourage litigants to seek extrajudicial remedies prior to filing formal Motions and Applications. These rules emphasise proportionality, early resolution, and case management, in order to ensure that disputes be resolved in a just, speedy, and inexpensive manner. Thus, In accordance with the aforementioned authority, the creator of this public interest website, a Named Insured of Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer Client, offers to Whitelaw-Twining, its Insurer Client and its personnel, the unconditional option to revise the website, subject of the aforementioned litigation, by the deletion or other method, of any and all specific words that Whitelaw-Twining, its Insurer Client and/or its personnel should claim to be defamatory. Upon Whitelaw-Twining's timely submission of a list of specific words to be deleted or otherwise revised, with an indication as to the name and position in the company occupied by the Requestor, the website will be revised to reflect such instruction. There is no requirement that any Requestor provide any explanation or justification, in order to exercise this option. Furthermore, once the website is modified, according the dictates of the Plaintiffs, it will be permanently locked and remain indefinitely in such modified state. This offer does not apply to this website, or to any demands or ultimata to summarily deactivate the other website in its entirety, without reference to specific words. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF THIS OFFER IS THE JUDICIALLY REQUIRED EFFORT TO RESOLVE LITIGATION, AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED OR INFERRED AS ANY OFFER TO RESOLVE DAMAGES, OR ADMISSION THAT ANY ELEMENT OF THIS WEBSITE IS, OR HAS EVER BEEN DEFAMATORY. ANY AND ALL ATTEMPS TO USE THIS OFFER, IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE OR EVENT, MUST BE ACCOMPANIED BY THIS DISCLAIMER.

WHITELAW-TWINING IS A RECENT ADDITION TO THE WORLD-RENOWNED DWF GROUP

At the heart of DWF's success is its commitment to "Disrupt to Progress", a motto which encapsulates the firm's dedication to challenging traditional legal practices and embracing new ways of delivering legal services. By leveraging cutting-edge technology and fostering a culture of continuous improvement, DWF strives to ensure that its clients receive the highest quality legal advice and support.

As detailed on this public interest website, in view of the perfect legal storm that Whitelaw-Twining has created and periodically nurtured for its Insurer Client, a refund of its attorneys' fees to the Insurer Client would be entirely consistent with DWF's noble commitments to serve clients, by at least, not fomenting frivolous litigation, which has Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer Client with myriad costly legal and regulatory entanglements.

18 JANUARY 2025

15 JANUARY 2025 (LIMITED OFFER TO WHITELAW-TWINING)

Although Whitelaw-Twining's website is a prime example of advertising practices that are prohibited by all Law Societies in Canada (as detailed herein), since its "Defamation" and "Insurance Law" Departments are head by a certain Partner, he would be aware of a major element of this website; that the truth and the facts of the case serve as an absolute defence to Whitelaw-Twining's charges of defamation, in its two (2) SLAPP actions against its Insurer/Client's Named Insured.

As justice would have it, in the case of Casses et al. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp. et al., 2013 BCCA 200, when he practiced defamation defence, Whitelaw-Twining's Partner prevailed, in reliance upon the legal doctrine that the truth and facts are an absolute defence to the charge of defamation.

However, in the two (2) SLAPP actions, subject of this website, that same Whitelaw-Twining defamation expert Partner, now practices defamation offence (as detailed, hereinbelow), defamatorily charging a Named Insured of Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client, with submission of a claim with the Insurer, under the false pretence of being an Insured!

In view of the fact that Whitelaw-Twinging's toxic, wrongful advice to its Insurer/Client was the proximate cause of the Insurer's legal, moral, ethical and regulatory entanglements that have ensued, the creator of this public interest website has written to Whitelaw-Twining, with a request that it refund the (more than $20,000) ill-gotten legal fees back to its Insurer/Client. Whitelaw-Twining would be aware of the legal doctrines of "Unjust Enrichment", "Disgorgement of Improperly Obtained Fees", "Abuse of Process" and "Malicious Prosecution".

WHITELAW-TWINING'S HYPERZEALOUS PROSECUTION OF TWO (2) MALICIOUS, DEFAMATORY SLAPP ACTIONS HAS BEEN LUCRATIVE TO THE FIRM, HOWEVER INIMICAL TO THE PUBLIC INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY.

Below is a redacted excerpt from Whitelaw-Twining's Partner's 23 December 2024 email, with a to-be-expected Christmas greeting and assurance of more oppressive litigation in 2025!

18 JANUARY 2025

INITIATIVE FOR TRUTH IN ADVERTISING

08 JANUARY 2025

ALL COMPLAINTS, AS MENTIONED HEREIN, WILL BE FILED WITHIN 24 HOURS. THIS WEBSITE WILL NOT BE UPDATED TO ADVISE OF ANY PROGRESS OF COMPLAINTS, NOR OF ACTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY LAW SOCIETIES, OQLF OR ANY OTHER REGULATOR.

By its inaction, Whitelaw-Twining has indicated its lack of interest in any semblance of compliance with the Rules and Regulations of Law Societies of (1) BC (2) Alberta (3) Ontario and/or (4) Québec, as well as other those of other regulatory authorities.

As a final gesture to resolve Whitelaw-Twining's and WT Montréal LLP's regulatory non-compliance conundra, or as an exemplary case in point to other law firms similarly situated, the creator of this public interest website repeats his offer to assist WT Montréal LLP to voluntarily comply with the regulatory requirements, as detailed herein. These labours would not exceed 50 hours, to be provided without compensation, benefit or entitlement, as a service to the public, in order to prevent victims of prohibited advertising tactics. This offer is rendered without the presupposition of veracity of Whitelaw-Twining's claims that any of its lawyers, who are represented to the public as being "experts" or "specialists" in "Insurance" and/or "Defamation" law, have been certified by any Law Society, such as the Barreau du Québec's equivalency exams, which cover Québec's Civil Code and other relevant legislation, etc.

This offer has been withdrawn. The Complaints have been filed!

10 JANUARY 2025

09 JANUARY 2025

If anyone from Whitelaw-Twining or its Insurer/Client is interested in the facts and the law, its counsel, Partner of Whitelaw-Twining, recently sent an email to Named Insured Third Party Claimant RB, relevant parts of which are presented below. It is inconceivable that the head of Whitelaw-Twining's 'Insurance Law Department' could still propagate the myth that the claim was of the first person, and not the obvious third person, and after more than three (3) years, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner still renders such costly, incompetent legal advice!

When the claim against the Policyholder Strata Corporation was submitted, on the basis of damages arising from its failure to maintain an infectious external, ornamental pigeon roost (detailed hereinbelow), Alberta Claims Manager "Strategic Leader®" Amanda Myers incorrectly processed such as a first party claim, rather than the appropriate third party type. Ms. Myers refuses to reconsider her bad faith decision.

Incidentally, in the below email, Whitelaw-Twining's Partner is correct to state "if you suffered harm or losses, they were at the hands of others......." Those "others" to whom the Partner referred happen to be the Strata Corporation, a policyholder and named insured of his Insurer Client.

07 JANUARY 2025

Prior to its entry into francophonic Québec, Whitelaw-Twining made no significant preparation for good faith compliance with Québec's laws protecting the French language. Perhaps Whitelaw-Twining's intention is to create a test court case, challenging Bill 101, and other French language initiatives, as addressed, in great detail on this public interest website. In any event, Whitelaw-Twining's "Partner" Bélanger Sauvé has written articles regarding the importance of the protection of the French language from linguistic hegemony. It would behoove Whitelaw-Twining to seek a consultation with Maître Alexandre Paris, at its earliest convenience.

Whitelaw-Twining's violations constitute serious breaches of contract with, inter alia, Best Lawyers LLC (801 Broad Street Suite 950, Augusta, GA 30901). As a proximate result thereof, Whitelaw-Twining has constructively concealed from viewers of its website the protective disclosures, warning of the de facto legal implications of the Best Lawyers ratings system. In view of the public interest protective function of this website, CEO Phillip Greer will be notified.

TANGENTIAL FUTURE TOPICS

In an apparent futile, condescending attempt to placate proud francophones, Whitelaw-Twining has translated a token, insignificantly minor portion of its website into French. However, for a self-descriptive "diverse and diversified" law firm, Whitelaw-Twining continues to commit various errors, condescending of minority cultural and linguistic groups, as well as errors grammatical and orthographical. This commentary is rendered for the sole purpose of enablement of the firm to better align with its stated objectives. In its (limited) French language version, the firm comically states the presence of speakers of:

• Français

• Canadien Français

More common is the correct phrase Français Canadien, or Québécois, which refers to a variety of French, as spoken in Canada. However, Bill 101 specifically emphasizes the use of Français in Québec, neither the erroneous Canadien Français, nor the misapplied Français Canadien, or perhaps La Comédie-Française, as it were?

Other instances of condescending "political incorrectness" abound on its website. Details will be provided upon request. Whitelaw-Twining's ongoing violation of Bill 101 is addressed, infra.

05 JANUARY 2025

By the force of Québec's Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), any business operating in Quebec, including law firms, must ensure that their websites be available in French. This means that the French version must be comparable in quality and completeness to any other language versions. The French text should also have greater visual impact than any other language text on the website.

For Whitelaw-Twining's reference, below are hyperlinks to a website detailing the requirements of Bill 101, as well as another, with an example of a random law firm, compliant with the law.

The people of Québec will appreciate Whitelaw-Twining's immediate, full compliance with Bill 101, and other statutory requirements.

THE ETHICAL VIOLATIONS ON THE INCREASE

Perhaps as a mere gesture of defiance of the four (4) Law Societies' ethical Rules and Regulations, infra, on 25 January 2025, Whitelaw-Twining claimed that almost 100 of its lawyers are all specialists in Insurance Law. How many of them are duly certified as such in Insurance Law?

FUTURE TOPIC: L500 RANKINGS OF CANADIAN LAW FIRMS - "The Guide to the Best Law Firms, top Lawyers, Attorneys, Advocates, Solicitors and Barristers."

04 JANUARY 2025

Whitelaw-Twining may yet elect a timely, voluntary resolution to formal Complaints with the Law Societies of (1) BC (2) Alberta (3) Ontario and (4) Québec.

The Law Society of British Columbia's enforcement of Rule 4.3-1, addresses one of Whitelaw-Twining's prohibited practices:

"Unless otherwise authorized by the Legal Profession Act, the Law Society Rules, or this Code or by the Benchers, a lawyer must:

(a) not use the title “specialist” or any similar designation suggesting a recognized special status or accreditation in any other marketing activity, and

(b) take all reasonable steps to discourage use, in relation to the lawyer by another person, of the title “specialist” or any similar designation suggesting a recognized special status or accreditation in any marketing activity."

03 JANUARY 2025

Felicitations of the opening of Whitelaw-Twining's new office in Montréal. The Rules and Regulations of the Barreau du Québec, regarding advertising, are even more strictly enforced in Québec than in the other provinces. Additionally, a functional French language version of its entire website is strictly required!

The Code de déontologie des avocats (under the Barreau du Québec) mandates that legal advertising fully comply with the Charter of the French Language. As for Whitelaw-Twining's false advertising in other provinces, infra, , Chapter III, Section 17 specifically prohibits lawyers from making false or misleading statements about their services, qualifications, or the results they can achieve. Section 17 states:

"Un avocat ne doit pas faire de déclarations fausses ou trompeuses sur ses services, ses qualifications ou les résultats qu'il peut obtenir."

Whitelaw-Twining's prohibited advertising practices, per Rules and Regulations in other provinces, is adequately addressed in the herein sections of this public interest website.

It appears that Whitelaw-Twining's website lacks the requisite French version (Google and other AI translation services do NOT meet the requirement of Quebec’s Bill 96). Perhaps Whitelaw-Twining will kindly impart its puffery experiences to Bélanger Sauvé, which also lists in "Best Lawyers", but appears to have preemptively disabled its hyperlink.

02 JANUARY 2025

There exists an issue, apart from that of puffery; false claims of recognition and awards on the Whitelaw-Twining website. Even some recently admitted lawyers are listed as being "experts" in various legal disciplines. By example, the following claim is made of a certain Partner's "expertise", in a myriad of disciplines, including "defamation" and "insurance law". The firm maintains an office in Alberta.

In the Law Society of Alberta, Code of Conduct 4.3-1, it is written:

[2] A lawyer who is not a certified specialist is not permitted to use any designation from which a person might reasonably conclude that the lawyer is a certified specialist. A claim that a lawyer is a specialist or expert, or specializes in an area of law, implies that the lawyer has met some objective standard or criteria of expertise, presumably established or recognized by a Law Society. In the absence of Law Society recognition or a certification process, an assertion by a lawyer that the lawyer is a specialist or expert is misleading and improper.

SPECIAL NEW YEAR'S REPORT

The above countdown tracks Whitelaw-Twining's Partner's ultimatum. Unless Whitelaw-Twining should undertake corrective action, to timely cease and desist its violations of the ethical Rules and Regulations of the LAW SOCIETIES OF BC, ALBERTA and ONTARIO (chronicled by the CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION), formal Complaints will be filed.

This public interest website is exclusively devoted to the protection of the public. Thus, in the event that any Partner of Whitelaw-Twining should timely notify of a sincere intention to voluntarily render its website in compliance with the applicable regulatory authorities, then the necessity of the filing of formal Complaints, would thus be obviated. Moreover, based upon a commitment by Whitelaw-Twining to regulate itself, neither would follow-up efforts be necessary. Affaire classée.

While Whitelaw-Twining contemplates the option of voluntary self-regulation, the below hyperlinks facilitate it and its viewers to fact check its contrived claims of algorithmic honours and awards, on its foreign marketeer's "Best Law Firms in Canada®" and related, commercial websites.

Even if Whitelaw-Twining's claimed ratings had been true, the firm would yet be in violation of the Law Societies' ethical Rules!

Whitelaw-Twining continues to refuse voluntary compliance with the Law Societies' ethical rules.

The firm has offices in BC, Alberta and Ontario. The Law Society of Ontario has amended its rules to deal more specifically with lawyers’ advertising practices, and Ontario lawyers have recently been disciplined for misleading advertising. Law societies may be prompted to revisit their approach to advertising in light of the increasing number of venues in which lawyers promote their services. In Alberta, lawyers usually modify their advertising on a voluntary basis when the Law Society raises concerns.

Lawyers are prohibited from advertising that they are specialists or experts in Alberta. This means lawyers should avoid the use of derivative words such as “specialize” or “expertise”. On its website, Whitelaw-Twining even dares to post the photograph of a Partner, who is not certified, under the rubrique "Expertise"! https://wt.ca/our-expertise/

Also violative of the ethical rules is the statement that the lawyer or firm is the “leading” lawyer or firm or is “the best” or most experienced in the city, or in a certain practice area: These statements suggest qualitative superiority. Firms will sometimes claim to be the best or top choice, or purport to rely on third party rating services that state they have been ranked in that manner. The use of third party ratings may be misleading when they refer to awards, rankings or third party endorsements that are not bona fide or are likely to be misleading, confusing or deceptive.

Advertising that relies on a third party ranking is misleading when it does not genuinely reflect the performance of the lawyer and the quality of the services provided by the lawyer, is not the result of a reasonable evaluative process. Another prohibition is the manipulation of ratings or creating false online reviews or testimonials.

https://nationalmagazine.ca/en-ca/articles/the-practice/small-and-solo/2020/ethical-and-effective-advertising

COMPETITION ACT OF CANADA Bill C-59, ENACTED 20 JUNE 2024

Whitelaw-Twining's ongoing deceptive advertising modus operandi, as detailed herein, constitutes egregious violations of the ethical Rules and Regulations of the LAW SOCIETIES OF BC, ALBERTA and ONTARIO (chronicled by the CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION)

Recently enacted provisions of C-59 of the Competition Act, enable the Competition Commissioner enhanced enforcement authority over violators, such as Whitehall-Twining, on the basis of unfair Competition.

LEGAL NOTICE:

In view of the various aspects of Whitelaw-Twining's tortious acts and omissions, infra, it is respectfully suggested that it report these ongoing potential claims to its E&O insurer. The firm operates in various Canadian provinces.

In BC, the Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Fund (LPIF), administered by the Law Society of British Columbia (LSBC)

In Ontario is LawPRO (Lawyers' Professional Indemnity Company).

In Québec the insurer is unknown.

Thw two companies offer Legal malpractice insurance, which covers claims arising from professional negligence, errors, or omissions in the services provided by the insured lawyer or law firm.

Most E&O policies state requirements such as:

"The insured shall provide written notice to the insurer of any act, error, or omission which could reasonably be expected to give rise to a claim, as soon as practicable, but in no event later than 30 days after the insured becomes aware of such act, error, or omission."

• - - - - -

In protection of the public, Canadian law societies have formulated ethical rules and regulations regarding legal advertising. In Ontario, for example, commentary for Rule 4.2-1 states that lawyers must not refer to awards, rankings, and third-party endorsements that are not bona fide or are likely to be misleading. The Law Society of Ontario's Rules specifically state that using terms like “Best Lawyers” or "Best Canadian Law Firm" contravenes these Rule and Regulations.

The Law Society of Ontario Rule 4.3-1 states that a lawyer must not advertise that the lawyer is a specialist in a specified field unless the lawyer has been so certified by the Society. The Barreau du Québec has similar protective regulations.

In addition to the deceptive advertising violations, as detailed on this public interest website, a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining has filed meritless SLAPP actions against his Client/Insurer's Named Insured, falsely and defamatorily accusing him of submission of a property insurance claim under false pretences.

Bref, Whitelaw-Twining's Errors and Omissions (E&O) insurer would require to become notified of the firm's deceptive advertising practices, in addition to other acts and omissions attributable to a Partner of the firm.

As a matter of courtesy, the creator of this public interest website has given Whitelaw-Twining until 17h00, 08 January 2025, to remove all of the numerous instances of the (1) prohibited deceptive advertising material, and (2) claims of specialised qualifications, without requisite certification.

To date, the firm has ignored all courtesies.

30 DECEMBER 2024

In aggravation of its ongoing violations of the advertising Rules and Regulations of the LAW SOCIETIES OF BC, ALBERTA and ONTARIO (chronicled by the CANADIAN BAR ASSOCIATION), Whitelaw-Twining continues to refuse to embed the consumer-protective, requisite hyperlink

by which viewers of the firm's website's self-aggrandising fake "press releases" and other inflated commentary are forewarned, inter alia, that Whitelaw-Twining's listing in the "Best Law Firms" commercial account is subject to legal restrictions. These limitations prohibit promotional commentary that is violative of the aforementioned Law Societies' Rules and Regulations, as well as being a breach of Whitelaw-Twining's contract with its foreign Marketeer. A summary of the contract includes, but not by way of limitation:

When publicizing Best Law Firms awards online, a hyperlink to your Best Law Firms profile or https://www.bestlawfirms.com/ is required.

• You are permitted to mention that you are distinguished by Best Law Firms®, but not that you are a “best law firm” or to suggest that an award by Best Law Firms guarantees a desired result nor imply an endorsement of any products or services.

• Do not include any language the viewer may misconstrue as the honored law firm being more skilled than firms who are not included in the rankings.

• Potential clients are encouraged to conduct their own independent research and verify the credentials and qualifications of any lawyer or law firm.

  The precise contractual language, as well as the scope of its intended protection of Whitelaw-Twining's website viewers, is hyperlinked below.

To the right is a ranking from Chambers and Partners, a well established reputable authority of law firm rankings. Although as a firm, Whitelaw-Twining received no recognition, one of its lawyers achieved some unspecified notice.

Being AI generated, Whitelaw-Twining's favourite "Law Firm of the Year" platform produces inconsistent "results", dependent upon a given search. The purposely nebulous claim of being the Law Firm of the Year, of the Week, Year or Century is too flawed to be of any significance, although it is calculated to so do.

Although presented as a newsworthy event, after reading the fine print, the claim of having received some sort of nebulous award, the apparent selective result was that 200 were the actual recipients of recognition.

The claims to the left all evidence Whitelaw-Twining's persistent reliance upon its foreign marketeer's, artificial, AI-generated "ratings" system.

Although the pretentious propaganda pervades, in the third article Whitelaw-Twining admits to its marketeer's usage of "proprietary algorithmic technology, to produce a tiered system of industry-led rankings of the top 2% of the industry" (whatever that means!)

The extent of any human feedback in the process is never explained, but the marketeer's legal disclosures (as detailed, infra) render the utility of Whitelaw-Twining's representations somewhat questionable.

Why doesn't Whitelaw-Twining prominently display such a disclaimer on its website?

(1) Best Lawyers®

(2) Best Law Firms®

(3) The Best Lawyer®

(4) Ones to Watch®

(5) Best Lawyers in Canada®

(6) Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada®

(7) Lawyer of the Year®

(8) Law Firm of the Year®

(9) Best Boutique Law Firm®

Perhaps the most egregious of its violations of Law Societies' ethical Rules is the claim to the left from Whitelaw-Twining's AI generative "Best Law Firms" foreign marketeer.

A Partner of Whitelaw-Twining's self-proclaimed "Best Lawyer", category heads the Insurance Law and Personal Injury Litigation department. Whitelaw-Twining even displays the Partner's image on the firm's "Expertise" web page. As specifically detailed, infra, this "expert" fin both disciplines, filed two (2) SLAPP actions against Whitelaw-Twinings' own Insurer/Client's Named Insured, falsely and defamatorily accusing him of the submission of an insurance claim, under the false pretence of being an Insured.

Such is the result of Whitelaw-Twining's unbridled abuse of the "Best Lawyer" marketing tool, and its breach of contract with its Marketeer, which deprived the viewers of Whitelaw-Twining's promotional "press releases", of crucial legal caveats!

27 DECEMBER 2024 WHITELAW-TWINING IMPORTS AMERICAN STYLE 狗屎 ADVERTISING TO CANADA!

Today's topic of this public interest website is the promotion of ethical standards of the advertisement of legal services, as required by the Rules and Regulations established by the Law Societies of BC, Ontario, Alberta and other jurisdictions, as well as the Canadian Bar Association, which specifically mentions Whitelaw-Twining's practice of listings in ‘Best Lawyer’ and ‘Canada’s Best Lawyers’ as being unprofessional and in contravention of the Law Society of Ontario and other jurisdictional Rules, which protect the public against deceptive practices of listings in third party ranking systems. Whitelaw-Twining has recently revealed plans to open an office, WT Montréal LLP, in Québec, joining forces with the law firm Bélanger Sauvé:

"The Montréal team comprises 16 lawyers, 9 of which [sp] are partners, and 12 business support staff. With the addition of this team, WT beefs up its partnership to 35 and boosts its expertise in insurance law and litigation." "This partnership brings together two teams with deep expertise in insurance law and litigation"

Given the fact that Whitelaw-Twining has stated its intention to use the words "deep expertise", one may assume, unlike its "experts" lack of certification in other jurisdictions, that WT Montréal will conform to the advertising regulations of the Barreau du Québec.

In protection of the public, Canadian law societies have formulated ethical rules and regulations regarding legal advertising. In Ontario, for example, commentary for Rule 4.2-1 states that lawyers must not refer to awards, rankings, and third-party endorsements that are not bona fide or are likely to be misleading. The LSO Rules specifically state that using terms like “best” contravenes this Rule.

The LSO Rule 4.3-1 states that a lawyer must not advertise that the lawyer is a specialist in a specified field unless the lawyer has been so certified by the Society. The Barreau du Québec has similar protective regulations.

As detailed herein, Whitelaw-Twining (which also maintains an office in Ontario) is in violation of both of the aforementioned Regulations.

As revealed by its extensive internet advertisements for prospective clients, Whitelaw-Twining has engaged an America-based "international" marketeer, in an attempt to add a layer of credibility to its unsubstantiated, superlative claims that its lawyers, such as a Partner, are Canada's best lawyers, as well as experts of various legal disciplines. For a subscriptive fee, these mysterious internet platforms utilise generative AI to propel subscribers to instant, algorithmic stardom! Such non-academic, purely commercial platforms, are usually operated by the same entity.

(1) Best Lawyers®

(2) Best Law Firms®

(3) The Best Lawyer®

(4) Ones to Watch®

(5) Best Lawyers in Canada®

(6) Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch in Canada®

(7) Lawyer of the Year®

(8) Law Firm of the Year®

(9) Law Firm of the Day®

The Law Societies of British Columbia and Ontario strictly enforce rules and regulations regarding "puffery". In Canadian law societies, a lawyer is prohibited from claiming to be the "best" lawyer, unless she/he can substantiate such a boisterous claim, with verifiable evidence.

Whitelaw-Twining's claims to be the best lawyers is a prima facie violation of the LSO Rule against the usage of the superlative "the best".

If Whitelaw-Twining should succeed in convincing a potential client that its lawyers are the best Canadian lawyers and/or are deep experts (albeit uncertified) in 29 legal disciplines (as claimed on its website), this American marketeer displays a self-protective disclaimer on its platforms, that its subscribers' puffery is not to be construed as a measure of quality or competency, and that any viewer must engage in her/his own research, in order to confirm if its subscribers' puffed claims of being the best might be nothing but बकवास !

"Inclusion in Best Lawyers is not a guarantee of quality or competency."

"Potential clients are encouraged to conduct their own independent research and verify the credentials and qualifications of any lawyer or law firm."

Whitelaw-Twining's type of unsubstantiated, superlative claims has been dealt with by several law societies, such as the Law Society of Ontario, which has jurisdictional authority over an office of Whitelaw-Twining. In the case of Law Society of Ontario v. Mazin (2019 ONLSTH 35), the tribunal considered the rules governing lawyer advertising. Gary Mazin, a personal injury lawyer, was reprimanded for misleading advertising. He claimed to be "Toronto's Best Personal Injury Lawyer" and used various endorsements and awards that were not verifiable or reflective of his actual performance.

The tribunal found that his marketing suggested qualitative superiority over other lawyers and included misleading references to dubious awards and third-party endorsements. As a result, Mazin was reprimanded for professional misconduct.

The following link relates to the aforementioned prohibited, misleading advertising: Whitelaw-Twining offers no excuse for its non-compliance!

------------

Yet another concern of Law Societies of British Columbia, Ontario, Alberta, etc. is the claim that a certain lawyer is an "expert" (or "deep expert") of a given legal discipline. Specifically, the Law Society of Ontario (a jurisdiction in which Whitelaw-Twining has an office), has a Certified Specialist Programme, to assure the public that lawyers claiming to be experts, be possessed of certain qualifications. On the Law Society's website it is written:

"Becoming a Certified Specialist gives you recognition as a leader in your field. The Certified Specialist Program recognizes lawyer licensees who have met established standards of experience and knowledge requirements in one or more designated areas of law and have maintained exemplary standards of professional practice. Certification as a specialist in an area of specialization is recognized by the Law Society of Ontario with the 'CS' designation. This designation shows the public and colleagues in the legal professions that a lawyer is accomplished and has been acknowledged to be so by the Law Society of Ontario."

Whitelaw-Twining claims that a Partner has earned the status of Best Lawyer in Canada. This Partner heads the Insurance Law and Personal Injury Litigation department, and has been assigned an expert of both disciplines. There is no indication that he has earned the status of a Certified Specialist of either discipline.

In any event, on this website are detailed facts of Defamation Best Lawyer Partner's defamatory, false accusation that a Named Insured of his Client/Insurer had submitted a property claim, under the false pretence of being an insured. At the trial of his meritless SLAPP action against the Named Insured, the Partner will have occasion to objectively substantiate the accuracy of his claim to being the best lawyer in Canada, held to the enhanced standard of an expert in defamation!

Furthermore, in Canada, in addition to the strict standards of Law Societies for the legal profession, the Competition Bureau enforces laws that prohibit misleading advertising and deceptive marketing practices, including puffery. According to the Competition Act, businesses must ensure that any claims they make are accurate and substantiated

To the right is another image from Whitelaw-Twining's website, wherein the firm again claims that its lawyers are possessed of expertise in "29 distinct practice areas".

At Whitelaw-Twining claims of "Expertise" abound. The firm even claims that virtually all of its lawyers are "industry leaders in 29 areas of law" experts.

To the left is a recent, humble proclamation from Whitelaw-Twining, of the "awards" bestowed (by the AI generated platforms) upon 16 of its members for "Best Lawyers® " and 6 others for "Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in Canada".

Perhaps Whitelaw-Twining will voluntarily abandon its deceptive American style of algorithmic advertising, by ceasing and desisting its ongoing violations of the Rules and Regulations of the Law Societies of BC, Ontario, Alberta and other jurisdictions, as well as by the Canadian Bar Association. Whitelaw-Twining's Partner has imposed a time constraint of 17h00, 08 January 2025, which is a propitious completion date and time for the firm's unconditional, full compliance with the Law Societies' Rules and Regulations!

To the right is a recent, humble proclamation from Whitelaw-Twining, as to its sacred ranking, bestowed by the AI generated platform the "Best Law Firms™ "

To the left is another false claim from Whitelaw-Twining. The Globe and Mail Statista did survey thousands of legal professionals, but Whitelaw-Twining received no special status or mention, above the other thousands.

Below is a song, which probably is not in Whitelaw-Twining's The Best Song® "news" announcements.

23 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE:

The Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Nigel Beckmann, continues in his futile efforts to confuse the law as it applies to the facts of the case, and the facts as they apply to the law. As documented hereinbelow, he continues to attempt to bind Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client, with his own defamatory letter of 07 December 2023, wherein he maliciously and defamatorily accused the Insurer/Client's Named Insured of the submission of an insurance claim under the false pretence of being an Insured.

09 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE:

It is difficult to contemplate that a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining, a law firm that appears to have staff members of various specialties, filed two (2) SLAPP actions against a Client/Insurer's Named Insured. Nonetheless, the damages occasioned by a malicious chain of events that could possibly still be mitigated, by Whitelaw-Twining's familiarity with Strata Property Act, Section 155(b), and how it applies.

With reference to the language of the 31 September 2021 denial letter, infra, it is written:

2. EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IS ALSO AN INSURED: 2.5. Your unit or strata lot owners and any tenants, but only with respect to the conduct of the corporation for liability arising out of the common property, excluding liability arising out of the owner's or tenant's possession, occupation or use of property designated for exclusive use. Per the ruling of the Economic v Aviva case and its progeny, the policy language controls. Apart from the issues that the Whitelaw-Twining Insurer/Client failed to apprise the other Scheduled Insurers (the master policy of which offered extended, comprehensive coverage), the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's Insurer/Client refused the First Party Named Insured's claim, which unambiguously involved the "conduct of the corporation for liability arising out

of the common property."

The provision of the liability of the common property is activated either by the Strata corporation's (1) failure to maintain the ornamental pigeon roost ledge, or by (2) failure to enforce the Strata Regulations and Bylaws against the Owner of the unit (who is also an Insured under the policy).

The insured Strata Corporation LMS2845 Bylaw 3.9 states: "The Strata Corporation shall maintain the common property ) and the decorating of the whole of the exterior of the building in a healthful and attractive condition".

Strata Property Act § 26 "Subject to this Act, the regulations and the bylaws, the council must exercise the powers and perform the duties of the strata corporation, including the enforcement of bylaws and rules".

Strata Property Act § 257 addresses amending a strata plan to correct a wrong designation of Limited Common Property (LCP) These steps ensure that the property is correctly classified and that the designation aligns with its actual use and accessibility. Strata Property Act § 129 "(1) To enforce a bylaw or rule the strata corporation may do one or more of the following: (a) impose a fine under section 130; (b) remedy a contravention under section 133; (c) deny access to a recreational facility under section 134"

06 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE: The Whitelaw-Twining Partner continues to refuse to address the solemn ethical and legal issues raised on the public interest, strictly factual website, the publication of which has intentionally been devoid of social media, and otherwise expanded scope. Could it be that efforts to achieve extrajudicial resolutions (such as retraction, apology, compliance with LSBC Rules of the Code of Conduct)are not included in the firm's professional services?

Perhaps one of the firm's insurance coverage specialists could advise the Partner as to the exposure that his SLAPP action and other conduct continues to occasion.

Here is a summary of the illicit activities Whitelaw-Twining's Partner's Claims Manager Client, in the case against an Insured of his Insurer/Client's Named Insured. To the right is an image of an ornamental pigeon roost ledge, situated next to a window of the Partner's Client's Named Insured's 17th floor residential unit. As indicated in the image, the ledge was laden with large amounts of contaminated, toxic spore-producing pigeon faecal matter. The building Strata Corporation (also an Insured of the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's Insurer/Client) refused to abate the health hazard, so the Named Insured occupant submitted a First Party claim with Whitelaw-Twinging's Insurer Client.

A Claims Manager of the Partner's Client wrote a letter dated 30 September 2021, to a Defendant in the Partner's SLAPP action. On 01 May 2024, the Partner requested and was provided with a copy thereof. The letter acknowledged the status of Named Insured, and confirming the following policy language:

2. EACH OF THE FOLLOWING IS ALSO AN INSURED: 2.5. Your unit or strata lot owners and any tenants, but only with respect to the conduct of the corporation for liability arising out of the common property, excluding liability arising out of the owner's or tenant's possession, occupation or use of property designated for exclusive use.

Faced with the "dilemma" of having to process and possibly pay a claim, the Partner's Insurer/Client's Claims Manager devised a scheme [which she has refused to renounce for more than three (3) years], that the Named Insured had physically "possessed", "occupied" and "used" the ornamental pigeon roost ledge, thus triggering the policy exclusion. The roost is physically inaccessible from the Named Insured’s high rise unit. The ledge is devoid of any means of ingress/egress. It is legally, physically and architecturally, common property; not part of any unit of the residential building.

The image to the right is of the health hazard abatement team from specialist Humane Solutions, which, in accordance with BC WorkSafe and OSHA regulations, the remediation crews were required to don protective hazmat suits, special air filtration masks, and safety tie lines, as they gained access to the ledge, by way of a work platform, anchored at the roof of the high rise building. The Named Insured paid $2,541 for the health hazard abatement service.

Common sense ethics are specifically codified in Law Society Codes of Conduct, such as Rule 5.1-2(e) When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime or illegal conduct

In Paulus v. Fleury, 2018 ONCA 1072, the Court of Appeal held that a factual misrepresentation by counsel in judicial proceedings could amount to deceit or civil fraud “in those circumstances where there would be no reasonable basis for the factual assertion; nor could it be said that the statement was made in good faith” (para 30).

Rule 5.1-2(a) states that a lawyer must not abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party. Rule .01 (4) A lawyer who has unknowingly done or failed to do something that, if done or omitted knowingly, would have been in breach of this rule and who discovers it, must, subject to rule 2.03 (Confidentiality), disclose the error or omission and do all that can reasonably be done in the circumstances to rectify it. Rule 5.1-2(b) states that a lawyer must not knowingly assist or encourage any person to abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party.

Rule 5.1-2(c) states that a lawyer must not knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a tribunal. Rule 5.1-2(d) states that a lawyer must not knowingly present false evidence or assist in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.

08 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE: No one has ever notified the creator of this website, that any specific representation or image hereupon, is in any manner untruthful or contrary to fact. Since the truth is an absolute defence to the charge of defamation (at least in the real world), the Myth of "DEFAMATORY FACTS AND TRUTHS" may be a newly developed, revolutionary cause of action, which guides the Whitelaw-Twining Partner in his two (2) SLAPP actions against Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client's Named Insured, and threatens even more.

As detailed, herein, there is no legal basis to support the SLAPP actions. Curiously the referenced Partner happens to be the firm's foremost expert on defamation, with the ironic statement on his web page segment:

"We have experience in mediations and other alternate dispute resolutions. We also counsel our clients on the damage control measures unique to defamation law, like clarifications, retractions and apologies."

As we say in Hindi अपनी गलती मान लेना बहादुरी है, कमजोरी नहीं। (apni galti maan lena bahaduri hai, kamzori nahi)

This public interest website is dedicated to those who are prosecuted by their own Insurer's "defence" lawyers. Here is an explanation of the complexity of the tripartite relationship that exists among three parties: the Insurer, the Named Insured, and Whitelaw-Twining, compensated by the Insurer to prosecute its Named Insured. The sensitivity of the ethical and legal implications is heightened by the fact that, in the case subject of this website, Whitelaw-Twining's Partner has filed two (2) SLAPP actions against a First Party Named Insured of Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client.

To add to the ethical and legal labyrinth, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner tortiously disavowed the sacred Insurer-Insured fiduciary relationship, by falsely accusing the Named Insured of submission of a claim with the Insurer, under the false pretence of being an Insured.

In further abandonment of ethical and legal responsibilities, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner ignored the Named Insured's repeated requests to notify the other Scheduled Insurers (of the customised BFL Strata Protect Insurance Program policy) of the Named Insured's claim. These ethical and legal lapses of fiduciary and other obligations is particularly germane, since the coverage accorded by the sum total of the wide array of Scheduled Insurers would have applied not only to the original claim, but to defence against the two (2) civil actions, which the Whitelaw-Twining Partner has filed against his Insurer/Client's Named Insured!

Tomorrow we shall focus upon another Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Privacy Officer Ryan Darby, and his ongoing violations of the BC Personal Information Protection Act (PIPA), pursuant to which individuals have the right to access their own personal information held by private entities. Despite the Named Insured's repeated requests for non-privileged information, regarding the claim with his Insurer, Privacy Officer Darby refuses to comply with the law, without so much as an acknowledgement.

THIS PUBLIC SERVICE WEBSITE EXPOSES THE HYPOCRITICAL WORLD OF DE FACTO OFFENCE LAWYERS, WHO CLAIM TO DEFEND THE OPPRESSED - DEFENDERS OFFENDERS OF HUMAN RIGHTS (TM)

*Defenders Offenders of Fundamental Human Rights and Dignity

05 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE:

A Whitelaw-Twining Partner is currently prosecuting a frivolous SLAPP action, in which he asserts that "Named Insured", means "Uninsured". A recent decision by Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court, soundly rejects that risible assertion. In that case, Strata Plan VR 2213 v Schappert 2023 BCSC 2080, the Court defined the scope of Strata Property Act § 155(b), as being applicable to persons "who normally occupy strata lots", which well qualifies the Defendant prosecuted by Whitelaw-Twining's Partner, as well as his entire, resident family!

Whitelaw-Twining's toxic involvement in the subject SLAPP action (prosecuted by a Partner, against a Named Insured of the firm's Insurer/Client), began with the firm's (below) letter of 07 December 2023, wherein it is written:

"The Post (Named Insured's website) in question contains significant defamatory and false statements of fact about the Company and its employees. Since the Post also refers to you as an insured, which is untrue, it further deceives any potential reader of the Post about your status and your relationship with the Company, thereby amplifying the sting of the defamatory remarks contained therein." [Highlighted words are for emphasis]

The Partner admits to having published the defamatory letter to personnel of the Named Insured's Insurer. Recently, when the Named Insured (SLAPP Defendant) informed the Whitelaw-Twining Partner that his wife (also a Named Insured) had been extremely distressed by the litigation and other bad faith aspects of the case, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner replied: "If your wife is upset about the litigation, and you would like to put a stop to it, the solution is simple. You take down your website and cease defaming my clients in other ways, and we will discontinue the lawsuit."

The defamation expert Partner defines "defaming [his] clients" as the Named Insured's refusal to succumb to the extortionary demands that he deactivate the public interest website, and renounce his position of being a Named Insured.

Is this disgraceful situation reflective of Whitelaw-Twining's long term aspirations?

According to Whitelaw-Twining's official website, Partner Nigel Beckmann leads the Defamation and Abuse Litigation groups. It was Partner Beckmann who authored the letter to the right, wherein he knowingly, wrongfully and defamatorily accused an Insured of Whitelaw-Twinings' Insurer/Client, of the submission of an insurance claim, under the false pretence of being an Insured. The fact, as confirmed by several representatives of the Insurer/Client, is that the wrongfully accused was a First Party Named Insured, merely exercising his legal and contractual rights to submit a claim with his Insurer, Client of Whitelaw-Twining.

The Whitelaw-Twining Partner proceeded with his cash cow 'project', despite his awareness that (1) an Alberta Claims Team, (2) house counsel Christa Rae Cordick, (3) the Strata Property Act Section 155(b), and (4) the BC Supreme Court, in the case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2080, had defined the Defendant's legal status as a First Party Named Insured.

Although his own Clients, Ombudsman Vincent, house counsel Cordick, Claims Team Manager Myers and Claims Representative Gray had notified, in writing, that the Defendant had been a Named Insured, under the insurance policy, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner filed two (2) SLAPP actions against the Named Insured (threatening a third), on the fraudulent basis that the Defendant had lied about being an insured, and that he had submitted the insurance claim under the false pretence of being an Insured.

In aggravation, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner set up for perjury all four (4) of his Clients, who have sued the Defendant, on the basis that he has never been an Insured. Under most zealous examination at trial, all of these Plaintiffs must either commit perjury, by disavowal of their own confirmations (that the Defendant had been a Named Insured), or Without perjury, they shall have proved that the lawsuit that they have pursued against their company's Named Insured, constitutes abuse of process, malicious prosecution and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

In either event, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner has positioned these employés of the firm's Insurer/Client, as candidates for future judicial redress.

Whitelaw-Twining has insurance coverage experts, who would advise notification of this situation to the firm's E&O insurer, per the terms of the policy.

To this day, instead of attempting to mitigate the damages caused by his wrongful acts, or even to offer an extremely insincere apology, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner threatens even more repressive litigation!

CODE OF CONDUCT OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Disclosure of error or omission 5.1-4 A lawyer who has unknowingly done or failed to do something that, if done or omitted knowingly, would have been in breach of this rule and who discovers it, must, subject to section 3.3 (Confidentiality), disclose the error or omission and do all that can reasonably be done in the circumstances to rectify it.

Threatening criminal or regulatory proceedings 3.2-5 A lawyer must not, in an attempt to gain a benefit for a client, threaten, or advise a client to threaten: (a) to initiate or proceed with a criminal or quasi-criminal charge; or (b) to make a complaint to a regulatory authority.

Listen to a song, dedicated to the Whitelaw-Twining Prosecutor of the Human Rights of the firm's Insurer/Client's Named Insured.

To the left is a (redacted for confidentiality) section of a legal pleading filed by Nigel Beckmann, in his SLAPP action against the Insured of a Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client. The statement denying the Insured's status of the Insurer/Client is simply false, according to Partner Beckmann's own Plaintiffs Clients!

To the right is a (redacted for confidentiality) section of a legal pleading filed by Nigel Beckmann, in his SLAPP action against the Insured of a Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client. The statement denying the insured's status of the Insurer/Client is simply false, according to Partner Beckmann's own Plaintiffs Clients!

PUBLICATION OF THE DEFAMATORY LETTER

Whitelaw-Twining Partner Beckmann published his above defamatory letter to several persons, including insurance personnel, managerial and other agents of the First Party Insured's Insurer(Client of Whitelaw-Twining), such as the Claims Manager of the Insured's property insurance claim. Partner Beckmann's Intentional Interference with the Insured's contract with the Insurer was instrumental in the myriad ethical and legal, regulatory and civil entanglements that ensued, and fester to this day!

All Four (4) Of Whitelaw-Twining Partner's own Clients had Confirmed the Defendant's legal Status as a First Party Named Insured of the Claim with Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client. Thus, the Defamatory, False Allegations in Whitelaw-Twining Partner's Court Filings were Malicious and Deliberate, Not Matters of Opinion, Nor Reasonable Error.

A recently published decision from the Ontario Court of Appeal clarifies the crucial difference between a lawyer’s fair and zealous advocacy for her/his client and the liability for civil fraud, for deception of the Court. In the case of Paulus v. Fleury, 2018 ONCA 1072, the Court cited another recently released Supreme Court of Canada decision in Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27, to conclude that a lawyer does not engage in misconduct for inadvertent errors, but only if she or he acts in good faith. In the Whitelaw-Twining case, the Partner had acknowledged that (1) his own Plaintiff Clients, an Alberta Claims Team, (2) house counsel Christa Rae Cordick, (3) the Strata Property Act Section 155(b), and (4) the BC Supreme Court, in the case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2080, had defined the Defendant's legal status as a First Party Named Insured of Whitelaw-Twining's Insurer/Client.

The motions judge relied on the test for civil fraud as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada in Hryniak v. Maudlin 2014 SCC 7 at para. 87, and held that if one choses to make a statement, it must be an honest statement “it is obvious that counsel have a duty not to lie or make knowingly misleading factual statements” and that this duty is owed to both the Court and to opposing counsel (paras 58 to 59).

The Court of Appeal noted that a lawyer’s duty of resolute advocacy has limits. As Rule 5.1-2(e) of the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct indicates, when a lawyer is acting as an advocate, he or she shall not “knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal by offering false evidence, misstating facts, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct.”

In the Paulus v. Fleury decision the Court of Appeal’s commented that mistakes by lawyers are a “frequent occurrence”. Counsel may lose credibility with the Court and their colleagues if they are not scrupulously careful about factual assertions, or if they advance arguments with no reasonable foundation, but these should not amount to civil fraud in this context unless there is neither a reasonable basis for the statements nor a good faith belief in their accuracy (para 29).

DISCLAIMER

The scene depicted in the above image is totally fictitious, and is not intended to suggest, nor should it be interpreted as, any actual past or present occurrence. The image illustrates the writer's mere opinion as to the possibility of a future court scene, regarding the SLAPP lawsuits, VLC-S-244577 and VLC-S-244484, filed against the Named Insured in the BC Supreme Court.

Whitelaw-Twining takes deserved pride in defence litigation, including defence of persons wrongfully sued in SLAPP actions. In fact, the below button links to an interesting article, written by Jordanna Cytrynbaum, *Directress at the firm. Partner Nigel Beckmann is prosecuting a SLAPP action against an Insured of his Insurer/Client. Perhaps he should contact specialist Cytrynbaum for a consultation! In Whitelaw-Twining's article it is written:

"Given the resource intensive nature of defamation suits, and the length of litigation generally, the Act could provide useful relief for those embroiled in defamation suits. Pursuant to section 4 of the Act, defendants in defamation actions may now apply to have the action against them dismissed. Once an application is filed, the defamation action is effectively stayed until the application has been resolved (section 5). If the applicant is successful, the Act provides for costs (section 7), or, an award for damages if the court determines the plaintiff brought the proceeding in bad faith (section 8)."

*Whitelaw-Twining yet uses the outdated, sexist term "Director" in lieu of "Directress".

[from Whitelaw-Twining's website]

INSURANCE

Since the beginning, Insurance litigation is the driving force of our business. For nearly half a century, we have cultivated strong and lasting relationships with domestic and international insurers and policyholders by delivering a consistent quality of service, whether handling nuisance claims or catastrophic losses. Our team has expertise across all major sectors and industries, enabling us to provide a tailored and comprehensive service offering.

Services

Our team is specialized in the following areas:

• Abuse Litigation

• Bodily Injury

• Class Action

• Construction

• Coverage

• Cyber Liability

• Defamation

• Employment

• Energy Litigation

• Environmental Disputes

• Health & Disability

• Hospitality & Social Host Liability

• Local Government

• Motor Vehicle Accidents

• Multi-Jurisdictional Disputes

• Northern Canada

• Product Liability

• Professional Liability

• Regulatory & Insurance Policy

• Restructuring & Insolvency

• Retail Risks

• Road Maintenance

• Sports & Recreation Liability

• Subrogation & Recovery

• Surety

  Transportation

We are distinguished by our approach and breadth of experience. Our clients’ business objectives remain at the forefront of our risk mitigation and litigation strategy. From defence of insureds to acting for insurers in coverage and subrogated matters, we offer creative solutions and understand that a successful outcome is one that protects and least disrupts our clients’ operations. Today, Whitelaw Twining is recognized as a leading authority on insurance law.

[from Whitelaw-Twining's website]

No reference to the firm's Prosecutorial Arm re: human rights and dignity.

Defamation is a sensitive and complex area of law. Every case is unique and we explore both traditional and creative approaches to resolve defamation claims as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. The complexity of facts and the strong personalities involved in defamation cases make them costly and time consuming—and the costs are not just financial but also personal and professional.

Our clients include businesses, news and trade organizations, institutions that handle and distribute information, and private individuals. With the prevalence of social media, defamation is more common than ever and potential exposures can run the spectrum from minor to massive. We know this area of law is unlike any other, and that there are no cookie cutter solutions.

We have experience in mediations and other alternate dispute resolutions. We also counsel our clients on the damage control measures unique to defamation law, like clarifications, retractions and apologies.

Services

• Risk identification

• Risk management

• Avoidance

Defamation Lawyer Nigel Beckmann

Associate

LEGAL DISCLAIMER

This factual and informative public interest website refers to certain activities of a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining. It is not contended, nor should any reviewer of this site conclude that Partner Beckmann's herein stated acts and omissions apply to others of his cases, or that the conduct of any other lawyer of the firm might be wrongful or unethical.

To the left is a mission statement, prominently displayed on the internet website of law firm Whitelaw-Twining. Based upon this "goal to eliminate any [sic] litigation", one could conclude that a Partner who masterminds frivolous, defamatory litigation, particularly against the Insured of a Whitelaw-Twining Insurer/Client, acts contrary to the firm's stated objectives.