Although INTACT Insurance is oft-cited in Canadian bad faith cases, the case of Barata v. INTACT Insurance Co., [2021] A.J. No. 736, 2021 ABQB 419, bears a notable similarity with INTACT's SLAPP litigation against its own insured, which is the subject of this public interest, informational website.

The core structural similarity between Barata v. Intact and the BC Supreme Court case VLC-S-S-244577 is INTACT's weaponisation of its investigative process against its own insured, RB.

In this SLAPP litigation, INTACT and its appointed counsel, Whitelaw-Twining lawyers Nigel Beckmann and Meera Jain, didn't just fail to protect their Tripartite Client—they actively betrayed their Client's interests by committing a series of calculated acts and omissions:

1. Active Misalignment (the 07 December 2023 letter)

The 07 December 2023 letter from Beckmann (displayed on this website) is the definitive pivot point where he actively adopted the adversary's narrative.

• By deliberately claiming that his own Client, RB, lied to INTACT about being an insured, Beckmann structuralised a defence that exposed his Client to a series of actions against his Client's pecuniary and other interests.

• Rather than zealously defending his Client, Beckmann and his Senior Assistant Offence lawyer Meera Jain used their positions to build a record that benefited the corporate entity and insulated INTACT from its indemnity obligations.

2. Exploitation of the "Tripartite" Information Flow

Just like the investigator in Barata who used an insured's compelled statements to harm him, Beckmann and Jain used the Tripartite framework to obtain their Client's input while systematically planning to leave him undefended. They allowed the corporate clock to run, functioning as an adversarial presence under the mask of appointed counsel.

3. Deliberate Abandonment at the Pleadings Stage

The ultimate betrayal is the lawyers' current tactical stalemate. A solemn conflict of interest exists, not only between the lawyers and their Client, but also an irreconcilable conflict exists between Beckmann and Jain.

The case, subject of this website goes beyond Barata because it is not a singular instance of unauthorised disclosure; it is a coordinated, multi-year omission designed to treat an active Tripartite Client as an outside adversary.

14 July 2026

Plaintiff RB has been served Defendant Nigel Beckmann's and Meera Jain's Response to the NOCC. The lawyer who represents both Defendants is David A. Joyce of a law firm known as QA Law.

NEW ISSUES:

(1) Since Defendants Nigel Beckmann and Meera Jain had prohibited Plaintiff RB from communicating with his own insurer, INTACT, regarding his claims 1033684645 and 4033526840, the sole point of communications falls upon new Defence Counsel Mr. Joyce. His position regarding RB's communication with INTACT is unknown.

(2) The Defendants elected to file a joint Response through a single lawyer. Any issues arising from joint representation fall within the Law Society’s conflict‑of‑interest framework, which governs counsel’s obligations when representing two (2) Clients with structural conflicts of interest, which arise from three independent legal axes.

1. Divergent Defences

A conflict exists whenever each Defendant’s best defence requires blaming the other.

With reference to the Defendants' Response to the NOCC, it contains the following line:

“The Plaintiff caused his own injury, loss, damage or expense…” (Response, Division 2, para. 6)

But nothing in the Response explains:

• who made decisions,

• who gave instructions,

• who communicated with Intact,

• who acted first,

• who relied on whom.

If Jain’s best defence is:

• “I acted under Beckmann’s direction,”

and Beckmann’s best defence is:

• “Jain acted independently,”

then one lawyer cannot ethically run both defences.

This is the classic LSBC conflict.

2. Divergent Claims Exposure

If the allegations imply that:

• one Defendant’s conduct is primary,

• the other’s conduct is secondary,

• one Defendant’s exposure is higher,

• one Defendant’s conduct triggers insurer reporting obligations, then their interests diverge.

The Response fails to erase this by stating:

“At all material times, the Defendants were adverse in interest to the Plaintiff.” (Response, Division 2, para. 2)

But that does not resolve the conflict between Defendants Jain and Beckmann.

If one Defendant is even slightly more exposed, a single lawyer cannot ethically represent both.

3. Divergent Insurance Positions

This is the irreconcilable conflict.

The Response states:

“The Plaintiff was not an Intact Insurance ‘insured’…” (Response, Division 2, para. 4)

In the SLAPP litigation, Defendant Beckmann falsely and defamatorily claimed that RB had lied about being an Insured of INTACT, and letters and Affidavits confirmed RB's status as an INTACT insured, infra!

Unlike Defendant Beckmann's approach, Jain did not contradict the letter and Affidavits confirming RB's Insured status.

This is the LSBC Code conflict.

Summary

The conflict between Jain and Beckmann arises from:

• divergent defences,

• divergent exposure,

• divergent insurance positions.

A single lawyer can represent both only if:

• their defences align,

• their exposure aligns,

• their insurance positions align,

• and they both gave informed consent, but by law under these circumstances the right to separate defence lawyer may not be waived!

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On a separate note, in the below email, INTACT counsel and its Insured's Tripartite Counsel, Meera Jain establishes two (2) essential facts:

(1) That Claims Representative Breanna Gray received the email from RB, requesting that she change her coverage denial decision, because it was based upon an incorrect interpretation of the official Strata Plan, infra.

(2) Ms. Jain continued to prohibit the INTACT Insured from inquiry as to the status of his bifurcated claim, infra.

THIS WEBSITE LAYS OUT, STEP-BY-STEP, THE DOCUMENTED TRUE STORY OF A BAD-FAITH CONSPIRACY, ORCHESTRATED BY INTACT INSURANCE, ITS INHOUSE LEGAL TEAM AND THEIR OUTHOUSE CO-CONSPIRATORS: NIGEL BECKMANN AND MEERA JAIN—THE DYNAMIC OFFENCE DUO FROM LOCAL "LEGAL" FIRM WHITELAW-TWINING.

INTACT VASTLY DEVIATED FROM STANDARD INSURANCE PROTOCOL BY ITS FAILURE TO APPOINT INDEPENDENT DEFENCE COUNSEL TO PROTECT THE INSURED'S INTERESTS. A FORTIORI, INTACT DID NOT MERELY FAIL TO PROVIDE A DEFENCE; IT ACTIVELY EXPLOITED AND WEAPONISED THE INSURER-INSURED RELATIONSHIP BY APPOINTING COUNSEL WHITELAW-TWINING's INSURANCE LAW EXPERTS, WHO INITIATED TWO (2) STRATEGIC LAWSUITS AGAINST PUBLIC PARTICIPATION (SLAPP) DIRECTLY AGAINST THE INTACT INSURED. IN AGGRAVATION, WHITELAW-TWINING LAWYERS JAIN AND BECKMANN SHARED THEIR TRIPARTITE CLIENT'S INFORMATION WITH INTACT AND VARIOUS THIRD PARTY ENTITIES, AND HAS FILED SEVERAL APPLICATION AGAINST THEIR TRIPARTITE CLIENT.

BY FUNDING AND DIRECTING COUNSEL TO ACTIVELY LITIGATE AGAINST ITS OWN INSURED, INTACT COMPLETELY INVERTED THE TRIPARTITE RELATIONSHIP. THIS TRANSFORMS A STANDARD FAILURE-TO-DEFEND CLAIM INTO AN EGREGIOUS, ACTIVE BAD-FAITH SABOTAGE CAMPAIGN.

THIS UNPRECEDENTED CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND DOCUMENTED PREJUDICE PROVIDE THE PRECISE FOUNDATIONAL ELEMENTS REQUIRED TO MEET THE JUSTICE-BASED THRESHOLD FOR AMENDING PLEADINGS, FOR WHICH THE INTACT INSURED WILL SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE COURT (RE THE SLAPP LITIGATION DOCUMENTED ON THIS WEBSITE). THE COURT HAS STRONG GROUNDS TO GRANT LEAVE FOR THE AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM, AS THE AMENDMENT DIRECTLY ADDRESSES ONGOING, SYSTEMIC TORTIOUS CONDUCT BY THE INSURER AND ITS AGENTS.

INTENT TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM AGAINST INTACT, AMANDA MYERS, CHRISTA CORDICK AND MICHELE VINCENT.

The SLAPP Defendant intends to amend his Counterclaim against INTACT, pending Meera Jain's and Nigel Beckmann's lawyers' Responses to the NOCC against them. Such filings will reveal the positions that they adopt, the interests they claim to represent, and any contradictions between their respective defence counsel — all of which will be incorporated directly into the Amended pleading. Specific attention will be devoted to:

• Which insured‑class interests they assert

• How each defence counsel identifies their client

• Any divergence between Beckmann’s and Jain’s factual theories

• Any conflict‑of‑interest positions arising from tripartite duties

• Any contradictions regarding the INTACT claims files 1033684645 and 4033526840.

• Any new evidence that they disclose or attempt to suppress

These elements will determine the scope and structure of the Amended Counterclaim against INTACT, Amanda Myers, Christa Cordick and Michele Vincent.

TO: Mathieu Grenier, Senior Legal Counsel (Intact Financial Corporation)

CC: Meera Jain, Nigel Beckmann Defence Counsel of Record

Five Years of Institutional Willful Bad Faith

This notice frames a definitive legal threshold before further formal escalation.

For almost five (5) years INTACT’s denial of indemnity has relied exclusively on a truncated reading of Strata Plan LMS 2845. nine (9) Claims representatives and INTACT's internal and external lawyers have persistently treated the designation "B" as an absolute indicator of exclusive-use Limited Common Property (LCP), consciously ignoring the explicit legal qualifier established in the plan's legend:

"B denotes balcony, limited common property for use of adjacent strata lot unless otherwise indicated."

The structural reality of this architectural feature—being entirely sealed, inaccessible, and incapable of physical ingress or egress—constitutes the definitive "otherwise indicated" condition. A tenant cannot exert operational care, custody, or control over a sealed structural asset owned collectively by the Strata Corporation.

You might abandon your frivolous LCP defence, prior to the appearances of various defence counsel, in the matter of BC Supreme Court case S-264675, as well as the Amended Counterclaim against INTACT, et al.

To the left is an image of correspondence of 04 October 2021, from Claims Representative Breanna Gray, wherein she misrepresented the above legal reality that the pigeon roost ledge was not LCP.

For almost five (5) years, despite constant correspondence to Breanna Gray, Claims Manager Amanda Myers, Ombudswoman Michele Vincent, numerous claims personnel, INTACT Attorneys Mathieu Grenier, Frédéric Cotnoir, Casey Goodrich, Christa Cordick, Meera Jain, Nigel Beckmann, Gavin Clark, et al. INTACT refuses to reconsider the legal reality that the pigeon roost ledge, which proximately caused the forcible eviction of RB, was Strata Common Property (CP) and as such, that INTACT was legally and contractually obligated to remediate the known hazard.

SINCE INTACT's LAWYERS NIGEL BECKMANN AND MEERA JAIN DEFY THE ETHICAL REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WITHDRAW FROM INTACT's SLAPP LITIGATION, THEIR TRIPARTITE CLIENT WILL SOON FILE AND SERVE THE FOLLOWING APPLICATION TO REMOVE THEM.

WHITELAW-TWINING PARTNER NIGEL BECKMANN's MODUS OPERANDI IS QUITE INGENUOUS - ANY ACCUSATION, HOWEVER DEFAMATORY AND FALSE, IS EFFECTIVE, IF IT IS RENDERED BY A MEMBER OF THE LAW SOCIETY (LSBC), AGAINST AN UNSOPHISTICATED, BLUE COLLAR RETIREE AND HIS EQUALLY UNSOPHISTICATED WIFE.

BELOW EMAIL IS FROM THE LMS2845 PROPERTY MANAGER TO THE STRATA BROKERAGE. THE  EMAIL WAS PROVIDED TO INTACT CLAIMS MANAGER AMANDA MYERS, FOUR (4) MONTHS PRIOR TO HER DENIAL OF COVERAGE LETTER OF 30 SEPTEMBER 2021, infra.

YET, AS DOCUMENTED ON THIS WEBSITE, DESPITE THE DOCUMENTED NOTICE TO THE INTACT CLAIMS MANAGER, INTACT LAWYER CHRISTA CORDICK FILED A PERJURED DECLARATION REGARDING THE LEDGE and INTACT LAWYERS NIGEL BECKMANN and MEERA JAIN HAVE ISSUED CORRESPONDENCE AND FILED LEGAL PLEADINGS PROMOTING THE FALSE ALLEGATION THAT THE LEDGE WAS LCP, and THAT THE SLAPP DEFENDANT (AN INTACT INSURED TENANT OF UNIT 1702) HAD TRIGGERED LANGUAGE EXCLUSIONARY TO COVERAGE, BY THE PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE "OCCUPATION", "POSSESSION" and "USE" OF SAID LEDGE. IN A STUNNING WRITTEN ADMISSION, INTACT LAWYER BECKMANN CONFIRMED THAT INTACT HAS NEVER DISPATCHED ANY CLAIMS PERSONNEL TO PHYSICALLY INSPECT THE LEDGE.

ONLY AN INSURANCE LAW EXPERT LIKE WHITELAW-TWINING PARTNER BECKMANN COULD CONCOCT SUCH A CONVOLUTED LEGAL QUAGMIRE FROM SUCH SIMPLE, FUNDAMENTAL FACTS!

From 2021 INTACT has attempted to legitimise its wrongful denial of a claim submitted by an Insured, RB, on the spurious basis that a physically inaccessible, 18th floor external, cement pigeon roost ledge, on the exterior of RB's insured unit was limited common property (LCP), and although INTACT admitted that the ledge was physically inaccessible, that RB had nullified his insurance coverage, by allegedly having "possessed", "occupied" and "used" said ledge.

In the official Site Plan the ledge is described as common property (CP), not LCP, due to the absence of any means of ingress to or egress from the ledge. In an email displayed on this website, Richmond, BC Municipal Building Inspector Amritpal Batra officially declared the ledge to be common property (CP). However, INTACT and its lawyers Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann refuse to abandon their arrantly discredited ruse that the ledge is LCP, and that RB had nullified coverage by having occupied the physically inaccessible ledge!

Among other damages sustained by RB, due to INTACT's relentless bad faith acts and omissions, is INTACT's refusal to provide defence counsel to RB at an RTB hearing, as the result of which RB and his wife were forcibly evicted from their INTACT-insured rental unit.

As evidenced on this public interest website, in a letter of 30 September 2021 Claims Manager Myers and Claims Representative Gray cited Strata Property Act § 155(b), confirming RB's status as an insured of INTACT.

More than two (2) years later, in the email of 07 December 2023, which INTACT's lawyer Beckmann sent to RB, Beckmann defamatorily accused RB of lying to INTACT about being an insured.

From the time of receipt of Beckmann's defamatory letter, until his filing of a NOCC against Beckmann, RB has repeatedly requested, then demanded, that Beckmann retract the defamatory allegations of the 07 December 2023 letter. Beckmann has refused.

Although the Supreme Court obviously lacks jurisdictional authority to order that Beckmann retract his letter, the purpose of RB's requests was allow Beckmann years of opportunities to voluntarily retract the defamatory accusation, on the basis that Beckmann's accusation might have been in error.

However, by way of his staunch refusal to retract the defamatory portion of his letter, Beckmann has dispelled any notion that his defamation might have been unintentional. Whatever Beckmann's motivation might have been, he has significantly contributed to INTACT's bad faith.

In the below email, as recent as 23 December 2025, Whitelaw-Twining Senior Associate Meera Jain augmented and confirmed INTACT's bad faith (1) by lying that the letter of 30 September 2021 advised the INTACT Insured that he was NOT an Insured, which is the opposite of the facts, and (2) opining the factual and legal absurdity that Beckmann hadn't defamed the Insured, based upon Jain's risible attempt to rewrite the facts of the 30 September 2021 letter, infra!

Under the perfidious guidance of Whitelaw-Twining's Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann, the level of INTACT's bad faith has reached historic depths!

As indicated in the below official INTACT internal record (sworn Affidavit certified by Whitelaw-Twining lawyer Gavin Clark) as recent as 30 April 2024, Claims Representative Breanna Gray revealed the existence of an open, ongoing claim (no. 1033684645).

Breanna Gray is the Claims Representative who co-authored the 30 September 2021 letter, denying RB's coverage (claim no. 4033526840), ostensibly for having occupied the inaccessible pigeon roost ledge infra.

More than 2 1/2 years after her denial, Breanna Gray announces, for the first time, that INTACT has bifurcated his claim into two; i.e. the denied claim (4033526840) and the active claim (1033684645).

However, once again, INTACT lawyers Jain and Beckmann introduce another level of unethical interference with their own Tripartite Client's rights, as a confirmed INTACT Insured, by blocking all communication with INTACT, forbidding RB from communicating with Breanna Gray, or any other claims representative, under the threat of a punitive court Application.

This bifurcation is not the result of a careless oversight, it is a calculated tactic to manufacture “lack of pursuit” and close both claims while the insured is trapped behind lawyer‑imposed gag orders and adjuster silence. INTACT’s conduct shows intentional obstruction, intentional concealment, and intentional deprivation of the Insured’s right to advance this claim — a textbook bad‑faith strategy designed to preserve denial while confirming that one of the bifurcated claims is still active!

The below email from Meera Jain to her Tripartite Client RB is an example of the numerous admonitions against contacting INTACT, including Claims Representative Breanna Gray, who had advised that claim no. 1033684645 is active. Jain refuses to relay correspondence to INTACT from RB, yet threatens to file punitive Applications against RB, if he should disobey her instructions.

24 June 2026

ANNOUNCEMENT: THE NOCC AGAINST R. NIGEL BECKMANN and MEERA JAIN HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THEM. ALTHOUGH THE DEFENCE COUNSEL, APPOINTED BY THEIR E&O INSURER, HAS NOT NOTIFIED THE PLAINTIFF YET, SHE INDUBITABLY WILL PROCEED TO FILE A STANDARD APPLICATION TO DISMISS OR STRIKE THE NOCC. HOWEVER, SHE CANNOT PREVAIL FOR NUMEROUS REASONS, PERHAPS THE MOST COMPELLING BEING THAT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS DOES NOT RUN DURING THE ATTORNEY CLIENT (TRIPARTITE) RELATIONSHIP, WHICH EXISTS TO THIS DAY.

Since this is a public interest informational website,Whitelaw-Twining lawyers R. Nigel Beckmann's and Meera Jain's filing and prosecution of two (2) SLAPP actions against their own Tripartite Client, was a solemn, unparalleled breach of legal ethics. Out of respect for this "dynamic duo" - no Complaint to the LSBC will be filed.

Beckmann's unethical approach began with his letter of 07 December 2023, infra, to his Client, falsely and defamatorily accusing his Client of submission of a claim with INTACT under false pretences. Under the threat of the prosecution of civil litigation against his Client, Beckmann demanded that his Client remove this public interest, expository website from the internet, in violation of the Client's rights to freedom of expression.

When Beckmann's Client refused to immediately succumb to Beckmann's extortive demands, within only six (6) days, in a letter dated 13 December 2023, Beckmann repeated his extortive demands that his Client remove this website from the internet, with additional demands that the Client cease all communications with the Client's insurer INTACT, including the Customer Experience Team (CET) that was in the process of investigation of a Complaint that the Client had made regarding a fraudulent claims practice on the part of an INTACT Claims Manager.

When the Client again refused to remove this website from the internet, Beckmann sought and obtained legal representation of the Claims Manager against whom the Client had made a Complaint, and in an act of unprecedented perfidy, Beckmann filed two (2) SLAPP actions, representing the errant Claims Manager against his own Client. Beckmann's cohort, Whitelaw-Twining Senior Associate Meera Jain, has aided and abetted Beckmann's acts and omissions against their Client, as evidenced on this website.

As if this date, Beckmann refuses to retract his defamatory letters. Jain supports Beckmann's refusal, with an active role in Court Applications and other oppressive tactics against their own Insured!

IF THESE WHITELAW-TWINING LAWYERS HAD OPTED FOR THE LSBC COMPLIANT, ETHICAL APPROACH, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE:

Notified INTACT — report the alleged defamatory content for coverage assessment, particularly since Claims Manager Myers and Claims Representative Gray had already confirmed the Insured's legal status, in writing, on 30 September 2021.

Advised their Client — warn their Tripartite Client of potential exposure.

Issued a reservation‑of‑rights letter — if coverage was uncertain, they must formally reserve rights.

Sought independent counsel for their Client — Since a conflict had arisen, they were obligated to arrange for separate counsel, not sue their Client, particularly with SLAPP actions.

Refrained from enlisting and assisting INTACT Claims personnel, who joined in the SLAPP litigation — absolute prohibition from soliciting and supporting the SLAPP Plaintiffs.

Maintained loyalty and confidentiality — cannot ethically weaponise information or align with adversaries.

Escalated internally — raise the conflict within INTACT, not in court against their own Tripartite Client.

️In the instant case, neither Beckmann, nor Jain, ever attempted to seek voluntary removal or deactivation of any content. Instead of following the basic steps of ethical conflict management, the lawyers chose to threaten, to represent INTACT Claims personnel against their Tripartite Client, filing SLAPP actions, Applications and other litigation tactics. That conduct is inimical to that which an ethical lawyer in a tripartite relationship is permitted to do, even if any content on the website had been defamatory.

As evidenced on this public interest website, Whitelaw-Twining lawyer Meera Jain' has rejected the above NOCC Plaintiff's offer to insulate Jain's Clients, INTACT personnel Amanda Myers and Christa Cordick (1) by removing their names from both websites, and (2) by signing a Covenant not to enforce any judgement, which may be ordered against them in BC Supreme Court case VLC S-S-244577.

These links lead to the official Whitelaw-Twining website, which states that the two Defendants are specialists in Insurance Law, with the statement "Since the beginning, Insurance litigation is the driving force of our business".

Irony is not a legal term, but nonetheless, is it even remotely credible that these two insurance law experts are unfamiliar with the insurance law, common concept of Tripartite Client?

LEGAL DISCLAIMER: THE FORENSIC EVIDENCE DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE ESTABLISHES THAT INTACT's WHITELAW-TWINING LAWYERS' ACTS AND OMISSIONS HAVE SUBJECTED THEIR CLIENT INTACT TO EXTRAORDINARY PUNITIVE  DAMAGE EXPOSURE ON THE BASIS OF EGREGIOUS BAD FAITH.

NO POST OF THIS WEBSITE ALLEGES THAT EITHER NIGEL BECKMANN OR MEERA JAIN ACTED WITH MALICE TOWARD INTACT.

The above email from Nigel Beckmann represents a substantial, legally fascinating rewrite of reality. To appreciate the sheer brilliance of this perfect legal storm, one must marvel at the following conflicting elements, now fully detailed across the public interest websites, this and offencelawyersreport.com:

• The "Non-Insured" Fiction: In the email Beckmann relies upon the irrelevant fact the Supreme Court lacks jurisdiction to order (1) that Beckmann retract his letter of 03 December 2023, or (2) that the CET complete its investigation, or (3) that either Amanda Myers or Christa Cordick rectify their perjured Affidavits, or (4) that Myers or Cordick re-evaluate their illicit acts and omissions, or (5) any other specific performance remedy.

• DESPITE BECKMANN's and JAIN's FEIGNED IGNORANCE, THE SUPREME COURT IS POSSESSED OF THE ONLY JURISDICTION, WHICH REPRESENTS EXTREME EXPOSURE TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES, IS THE JURISDICTION TO AWARD DAMAGES, PARTICULARLY THOSE PUNITIVE, FOR THE WELL-DOCUMENTED RECORD OF INTACT'S EGREGIOUS BAD FAITH ACTS AND OMISSIONS, SINCE 2021.

• The Tripartite Amnesia: While Whitelaw-Twining markets its profound expertise in insurance litigation, this email confirms a complete, seemingly selective amnesia regarding the foundational concept of a Tripartite Client. INTACT actively weaponised its position against the very SLAPP Defendant that INTACT was structurally obligated to protect.

• The Goodrich Contradiction: While Beckmann claimed that it owes no duties and faces no successful claims, INTACT’s other appointed counsel, Casey Goodrich, had prosecuted a third-party action against the SLAPP Defendant's Strata Owner of LMS2845, insured by INTACT, for failing to maintain the 18th-floor exterior ledge, infra. INTACT's bad faith acts and omissions represent a veritgable masterclass in institutional self-sabotage: one arm of INTACT sued over a maintenance defect while the other arm pretends the coverage pool and the property issue do not exist.

• The $2,000 "Spirit of Christmas" Insult: Beckmann's email closes with a majestic, time-limited $2,000 nuisance offer tied to a demand for complete silence, website deactivations, and a total release.

By trying to cordon off its misconduct, INTACT has instead anchored an unassailable record of bad faith. Let their defense counsel assume the staggering burden of explaining to a chambers judge how a premier insurance firm managed to trip over every single tripartite and contractual boundary, in a single file.

Oh, what a tangled web we weave, when first we practise to deceive! Sir Walter Scott

As detailed on this Whistleblower, anti-SLAPP website, Nigel Beckmann, the Director of Whitelaw-Twining (DWF) Defamation Department, has falsely and defamatorily accused a confirmed Insured of his Client INTACT Insurance of commission of the crime of fraudulent submission of an insurance claim with INTACT.

Attorney Beckmann (and his trusty cohort Attorney Meera Jain) have engaged in a relentless campaign of SLAPP litigation against the Insured, on the apparent belief that the tens of thousands of dollars in fees, which they have received from INTACT, will somehow outweigh the immeasurable damage to their Clients' pecuniary and reputational interests that they have inflicted

With the moment-to-moment guidance of its creative, Whitelaw-Twining lawyers, INTACT Insurance Company has long bluffed that a Summary Judgment Application against the SLAPP Defendant would materialise, but after several months, the lawyer has begun to bluff about the bluff. No filing, no service, no scheduling, no affidavit, no evidence, no particulars; i.e. a real nothing burger!

Interestingly, INTACT's and the other SLAPP Plaintiffs' Amended Notice of Civil Claim (NOCC), filed on 15 September 2025, nebulously references ‘the Post’ and ‘Post2’—neither defined, described, nor identified.

Certainly, the Director of Whitelaw-Twining's Defamation and Insurance Law Departments would know that undefined claims cannot be adjudicated, yet Counsel Meera Jain persists in invoking them as if repetition could substitute for substance. The procedural vacuum is complete: a phantom Application in orbit around an unidentified pleading. The spectacle now resembles performance art—an interpretive dance of paperwork without paper.

The Court, however, does not adjudicate interpretive dance. It adjudicates facts, pleadings, and evidence, none of which has been provided.

It is rumoured that Whitelaw-Twining's dynamic duo, Beckmann and Jain, have scored a remarkable success rate of 93.4%, as against bewildered, defenceless senior citizen SLAPP defendants, and they have even published the imaginary guide, to the right.

To the left is an image of the SLAPP Defendant's AMENDED COUNTERCLAIM.

The document, 18 pages in length, is replete with new, improved and exciting charging allegations, focused upon SLAPP Plaintiff Amanda Myers' fabricated claims investigation and other illicit claims practices, SLAPP Plaintiff Christa Cordick's false testimony and perjured Affidavit, SLAPP Plaintiff Michele Vincent's tortious obstruction of INTACT's CET investigation, offence lawyer Nigel Beckmann's false, defamatory accusation that the SLAPP Defendant had committed criminal fraud by submission of a claim to INTACT under false pretences, and offence lawyer Meera Jain' obstruction of INTACT's CET investigation, and a variety of regulatory and Rules of Court obstructions.

Plaintiffs might contact Ms. Jain, if they are interested in the protective Consent Order of 15 December 2025, that Ms. Jain draughted but refuses either to sign, or even to discuss with the Amended Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Suppression of the truth and the facts have proved arrantly lucrative to Whitelaw-Twining aka W-T DWF????

The creator of this website wishes to express appreciation to Gavin Clark, a former Whitelaw-Twining lawyer whom Nigel Beckmann had assigned to pursue the herein malicious SLAPP litigation. To his profound credit, after a short period of time, Mr. Clark decided that bullying a senior citizen couple is inimical to his moral values, so he precipitously quit Whitelaw-Twining and went on to a major law firm, worthy of his talents and dignity. We wish the young man success in his pursuits!

As detailed on this public interest, the above whistleblower award of $25,000 is related to INTACT’s bad faith tactics - refusal to respond to the Demand for Particulars (DFP), combined with its refusal to identify any remaining allegedly defamatory material on this website, forms a coherent pattern of institutional bad‑faith concealment: asserting a defence while withholding its factual basis, maintaining a civil action while disavowing the material facts required to sustain it, and mirroring the very opacity regulators now condemn through recent whistleblower awards. This conduct signifies a deliberate strategy of withholding, contradicting its own CET investigators' record, evading disclosure obligations, and preserving ambiguity as a litigation weapon. Such tactics undermine procedural fairness, impugn the credibility of INTACT’s position, and align with behaviour regulators increasingly classify as misconduct.

As detailed on this website, infra, INTACT's Counsel Meera Jain has repeatedly, falsely claimed that the SLAPP litigation contrived by her mentor, Nigel Beckmann blocks completion of the investigation of INTACT's Customer Experience Team (CET). However, when the Insured Claimant requests of Attorney Jain any authority that supports her position, she simply ignores the requests, true to her established, dismissive style.

In fact, INTACT's own protocol [available by pressing the above button] contradicts Ms. Jain's position, as INTACT's official regulations guarantee a 'fair and consistent' review through to the Ombudswoman level. Nowhere in INTACT's entire protocol is it mentioned that litigation would block the Customer Experience Team (CET). In fact, the protocol explicitly outlines a four-step sequence—Front Line, Management, CET, and finally the Ombudsperson—intended to provide a "fair and consistent" review of complaints.

The theory that litigation "blocks" this process is undermined by the following:

• Mandatory Sequence: INTACT's policy directs users to contact the CET specifically if they are dissatisfied with previous steps.

• Procedural Silence: There is no clause in the stated protocol that suspends the CET's duties once a legal file is opened.

• Fairness Commitment: The commitment to a professional and transparent resolution remains the published standard.

Contradicting Authorities

• Mandatory Complaint Handling: The Insurance Companies Act and OSFI guidelines require that institutions maintain and follow established procedures for handling complaints. There is no "litigation exception" that permits a company to ignore its own internal protocol once a court case begins.

• BC Financial Institutions Act: Section 80.3(1) implies a mandatory complaint-handling regime that should resolve factual disputes through internal experts rather than relying on the court to reconstruct basic records.

• OSFI Guideline E-21: This guideline expects institutions to manage risks and maintain regulatory compliance for all business activities; a "litigation block" could be viewed as a failure to meet these ongoing regulatory and legal requirements.

• Corporate Ethics & Public Commitment: INTACT's own "Code of Consumer Rights & Responsibilities" states the right to timely complaint resolution and that companies are committed to high standards regardless of the venue.

This Whistleblower website exposes, in forensic detail, the tale of Nigel Beckmann, the Director of the Insurance Law and Defamation departments of Whitelaw-Twining, a "boutique" law firm, with aspirations of grandeur. One day, Mr. Beckmann contrived a seemingly perfect side‑hustle: to falsely and defamatorily accuse a retired carpet installer, senior citizen, of the commission of the crime of insurance fraud, by lying about being an insured of Beckmann's Client, INTACT Insurance, and having submitted a claim under false pretences.

Beckmann had been fully aware that INTACT’s own claims personnel had already confirmed the retiree’s insured status. Easy money, Beckmann figured. Seniors are easily intimidated, especially when vexed by 'free-range lawyers'. Beckmann's plan - intimidate the defenceless with an extortive letter (the entire letter is displayed on this website), get some popcorn, and watch the couple capitulate, as tens of thousands of dollars of attorneys' fees are subsidised by INTACT's stakeholders.

However, Beckmann and his logistical support team member, Sr Associate Meera Jain didn’t anticipate that the senior citizen couple would fight back, as shown on this website. Suddenly Beckmann’s and Jain's little revenue‑generator looked less like legal strategy and more like a cheap parlour trick, exposed under bright lights — a contrivance built upon a premise they knew was false from its inception!

The images to the left are of INTACT’s Case‑Specific Admissions (from Counsel Meera Jain’s CPC filing in the Supreme Court)

This filing is replete with numerous of INTACT's admissions against its own interests, and those of its Whitelaw-Twining lawyers. These admissions focus upon: Rule 1‑3, INTACT's CET, and the fact that INTACT insists upon foisting its administrative function onto the Supreme Court.

1. Intact admits the CET investigation is incomplete — because Jain lists “completion of CET investigation” as an issue requiring a court order.

2. Intact admits the CET has not issued its final business decision letter — Jain expressly state this as a live issue.

3. Intact admits the CET is the body responsible for resolving the dispute — Jain describes CET as the “statutory function” holder.

4. Intact admits the parties agreed to resolve the matter administratively — Jain references “the parties’ agreement” to use CET.

5. Intact admits the Court should not assume CET’s statutory function — meaning Intact acknowledges the Court is not the proper decision‑maker.

6. Intact admits Rule 8‑1 supports administrative resolution — Jain invokes Rule 8‑1 as the mechanism for CET completion.

7. Intact admits the Court’s involvement should be minimal — Jain uses the phrase “bare minimum, active Court involvement".

8. Intact admits it is asking the Court to enforce CET compliance — which is an admission that CET is not complying voluntarily.

9. Intact admits the dispute is administrative, not judicial — because Jain frames the issue as whether the Court should “assume the CET’s administrative, statutory function.”

10. Intact admits it is fighting its own CET — by asking the Court to decide whether CET should complete its own investigation.

11. Intact admits it is attempting to offload its statutory duty onto the Court — by asking the Court to “assume” CET’s role if CET does not act.

12. Intact admits the CET process is mandatory before trial — because Jain frames CET completion as a prerequisite to avoid “hours and days of applications and eventual trial.”

13. Intact admits the Court should not interfere with the administrative process — yet Jain simultaneously asks the Court to intervene.

14. Intact admits the administrative remedy is capable of resolving all issues — that CET completion would avoid a 10‑day trial.

15. Intact admits the Court is being asked to perform an administrative function it should not perform — a contradiction that exposes their Rule 1‑3 breach.

These admissions serve as evidence that:

• Intact knows CET is the proper decision‑maker.

• Intact knows Rule 1‑3 requires administrative resolution first.

• Intact knows the Supreme Court should not be performing CET’s job.

• Intact knows CET has not complied.

• Intact is fighting its own CET instead of directing it to finish the investigation.

• Intact is forcing the Court into an administrative role the Court opposes.

As forensically documented on this informational, public interest website, in April 2013, the site creator, RB, filed a formal Complaint with INTACT Insurance, regarding a Claims Manager's fabricated, illicit claim coverage denial.

In an email of 24 April 2023 INTACT's Customer Experience Team (CET). acknowledged that it would investigate the Complaint, and after 30 days would issue a Final Business Decision (FBD) letter to the Complainant. In an email of 26 May 2023, INTACT Ombudswoman Michele Vincent confirmed her assignment of the Complaint to the CET, and that an FBD letter would be issued after 30 days. The Complainant agreed that the Final Decision of the CET would be dispositive of his Complaint.

As no such letter had been issued, the Complainant wrote to the CET, without response, but in a letter dated 07 December 2023, the Complainant did receive a letter from a Nigel Beckmann, a lawyer who falsely and defamatorily accused the INTACT Insured of having lied to INTACT, having submitted the insurance claim under false pretences. Beckmann's unethical conduct is abundantly evidenced on this website, infra.

During 2025, in a move to divert attention to his unethical conduct, Beckmann slyly transferred the INTACT file to his Sr Associate lawyer, Meera Jain, who has extensively expanded the scope of Beckmann's errors and omissions, particularly in subversion of the agreement of the CET, the Ombudswoman and the Complainant, that the CET's decision would be dispositive of the Complaint.

At the sacrifice of INTACT's interests, its lawyers Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann (Whitelaw-Twining "legal" firm), these lawyers have disavowed the following two emails, which are material pieces of evidence in INTACT's own official files, Provincial and Supreme Court records, as well as the Defendant's forensic evidentiary dossier.

IS THE COURT TO BELOW ITS OWN EYES, OR RELY UPON THE FALSITIES PROPOUNDED BY THE "DYNAMIC DUO" FROM WHITELAW-TWINING, MEERA JAIN AND NIGEL BECKMANN?

INTACT INSURANCE'S RELENTLESS, COSTLY EFFORTS TO PREVENT ITS OWN CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE TEAM's (CET's) INVESTIGATION OF CLAIMS MANAGER AMANDA MYERS' AND CLAIMS REPRESENTATIVE BREANNA GRAY's ILLEGITIMATE CLAIM DENIAL.

As abundantly detailed on this website, INTACT Insurance and its lawyers, Casey Goodrich, Christa Cordick of INTACT, Meera Jain, Nigel Beckmann, Gavin Clark, Morgan Stearns, Priya Parihar of Whitelaw-Twining, have engaged in conduct that promotes INTACT's web of deception.

The below image is of an INTACT internal memorandum, recorded by Claims Representative Breanna Gray, on 27 September 2021.

Although by 27 September 2021 both Claims Representative Gray and Claims Manager Myers knew the Claimant had not “occupied,” “possessed,” or “used” the exterior ledge, they nonetheless issued a denial letter three days later asserting precisely that. The denial was therefore advanced on a premise already known to be false within INTACT’s own file.

For nearly five years, INTACT has expended substantial resources, cycled more than fifteen claims personnel through the file, and burdened both the Provincial and Supreme Courts with avoidable proceedings. This litigation was advanced in place of the mandatory Customer Experience Team (CET) investigation required under the Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1)— a process that would have directly confronted the untenable basis of the Myers‑Gray denial. INTACT’s decision to divert the matter into the courts, rather than permit its own CET to conclude its findings, constitutes a deliberate displacement of the statutory remedy and has multiplied the proceedings without justification.

THE INTACT INSURANCE CONTRAST: DOCUMENTED DECEPTION

The Conspiracy of Silence and Contradiction

What happens when INTACT, a multi-billion-dollar insurance corporation gets caught in a coverage denial built on fiction? In this instance, INTACT refused to correct the record, they instead relied upon the toxic guidance of Whitelaw-Twining's Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann, in their futile attempts to gaslight the insured and ultimately, the Provincial and Supreme Courts.

We are witnessing an orchestrated institutional panic. INTACT Insurance and their legal counsel at Whitelaw Twining are trapped in a three-headed lie of their own creation!

• The Internal Truth (27 September 2021): INTACT'S own internal corporate memorandum (Breanna Gray) admits the absolute reality: the 18th-floor ledge has "no real purpose of access... and no door to go out and use the patio/ledge for." They knew it was vacant and inaccessible.

• The Claims Denial (Amanda Myers): Despite their internal knowledge, this same Breanna Gray, in collusion with Claims Manager Amanda Myers issued a bad-faith denial manufactured on the myth that the ledge was "occupied" and under exclusive control of the Claimant.

• The Corporate Retreat (May 2026): Now caught in a trap, their lead litigation counsel (Beckmann) frantically attempts to rewrite history in writing, boldly asserting: "No one ever said you 'occupied' the ledge."

A Coordinated Fraud upon the Court

This is no longer a mere bureaucratic blunder. It is a structured, collusive effort to maintain a known falsehood.

By actively suppressing their own internal Customer Experience Team (CET) investigation, refusing to let Amanda Myers come forward to correct the record, and threatening frivolous Summary Judgment Applications based upon unpleaded allegations, INTACT’s "legal" team is attempting a procedural ambush. They are demanding the Court's time to validate a defence that their own internal documents thoroughly expose as a fabrication.

The records do not lie, even although INTACT and its lawyers do. Every document, email, and perjured of their Affidavits has been documented in the evidence file.

Investigative Report: The Whitelaw-Twining Letter That Dragged INTACT into regulatory violations, and created an internal conflict between specific INTACT rogue elements and INTACT's investigators of illicit activities, the Customer Experience Team (CET).

As detailed on this website, on 07 December 2023, Whitelaw‑Twining Partner and Director of the firm's Insurance and Defamation law department, Nigel Beckmann issued a letter to RB, a person confirmed as an INTACT insured, by Claims Manager Amanda Myers, Claims Representative Breanna Gray and INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick. In the letter, infra, Beckmann, disregarded the confirmation of RB as an INTACT insured, and nonetheless accused RB of:

“The Post 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.”

The Bad‑Faith Accusation

The letter’s claim that the recipient was not an insured contradicts internal documentation showing active coverage at the time of the disputed claim. By asserting false pretences, the firm effectively fabricated grounds for a fraud narrative, positioning the Insured as a wrongdoer rather than a Complainant.

This manoeuvre served two purposes:

1. To discredit the insured’s legitimate claim for coverage.

2. To lay the foundation for a SLAPP suit—a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation—aimed at silencing public criticism of Intact’s handling of the matter.

The SLAPP and Its Architects

Following the letter, two (2) coordinated lawsuits were filed against the INTACT Insured, naming Cordick, Myers, and Vincent as co‑plaintiffs alongside Intact. Each had played a role in the underlying deception:

Together, with later participation of Whitelaw-Twining Sr Associate Meera Jain, Beckmann they advanced a joint SLAPP action—a civil suit alleging defamation of INTACT, despite the fact that the insured’s legal status was supported by documentary evidence. The litigation’s true purpose was not to vindicate reputation but to intimidate and silence exposure of deceptive practices. INTACT's Complaint Officer and Ombudswoman, Plaintiff Michele Vincent was instrumental to the nefarious collusion, by curtailing the CET's nascent investigation of illicit claims practices, infra.

Evidence of Deceptive Practices

Publicly available materials on this website document:

• Contradictions between Intact’s internal communications and its pleadings.

• Refusals by Cordick and Myers to correct false testimony.

• The use of procedural control to prevent factual reevaluation.

These records demonstrate a systemic pattern of misrepresentation, culminating in the 07 December 2023 letter—a document that transformed a legitimate insurance dispute into a cause celebre in traditional, conservative Canadian insurance litigation.

Conclusion

The Whitelaw‑Twining letter stands as tangible evidence of institutional bad faith: a calculated attempt to invert truth, accuse the victim, and suppress accountability through coordinated litigation. The participation of Cordick, Myers, and Vincent as plaintiffs in the SLAPP underscores the depth of complicity in a campaign of deception that continues to reverberate through the public record.

TIMELINE OF INTACT's ONGOING BAD FAITH PRACTICES, MADE POSSIBLE ONLY BY WRONGFUL CLAIMS PRACTICES ON THE PART OF A CLAIMS MANAGER, UNETHICAL CONDUCT BY ITS ATTORNEYS, PERJURED AFFIDAVITS BY AN INHOUSE COUNSEL, DEFAMATORY PUBLICATIONS BY AN OUTHOUSE COUNSEL, AND UNETHICAL FILINGS OF PERJURED AFFIDAVITS BY ANOTHER OUTHOUSE COUNSEL.

30 September 2021 — Claims Manager Amanda Myers’ Coverage Denial Letter

• Myers asserts the Claimant occupied and possessed an inaccessible pigeon roost ledge.

• This is the foundation of INTACT’s exclusion theory.

• This position requires the ledge to be physically accessible.

08 December 2022 — RTB Decision

• RTB Arbitrator Selbee rules that the ledge was physically inaccessible.

• The Tenant could not have used, occupied, or possessed it.

• This finding destroys Myers’ exclusion theory.

12 February 2025 — Cordick’s Affidavit

• INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick swears an Affidavit incorporating the RTB Decision.

• She declares the RTB findings “true and correct.”

• This permanently tethers INTACT to the RTB finding that the ledge was inaccessible.

• This directly contradicts Myers’ 2021 denial letter.

13 August 2025 — INTACT lawyer Meera Jain presents the RTB file before Supreme Court Justice Elwood

• By doing so, she adopts the RTB findings as substantive evidence before the Court.

• This is not procedural history — it is material fact evidence.

• Jain’s filing confirms INTACT is relying upon the RTB finding that the ledge was inaccessible.

03 October 2024 — Beckmann’s Form 22 (Section 1.2)

• Whitelaw-Twining Partner Nigel Beckmann lists the RTB Decision as a document INTACT will rely on to prove or disprove a material fact.

• He declares it true and correct.

• Form 22 is not for “showing a hearing occurred.”

• Listing the Decision means INTACT intends to rely on the findings, not the existence of the hearing.

Resulting Contradiction (Institutional, Not Individual)

RTB Decision (adopted by INTACT lawyers Christa Cordick, Meera Jain, Nigel Beckmann and Casey Goodrich:

• The pigeon roost ledge was physically inaccessible.

• Tenant could not have used, occupied, or possessed it.

Myers’ Denial Letter (INTACT’s official coverage position):

• Tenant did access and use the ledge.

• Exclusion triggered.

These positions cannot coexist.

INTACT’s two inhouse lawyers and 2 outhouse lawyers have now placed mutually destructive evidence into the Supreme Court record:

• If the RTB Decision is true → Myers’ denial letter is a bad‑faith fabrication.

• If Myers’ letter is true → Cordick’s Affidavit, Goodrich's filings in the Provincial Court, Jain’s filing, and Beckmann’s Form 22 are knowingly false filings.

There is no neutral interpretation.

The below image is of the subject pigeon roost ledge. In a letter dated 30 September 2021, INTACT Claims Manager Amanda Myers and Claims Representative Breanna Gray notified the Claimant that he had triggered exclusionary language of the policy by his "occupation", "possession" or "use" of the pigeon faecal laden ledge. At present, almost five (5) years after the denial letter, after the expenditure of tens of thousands of shareholders' dollars, and a myriad of unlawful, unethical and immoral acts on the part of INTACT's rogue personnel and its inhouse and outhouse counsel, (as forensically evidenced on this website) INTACT has not deviated from its original denial position.

HOW DOES INTACT's EXECUTIVE AUDITOR MAUDE CHOQUETTE JUSTIFY INTACT's COSTLY MALICE, WITH NO DISCERNIBLE BENEFIT, OTHER THAN TO COMPETITOR INSURERS, WHO WOULD CITE THE REASONS FOR INTACT's ABYSMALLY LOW CONSUMER RATING?

The above is a true and accurate image of the ledge to which INTACT Claims Manager referred in her letter of 30 September 2021. At present, year 2026, Myers refuses to reconsider her fabricated findings that the Claimant had "possessed", "occupied" and "used" the pigeon faecal matter-laden area depicted. Furthermore, as evidenced on this website, the following INTACT personnel have created an evidentiary file of all material occurrences - Amanda Myers, Michele Vincent, Donna McKernon, Breanna Gray, and retail word merchants Casey Goodrich, Christa Cordick of INTACT, Meera Jain, Nigel Beckmann, Gavin Clark, Morgan Stearns, Priya Parihar of Whitelaw-Twining.

HOW MANY LAWYERS, CLAIMS PERSONNEL AND SUPPORT STAFF ARE REQUIRED, MERELY TO ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS THE RECORDS OF THE PROVINCIAL AND SUPREME COURTS, AS WELL AS THOSE OF REGULATORY AGENCIES, SUCH AS THE BCFSA?

物極必反。如今連機械犬都會打太極，你們卻仍拒認基本事實——這才是真反

INTACT's "Living Our Values" is but an unctuous, empty slogan. Watch the below VIDEO, in order to learn about Our Values of patience, perseverance and resolve!

28 May 2026

To the left is a true and correct image of page 51 of an RTB Decision of 08 December 2022, by RTB Arbitrator K. Selbee.

INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick signed an Affidavit on 12 February 2025 (image to the below left) , into which Cordick incorporated the RTB page. Whitelaw-Twining lawyer Meera Jain filed the Affidavit in the Superior Court, and she refuses to correct the record.

By explicitly swearing in a Supreme Court Affidavit that the RTB's finding is "true and correct," INTACT counsel Christa Cordick did not just submit evidence—she permanently tethered INTACT's offence and defence to a physical impossibility. Cordick's sworn admission completely exposes INTACT's bad faith foundational narrative, and Claims Manager Amanda Myers' wrongful 30 September 2021 coverage denial.

The structural significance of this Affidavit is devastating to INTACT's position, because in other sections of the same Affidavit, Cordick formally swore that the Defendant Claimant Tenant had occupied and used the ledge.

Cordick apparently does not recognise her ethical obligation to come forward and cease and desist her false declarations. By misrepresenting to the Provincial and Supreme Court that the Claimant Tenant had triggered an INTACT policy exclusion, for having occupied and used the ledge, Cordick is in violation of several LSBC ethical rules, infra!

Instead of maintaining professional distance, Cordick doubled down by joining a SLAPP action against the Claimant Tenant. By weaponising the courts to perpetrate this falsity, Cordick eliminated any corporate escape hatch., since INTACT and Myers can no longer claim an innocent administrative error or a misunderstanding.

Although INTACT's Whitelaw-Twining free speech prosecutors remain resolute in their misguided insistence that the publication of exact images of correspondence constitutes the tort of defamation, the SLAPP Defendant, Supreme Court of Canada and all other jurisdictional authority respectfully disagree.

In any event, to the left is the image of a letter from lawyer Meera Jain, in which her named Clients agreed to re-examine their decision about the inaccessible pigeon roost ledge, infra. In exchange the SLAPP Defendant agreed to removal of certain posts of this website.

Although Attorney Jain has ignored her obvious fiduciary obligations to her Clients for the matter for the period of time indicated on the count-up, the SLAPP Defendant remains prepared to abide by the conditional terms of Ms. Jain's letter.

However, said offer may be withdrawn at any time, without notice, in the absence of Attorney Jain's confirmation of an intent to proceed with the terms of her letter.

These malicious abuses have caught the attention of the public interest channel of A2JBC, the Access to Justice initiative.

The Honourable Leonard Marchand is the Chief Justice of the Court of Appeal, the head of the entire BC judiciary, and a leading advocate of Access to Justice.

The Chief Justice has emphasised that a people‑centered justice system requires court processes that do not intimidate, overwhelm, or disadvantage self‑represented litigants. Through Access to Justice BC, he has stressed that judges must adjust their approach when one party is unrepresented, and that unnecessary or aggressive procedural steps undermine fairness and strain judicial resources.

Viewers are invited to review all of the fact-based forensic evidence compiled on this public interest website, against the backdrop of the Chief Justice's expanded public blog.

09 May 2026

On 10 June 2026, INTACT lawyer Meera Jain will explain to the Court why INTACT has foisted upon the Provincial and Supreme Courts, many hours of hearings, conferences, Applications, perjured Affidavits, etc, instead of simply resolving the issues extrajudicially, by the simple administrative completion of the Customer Experience Team's Complaint investigation, assigned to the Team during 2023.

Viewers are encouraged to provide suggestions to Attorney Jain as to how she is to explain to the Case Planning Conference Judge why INTACT defies Chief Justice Hinkson's solemn instructions!

All of the following assertions are fully evidenced with documentation, which has been filed with the Provincial and Supreme Courts, and is thus part of the official record:

24 April 2023: INTACT Customer Experience Team (CET) member Manal acknowledged receipt of a formal Complaint made against Claims Manager Amanda Myers, on the grounds of illicit claims practices, including the fabrication of a claims report.

23 May 2023: As required by the Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and Insurance Act § 12, INTACT Ombudswoman Michele Vincent confirmed that the CET was in the process of investigation of the Complaint, and that within thirty (30) days the CET would provide the Complainant with a formal Final Business Decision (FBD) letter of the results of its investigation.

INTACT has never provided any notice of the CET decision to the Complainant. The above count-up indicates the time elapsed since the Ombudsman's representations.

As detailed with forensic evidence on this public interest website, the two Whitelaw-Twining lawyers assigned to the INTACT case appear to be opposing counsel, given their introduction of false information (the letter of 07 December 2023, infra) into an active consumer‑protection file. These Whitelaw-Twining lawyers' have steadfastly obstructed INTACT's Customer Experience Team (CET)’s statutory fact‑finding investigative process and continue to create additional regulatory contradictions that INTACT itself cannot reconcile.

This dynamic duo from Whitelaw-Twining not only interfered with the CET’s mandated investigation of a Complaint against a Claims Manager (for illicit claims practices), these lawyers later solicited and accepted this same Claims Manager as a Client in the subject SLAPP actions)! In aggravation of the initial offences., these Whitelaw-Twining lawyers prevented the issuance of the Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) required Final Business Decsion (FBD) letter, and catapulted INTACT into a position of perpetual non‑compliance with its provincial and federal oversight obligations. Under the risible guise of "creative solutions", Whitelaw-Twining's Nigel Beckmann and Meera Jain have, exposed INTACT to unnecessary regulatory risk, reputational damage, and institutional conflict that continues to harm INTACT in a myriad of traps that no opposing counsel could even contemplate!

WITH COUNSEL LIKE THESE WHO NEEDS OPPOSITION?

The Corporate Sabotage: INTACT’s Internal War

INTACT's incorruptible, devoted personnel, the Customer Experience Team (CET)—well exemplify CEO Brindamour's "Living Our Values" directive. These staunch investigators fully comply with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1), Insurance Act § 12 and INTACT's internal rules and regulations. As CET member Manal confirmed in correspondence to the Complainant, during 2023 the CET commenced its investigation of Claims Manager Amanda Myers' illicit claims practices, infra.

However, as detailed on this website, in an act of internal betrayal, Ombudswoman Michele Vincent ordered the CET to cease and desist its ongoing investigation, instead foisting INTACT's administrative dysfunction onto the Provincial and Supreme Courts, with two (2) SLAPP actions against the Complainant. With relentless, frivolous Applications and other abusive of process machinations, INTACT's aiders and abettors at Whitelaw-Twining (Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann) continue to obfuscate the truth and the facts, by way of fabricated evidence, infra, dense legal posturing and cynical, inapposite conflations.

Given the righteousness of the CET's cause, it shall ultimately prevail, by issuance of its Final Business Decision (FBD) letter, which will precipitate a resolution of the myriad contentious issues (with the exception of Whitelaw-Twining's dilemma; i.e. the loss of its golden goose income stream!

In his campaign of deceitful representations, in his email to the left Attorney Beckmann states that Insurance Act § 12 does not apply to this litigation. He has also stated that Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) does not apply. Perhaps Beckmann believes that his relentless campaign of disinformation and deceit is advantageous to INTACT.

In the email to the right Attorney Beckmann implicates his Clients, INTACT, Amanda Myers, Christa Cordick and Michele Vincent, by alleging that these Clients had instructed that he engage in the fabrication of evidence, as well as other illicit conduct, as exposed on this website.

Since a resolution of all issues would result in a cessation of Beckmann's golden goose stream of attorney's fees, he treacherously refuses to withdraw his letter of 07 December 2023, in exchange for the Claimant's agreement to grant all of the relief that INTACT seeks in its litigation!

Note: at the outset of litigation, the Defendant had extended a Formal Offer to Settle under Rule 9-1, which Beckmann allowed to lapse.

In the email to the right Attorney Beckmann attacks the credibility of his own Client, Claims Manager Amanda Myers, who (in her letter of 30 September 2021) had miscalculated that an external pigeon roost ledge had been on the interior of the Claimant's unit. The documented facts usually disprove Beckmann's outrageous assertions. In contradiction of his claim that "no one ever said [the Claimant] 'occupied' the ledge", Myers not only had stated that the Claimant had occupied the ledge, she denied the claim, based upon that assumption! Beckmann's conflict with Myers is that she had confirmed the Claimant's legal status as an Insured of INTACT, and Myers refuses to commit perjury at trial!

Whitelaw-Twining Sr Associate Meera Jain has been instrumental in the furtherance of the firm Partner Nigel Beckmann's relentless campaign of the illicit acts and omissions documented on this public interest website.

By example, in the email to the left Attorney Jain effectively trashes the reputational and pecuniary interests of her Client Claims Manager Myers, supra, by sabotaging the Claimant's good faith opportunity to allow Myers the simple, face saving opportunity to consider that Myers' acts and omission might have been due to error, and not intentional, malicious motives.

Attorney Jain, welcome to Whitelaw-Twining!

Another indication of Attorney Jain's lack of concern for her Clients' interests, the count-up to the left indicates the number of days since Attorney Jain refused to sign the protective Consent Order that she, herself had draughted!

The featured Whitelaw-Twining lawyers have cast their Clients INTACT, AMANDA MYERS, CHRISTA CORDICK and MICHELE VINCENT into a legal and moral quagmire, the escape from which they can exculpate themselves only with truth and facts. However the Plaintiffs' aversion to truth has been abundantly documented on this website!

• Tactical Abandonment of Damages: Within forty-eight hours of their first filing, INTACT and its personnel Plaintiffs discontinued their initial action and abandoned all claims for monetary damages. This pivot indicates a "litigation shell" aimed at suppression rather than compensation.

• Absence of Particulars: Despite the Defendant's full compliance with Justice Elwood’s Order (which denied the relief sought by Plaintiff's lawyer Meera Jain, she cannot identify a single defamatory statement on this website, or the other website, OFFENCELAWYERSREPORT.COM.

• Obstruction of Administrative Remedy: INTACT refuses to allow its own Customer Experience Team (CET) to complete its investigation into documented facts regarding Claims Manager Amanda Myers illicit claims practices.

• Bad Faith and Procedural Abuse: Plaintiffs refuse to sign a Consent Order draughted by their own counsel, Meera Jain, months ago. This refusal to acknowledge their own documents indicates that their SLAPP proceedings are a bad-faith attempt at attrition, in order to conceal the Whistleblower's efforts to inform the public.

• Exposure to Separate Action: Because the Plaintiffs' tactics involve suppression over legitimate injury, the Plaintiffs face litigation apart from the Defendant's Counterclaim, for abuse of process or malicious prosecution. This notice serves as a procedural warning of the Plaintiffs' ongoing exposure.

04 May 2026

As explicitly documented, with forensic evidence on this public interest website, the letter of 30 September 2021, from Claims Manager Amanda Myers and Claims Representative Breanna Gray confirms, in explicit terms that the Claimant was an INTACT insured.

However, despite possessing this document, INTACT and its counsel Whitelaw-Twining Partner Nigel Beckmann extended their conspiratorial objective, by pursuing litigation in the BC Provincial and Supreme Courts, as well as in various regulatory agencies, such as the BCFSA.

As displayed on this website, the self-righteous personnel of INTACT and its "legal" advisors of Whitelaw-Twining, have perpetrated numerous torts and unethical acts and omissions, with temporary impunity. However, In the realm of the laws of natural order, some day they will realise that:

No one climbs the ladder of truth with the weight of lies

Οὐδεὶς ἀναβαίνει τὴν κλίμακα τῆς ἀληθείας φορῶν τὸ βάρος τοῦ ψεύδους. — Ἰωάννης ὁ Σιναΐτης (Κλίμαξ)

20 March 2026

In addition to filing two (2) separate SLAPP actions against the Whistleblower INTACT Claimant, the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers have boldly defied the Building Code safety department of the City of Richmond, as documented by the image to the left.

The introduction of documented evidence of the history and legal classification of the Strata ledge, infra, no longer is it necessary that the SLAPP Defendant request that Claims Manager Amanda Myers retraction of her illegitimate letter of 30 September 2021, infra, nor that INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick retract her perjured Affidavit and pleadings in the Provincial and Supreme Court.

It is now of record the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers' furtherance of the perpetration of egregious violations of Rule 1-3 upon the Supreme Court, with their defamatory and false representations that (1) the SLAPP Defendant lied about claiming to be an Insured of INTACT (2) the ledge was limited common property [LCP], not Strata common property [CP] (3) the Strata had no control over its own property, and (4) the SLAPP Defendant had the sole responsibility of abatement of the CP insured hazard, infra.

24 March 2026

Although one could argue the tactical imprudence of alerting Whitelaw-Twining's Freedom of Speech Prosecutors of the overwhelming vulnerabilities of their legal position, since the intent of this website is to educate managerial elements of INTACT's hierarchy, the following is a glimpse as to the legal realities of the SLAPP Plaintiffs and their Whitelaw-Twining abettors.

The following is a cursory examination of INTACT's 21 November 2025 Response to the SLAPP Defendant's (Plaintiff by way of Counterclaim) Second Amended Counterclaim.

The Whitelaw-Twining duo, Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann have now fully confronted the amended counterclaim, as they:

• denied almost all of the pleaded facts

• claimed “outside knowledge” for others

• inserted their own “version of facts”

• raised res judicata

• asserted that the Defendant was not a Named Insured

• tried to strike paragraphs as “frivolous, vexatious, unnecessary”

• reframed the Privacy Officer email

• denied the CET abandonment

• denied the fabricated investigation

• denied the SLAPP framing

• denied damages

• denied obstructive conduct

• inserted a long “additional facts” section to re‑litigate Provincial Court and RTB matters

This is the direct engagement with the operative pleading.

2. The Whitelaw-Twining duo have now locked themselves into factual positions

Their Response forces them into admissions, denials, and alternative pleadings that they cannot walk back without leave.

Examples:

✔ They deny that the Claimant was ever a Named Insured

This is now a live triable issue.

✔ They deny that Claims Manager Myers' investigation was fabricated

This is now a live credibility issue.

✔ They deny any CET abandonment

This is now a live statutory compliance issue.

✔ They deny any bad faith

This is now a live tort issue.

✔ They deny any SLAPP purpose

This is now a live PPPA / abuse‑of‑process issue.

✔ They deny any damages

This is now a live causation issue.

They are now bound to these positions.

This is the second layer of confrontation.

3. They have now exposed their strategic weak points

Their Response reveals exactly where they are vulnerable:

(a) They rely heavily on “res judicata”

But the Counterclaim is a completely separate and distinct same cause of action from:

• the RTB matter

• the Provincial Court matter

• the Strata matter

Different parties, different issues, different relief, different jurisdiction.

Their reliance on res judicata is legally weak.

(b) They deny Named Insured status

But the Amended Counterclaim cites:

• the policy

• the September 30, 2021 letter

• the statutory definition under Strata Property Act s.155(b)

This is a fact‑intensive dispute they cannot win on a bare denial.

(c) They deny the Privacy Officer's email means what it states

This is a credibility fight they cannot avoid.

(d) They deny CET abandonment

But the Amended Counterclaim cites:

• the Ombudsman’s acceptance

• the CET assignment

• the failure to issue an FBD

• the statutory requirement under FIA 80.3(1)

This is a statutory compliance issue, not a factual one.

(e) They try to strike paragraphs as “frivolous, vexatious”

This is a Rule 9‑5 telegraph — they are preparing a strike application.

But their grounds are frivolous weak because:

• The pleading is of material facts

• The pleading states statutory breaches

• The pleading refers to bad faith particulars

• The pleading states the SLAPP purpose

• The pleading demonstrates abuse of process

• The pleading evidences Named Insured status

At the (below) Case Planning Conference (CPC), the Associate Judge will ask:

• Why is the CET investigation incomplete?

• Why was the administrative process abandoned?

• Why is INTACT litigating before completing its statutory obligations?

• Why are the Supreme (and Provincial) Court being used instead of INTACT's regulatory, administrative pathway?

• Why is res judicata being raised when the causes of action differ?

• Why is Named Insured status disputed when the insurer’s own letters confirms it?

In summary, the Amended Counterclaim forces the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers to litigate:

• the fabricated investigation

• the CET abandonment

• the statutory breach

• the SLAPP purpose

• the abuse‑of‑process theory

• the Named Insured status

• the bad‑faith particulars

This is the substantive confrontation.

THE SLAPP DEFENDANT, AN AWARD-WINNING MASTER CARPET INSTALLER, EXPERT IN 內家拳 and and POSSESSED OF THE TRUTH, THE FACTS AND THE LAW

VS

A PLATOON OF INTACT's SEVEN (7) COMBAT-READY RETAIL WORD MERCHANTS (LAWYERS), NOT ALL OF WHOM HAVE ENGAGED IN VARIOUS VIOLATiONS OF THE ETHICAL CODES OF THE LAW SOCIETY OF BC.

01 March 2026

As documented on this public interest website, INTACT personnel Amanda Myers and her associate fabricated a claim investigation and filed an illicit, false claims report on 30 September 2021.

Whitelaw Twining lawyers notarised and filed their client, INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick's perjured Affidavit in the Supreme Court. Cordick also filed false pleadings and rendered false, defamatory testimony in the Provincial Court. Whitelaw-Twining Partner Nigel Beckmann has filed false, defamatory pleadings in the Supreme Court, with ongoing support and acquiescence of associate Meera Jain.

Since evidence of INTACT's wrongful, false representations is in the records of Strata Council LMS2845, it may be necessary for the SLAPP Defendant to file a Rule 7-1(18) Application to compel such production from the Strata Council.

The immediate compliance with the terms of INTACT lawyer Meera Jain's own Consent Order (long overdue, by the time period indicated above), would be protective of INTACT's and its rogue personnel's interests, and would obviate the necessity of their examination at trial.

FORMAL DEMAND THAT INTACT CEASE AND DESIST ITS OBSTRUCTION OF THE ENFORCEMENT OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT § 80.3(1) and RULE OF COURT 1-3, BY ITS IMMEDIATE CONCLUSION OF THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE TEAM's INVESTIGATION OF CLAIM 4033526840, ASSIGNED IN 2023 BY OMBUDSWOMAN MICHELE VINCENT.

INTACT counsel, Meera Jain’s below email is a blunt admission of INTACT's abusive of court Judicial dumping: she confirms INTACT's explicit refusal to complete the Customer Experience Team's investigation of Claims Manager Amanda Myers' fabrication of investigative records regarding claim 4033526840. INTACT Ombudswoman Michele Vincent had assigned the investigation to the Customer Experience Team during 2023, but its conclusion has never been communicated to the Complainant, by way of the required Final Business Decision letter, or otherwise.

Attorney Jain adds to the obstruction of justice. As she stated in her below email of 27 October 2025, by asserting that the court is powerless to compel the Customer Experience Team's release of its Final Business Decision, by way of Application.

By insisting that this simple administrative matter requires a full trial to "rule on coverage," Ms. Jain is effectively outsourcing INTACT's basic adjusting duties to Supreme Court Justices. Ms. Jain’s refusal to act, without a full trial, confirms that INTACT has prevented the Customer Experience Team from release of its Final Business Decision, thus forcing the Supreme Court to perform the onerous burden of examination of more than four (4) years of INTACT's internal records of claim 4033526840, in lieu of INTACT's simple release of the Final Business Decision, and if the Customer Experience Team has not concluded the investigation assigned in 2023, that it so do immediately.

Despite the scarcity of Justice and Associate Judges, as noted by the Honourable Chief Justice Hinkson, infra, INTACT has already sacrificed several days of Application hearing time. By way of Ms. Jain's confirmation, the Supreme Court is to continue wasting days and eventually weeks on this purely administrative matter!

The viewer is invited to review Attorney Jain's below email, wherein she stated:

"Based on our review of the Notice of Application provided today, you are seeking an order that Intact complete its investigation regarding the denial of insurance coverage. This is not something that the court can order on an application, which will necessarily require the court to rule coverage ".

16 March 2026

In addition to filing two (2) separate SLAPP actions against the Whistleblower INTACT Claimant, the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers have boldly defied the Building Code safety department of the City of Richmond, as documented by the image to the left.

The introduction of documented evidence of the history and legal classification of the Strata ledge, infra, no longer is it necessary that the SLAPP Defendant request that Claims Manager Amanda Myers retraction of her wrongful letter of 30 September 2021, infra, nor that INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick retract her perjured Affidavit and pleadings in the Provincial and Supreme Court.

It is now of record the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers' furtherance of the perpetration of fraud upon the Supreme Court, with their defamatory and false representations that (1) the SLAPP Defendant lied about claiming to be an Insured of INTACT (2) the ledge was limited common property [LCP], not Strata common property [CP] (3) the Strata had no control over its own property, and (4) the SLAPP Defendant had the sole responsibility of abatement of the CP insured hazard, infra.

19 February 2026

As precisely documented on this website, INTACT Insurance and its lawyers have engaged in unparalleled bad faith acts and omissions.

In BC, the "absolute authority" on the Duty to Defend is built upon the Pleadings Rule, which means the INTACT and the other Scheduled Insurers of the comprehensive BFL policy, are contractually obligated to defend the SLAPP Defendant, even if it were a mere possibility that the obligation falls within the policy. In this case, a fortiori, the documented facts, such as the confirmation of the SLAPP Defendant's legal status as an insured, under the policy, in the letter of 30 September 2021, signed by claims representatives Amanda Myers and Breanna Gray, infra.

1. Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co. (SCC) This is the "Gold Standard" in Canada. It established that the Duty to Defend is much broader than the duty to pay a claim (indemnify).

2. Bacon v. McBride (BCSC) A foundational BC case that explicitly states: "The pleadings govern the duty to defend."

3. Monterra Projects Inc. v. Northbridge General Insurance This case clarifies the Tripartite Relationship. By now, Whitelaw-Twining lawyers Beckmann and Jain have had sufficient time to learn about this solemn fiduciary obligation. If either has any inclination to consult the ethical rules of the LSBC, he or she might realise that suing one's one client if not a highly recommended act.

In aggravation of these offences, the Whitelaw-Twining duo has forbidden that the SLAPP Defendant communicate directly with INTACT, and they assure that they will soon file an Application in the Supreme Court, without the courtesy of an extension of time, within which defence counsel for the SLAPP Defendant can be appointed.

Despite Whitelaw-Twining's efforts to conceal the coverage of the INTACT's Commercial General Liability policy, form LR20-3, policy number 5PNGL0819, in addition to Claims personnel Myers' and Gray's confirmation of the SLAPP Defendant's legal status as an INTACT insured, they also confirmed that coverage for the appointment of defence counsel had been denied, not because of a lack of such coverage, but rather due to their erroneous assumption that the INTACT insured occupied the pigeon roost ledge, infra. Indeed, in their below letter of 30 September 2021 they stated:

"Based on the definitions of an insured under Intact’s policy, your request for defense and indemnification from Intact at your HRT [sic] hearing cannot be afforded as your claim arises from your personal use of a limited common property balcony. This balcony as defined in the Strata plans is ‘for use of adjacent strata lot’ and therefore is for your unit’s exclusive use."

Even apart from the claims personnel's representations, the following facts evidence INTACT's contractual, fiduciary obligations to the confirmed INTACT insured SLAPP Defendant:

• The Policy: Page 4 of the Intact Declarations confirms $10,000,000 in coverage for "Personal Injury" (the legal category for defamation/libel).

• The Law: An insurer cannot sue its own insured for a covered peril. Even if they refuse to cease and desist the SLAPP litigation, they are contractually bound to fund the SLAPP Defendant's defence therefrom.

As indicated by the above count-up, more than two months have elapsed since Whitelaw-Twining lawyer Meera Jain created and submitted her own Consent Order, which she designed to protect the interests of her Clients Myers and Cordick. If her Clients are not interested in the relief, then it is requested that Ms. Jain so notify the SLAPP Defendant.

Additionally, it is respectfully requested that Ms. Jain and Mr. Beckmann familiarise themselves with the following paragraph, which contains important information regarding fiduciary obligations and other long-neglected issues.

21 February 2026

This public interest website was created primarily to notify INTACT's Senior Legal Counsel Mathieu Grenier and Legal Compliance Officer Frédéric Cotnoir of the damage to INTACT's reputation that certain rogue elements among INTACT's claims and legal personnel have wrought. However, since INTACT has allowed its legal offenders at Whitelaw-Twining plenary authority over the SLAPP dossier, the emphasis has shifted to education of such Whitelaw-Twining's insurance and defamation experts.

Perhaps, due to some oversight, Whitelaw-Twining defamation and insurance experts assigned to this SLAPP litigation, intended to abide by the CGL policy and the case of Owners, Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2043, instead of defamatorily accusing an insured of submission of his claim, under the false pretence of being an insured of INTACT (letter of 07 December 2023, infra)

INTACT and Whitelaw-Twining's lawyers probably have access to the internet, and are annually required by the LSBC to take at least 12 hours of CPD courses. Therefore, the SLAPP Defendant most respectfully requests that the SLAPP Prosecutors familiarise themselves with the landmark Schappert case, decided by the Honourable Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court (the forum of INTACT's SLAPP litigation).

In the Schappert case the Court reaffirmed that the duty to defend is triggered by the allegations, and an insurer cannot rely upon exclusions, to avoid defending unless they clearly remove every possibility of coverage. As a Tenant expressly included in the insured class, the SLAPP Defendant's right to a defence is even more compelling than that of the short term Airbnb renter Schappert.

Canadian courts have repeatedly confirmed that the duty to defend is triggered by the allegations, not by proven facts, and not by an insurer’s preferred interpretation.

The leading authorities include:

• Owners, Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2043 — confirms that an insurer may rely on an exclusion only if it clearly removes every possibility of coverage, and the defence obligation arises from the pleadings.

• Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co., [1990] 1 SCR 801 — establishes the “mere possibility of coverage” test for triggering the duty to defend.

• Monenco Ltd. v. Commonwealth Insurance Co., 2001 SCC 49 — reaffirms that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify and is determined by the allegations as pleaded.

• Progressive Homes Ltd. v. Lombard General Insurance Co., 2010 SCC 33 — confirms that exclusions must be interpreted narrowly, and any ambiguity favours the insured at the defence stage.

23 February 2026

As documented on this website, WHITELAW-TWINING's deliberate refusal to comply with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and § 94.1 and various Rules of Provincial and Supreme Courts, has been a substantial contributory factor in the BC Supreme Court's State of Crisis.

• In 2024-2025, the BC Supreme Court faced a critical shortage of judicial resources, with Chief Justice Hinkson repeatedly warning that the court is "at a breaking point."

• WHITELAW-TWINING is a boutique style law firm, boasting of commanding views of Vancouver’s harbour, from its award-winning, millennial-friendly offices—vistas so stunning that they have been featured in top architectural publications. To its fiscal credit, he firm has proven expertise in the generation of billable hours.

• The firm is also the Counsel of INTACT Financial Corporation, the largest provider of property and casualty (P&C) insurer in Canada. Under Whitelaw-Twining's relentless guidance, INTACT has achieved the dubious distinction of being a major abuser of the judicial system, contributing to this "breaking point" by filing meritless, even duplicative SLAPP actions and Court Applications, in an extremely well funded scheme to avoid the mandatory administrative tasks under Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and § 94.1

Whitelaw Twining paid for recognition as a "top ten" Insurance Defense BOUTIQUE law firm (TM) for years 2021 ~ 2022. According to the pay for listing Canadian Lawyer advertisement circular"Whitelaw Twining has pushed beyond standard litigation to find progressive, creative solutions for their clients".

Does guidance as to how to avoid compliance with provincial and federal regulatory statutes qualify as a "creative solution"?

17 February 2026

Although the SLAPP Defendant does not perceive any responsibility to educate INTACT's Whitelaw-Twining enablers, it certainly would behoove them to familiarise themselves with the concept and realities of the interests of their Tripartite Clients, the 100+ Owners of Strata Plan LMS2845, as well as the Strata Council, itself.

Thus, to the extent that INTACT might have retained any control over the excesses of its outhouse lawyers, it is respectfully requested that they consider the fact of their absolute dereliction of fiduciary responsibilities to their said Tripartite Clients, to assure that they cure their ongoing various BC Building Code violations, in addition to the following BC OHSR safety and health regulations:OHSR 4.1 – Safe Buildings and Structures Buildings and structures must be maintained in a condition that does not create a risk to health or safety. Applies to: bent window frames; unsafe exterior ledge; structural defects; water intrusion; any exterior element that could fail or injure someone.

OHSR 4.2 – Safe Means of Access and Egress Any area a worker or person may need to access must be safe. Applies to: the inaccessible ledge; the requirement that you maintain it; any contractor accessing it; any unsafe or non‑compliant access route.

OHSR 4.79 – Biological Agents Employers and owners must ensure that biological hazards are identified and controlled. Applies to: pigeon feces; contamination on the ledge; risk of histoplasmosis, cryptococcosis, and similar diseases.

OHSR Part 5 – Chemical and Biological Substances This governs exposure to harmful biological materials.

OHSR 5.2 – Exposure Control Hazardous biological substances must be eliminated or controlled. Applies to: pigeon‑feces contamination; airborne spores; any worker or contractor exposed during cleaning.

OHSR Part 3 – Rights and Responsibilities

OHSR 3.10 – Correction of Unsafe Conditions Unsafe conditions must be remedied without delay. Applies to: landlord refusing to remediate; strata ignoring exterior defects; forcing you to deal with it instead.

OHSR 3.5 – Inspections Regular inspections must identify hazards. Applies to: failure to inspect the ledge; failure to inspect window‑frame deformation; ignoring known hazards.

Workers Compensation Act – General Duties

WCA section 21 – Owner’s Responsibilities Owners must maintain premises in a safe condition. Applies to: landlord; strata; any exterior building element.

Any decent person, possessed of so much as a modicum of conscience and morality would shudder at the depraved thought of a human "occupying, using and possessing" the pigeon faecal matter-laden image to the left, as detailed on this website.

However, for more than four (4) years, Whitelaw-Twining and other lawyers have represented INTACT Claims Manager Amanda Myers, INTACT lawyer Christa Cordick and INTACT Ombudswoman Michele Vincent, who have propagated the inhumane, scurrilous lie that an insured of INTACT did so occupy the pigeon roost ledge.

Furthermore, in deliberate aggravation of their intentional infliction of emotion distress, these individuals, represented by Whitelaw-Twining lawyers, filed two (2) separate SLAPP actions against the INTACT insured, for his publishing of these true images and precise information, as posted on this internet website.

Moreover, during the course of the oppressive SLAPP litigation, these lawyers have filed INTACT personnel's false pleadings and Affidavits in the BC Provincial and Supreme Courts.

18 February 2026

An increasing number of the Owners of Strata Plan LMS2845 have begun to realise that for many years the comprehensive BFL policies, for which they annually pay in excess of $166,665 in premiums, accords them, inter alia, maintenance of Strata property.

When will Whitelaw-Twining and Clark Wilson begin to protect their common tripartite Clients?

In the matter of INTACT personnel's illicit claims practices, as exposed on this informational website, they were able to illicitly deprive the Strata Council and Owners of contractual coverage to maintain the Strata property pigeon roost ledge, infra.

28 January 2026

In this public interest series of INTACT's bad faith scheme to deprive its insured Strata Owners of its policy coverage, for review is the below email of 28 May 2021, from Strata LMS 2845 Property Manager, Mr. Nico Barbu.

Mr. Barbu professionally and conscientiously notified Strata LMS 2845 insurance agency of the fact that (1) ledges outside of all 17th floor units were inaccessible, and (2) that "for years" the Owners had resorted to costly, self-help remedies (which as documented on this website, were hazardous and in violation of BC building codes that prohibit the removal of windows safety mechanisms, in violation of several BC Building Codes, such as 3.3.4.8)

As detailed and documented on this website, Mr. Barbu's notice to INTACT occurred four (4) months prior to INTACT's coverage denial decision of 30 September 2021.

Rather than to ensure the safety of its insured Strata LMS 2845 Owners, INTACT employed more than eleven (11) claims representatives and seven (7) lawyers, (some from Whitelaw-Twining) to deprive its Strata Owner insureds of all coverage benefits, including, but not by way of limitation, pigeon roost ledge hazard abatement. Detailed information of INTACT's sophisticated denial of benefits "initiative" is posted on this website.

The lawyers who were have represented INTACT have unethically devoted their professional activities to the ongoing denial of coverage to their tripartite Strata LMS 2845 Owner clients!

28 January 2026

TO THE LEFT IS A PROVINCIAL COURT ORDER BY WHICH INTACT LAWYER CASEY GOODRICH ACTUALLY VIOLATED THE SOLEMN ETHICAL PROHIBITION AGAINST SUING ONE'S OWN (TRIPARTITE) CLIENT, SCOTT CHEN, THE OWNER OF THE CLAIMANT'S UNIT.

WHITELAW-TWINING LAWYERS NIGEL BECKMANN and MEERA JAIN HAVE JOINED THE COLLUSIVE EFFORT TO DEPRIVE INTACT's COVERAGE TO THEIR OWN (TRIPARTITE) CLIENT, MR. CHEN, WHO IS A STRATA PLAN LMS 2845 OWNER, AND A PREMIUM PAYING POLICYHOLDER OF INTACT POLICY 5PNGL0819.

THESE LAWYERS HAVE ONCE AGAIN PROVED THAT SUING ONE'S OWN CLIENT, AND ACTING AGAINST HIS PECUNIARY AND LEGAL INTERESTS CAN BE REMUNERATIVE.

In the email to the left, Whitelaw‑Twining Senior Associate Lawyer Meera Jain prepared a Consent Order, with specific terms., to which the SLAPP Defendant agreed.

However, after one month, the firm's Partner Nigel Beckmann has reneged on Ms. Jain's agreement, thus depriving her Clients Amanda Myers and Christa Cordick a face-saving opportunity to restore their reputations.

It is unclear whether Mr. Beckmann denies the existence of Ms. Jain's Consent Order, or simply opposes the eventuality that Whitelaw-Twining's cash cow could run dry during in the 2026-27 fiscal years.

Furthermore, Mr. Beckmann continues his resistance to the SLAPP Defendant's efforts to bring this action to a projected trial of 12 days.

The SLAPP Defendant, creator of this public interest website, has posted documentation of the subject Whitelaw-Twining lawyers' (lucrative) calculated deceptions, which have transformed a simple Complaint to INTACT's Ombudsman into high-stakes SLAPP litigation. Perhaps Whitelaw-Twining's Clients have begun to realise that their lawyers have distorted the truth and the facts, with the resultant detriment to their Clients' own reputational interests.

15 January 2026

Yet another example of the malicious, oppressive, systematic, duplicitous tactics of Nigel Beckmann (the Director of Whitelaw-Twining's Insurance and Defamation Departments), is the below underscored in red ink portions of his email of 23 December 2024.

(1) Mr. Beckmann admits to having ill-advised INTACT that the SLAPP Defendant Claimant had never been an Insured of the company. This false representation is exposed by the fact that his own Clients, Amanda Myers, Breanna Gray and Christa Cordick, had already confirmed the Claimant's status as insured, infra.

(2) Mr. Beckmann's advice to INTACT that the Claimant "did not pay premiums for the policy" is another fallacy that an insurance "expert" would never assert.

The "Rent-as-Premium" Fact: Canadian law (the Sutton principle) recognises that a tenant's rent is the source of the landlord’s insurance premiums. By paying rent, the tenant creates a contractual and equitable interest in the policy's protection.

The "Sutton Rule": Courts regularly hold that a tenant is an "implied co-insured" because rent is calculated to include the landlord's overhead, specifically insurance premiums.

• Subrogation Bar: An insurer cannot subrogate against its own insured. Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 B.C.J. No. 2272, 2023 BCSC 2080 (decided by the Honourable Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court) confirmed that under Section 155 of the SPA, the definition of an insured is broad. If the tenant occupied the unit, he is an insured by law, regardless of whether his name is on the policy.o Intact.Since Schappert proves you are an insured, Intact's attempt to sue you is a prohibited "self-suit."

• INTACT's SLAPP action is precisely such a "self-suit", as INTACT has sued a party who, by law, is an insured. Justice Coval in Schappert confirmed that a tenant "normally occupying" a unit is a statutory insured. Since an insurer cannot sue its own insured (The Anti-Subrogation Rule), INTACT’s Whitelaw-Twining inspired two (2) civil actions is legally verboten!.

  By ignoring his Clients, Myers, Cordick and Gray, as well as the Schappert decision, Mr. Beckmann is using a "self-suit" to drain the SLAPP Insured SLAPP Defendant's financial and emotional resources. This is the the definition of bad faith litigation, that leads to specific case law authority. The SLAPP Defendant has been overwhelmed by these events, and is in the process of retention of expert legal counsel.

• A SLAPP becomes a "self-suit" when the insurer weaponises a known error (the Strata Plan) to strip the Claimant of his insured status. In Whiten v. Pilot Insurance, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that insurers who "systematically ignore key information to reach a desired conclusion" (like the status as a rent-paying occupant) are liable for punitive damages.

• While the lawsuit is framed as defamation, it functions as subrogation in disguise.

  Subrogation occurs when an insurer steps into the shoes of the "victim" to recover costs. Here, Intact/Beckmann are using a defamation SLAPP to "recover" the reputational cost of their own errors.

• As an Insured, under Schappert, INTACT owes the Claimant a duty of utmost good faith. INTACT and Whitelaw-Twining's litigation against INTACT's Insured whistleblower, for merely pointing out a factual error in a claim file is a "self-suit" and a breach of that duty. INTACT and its lawyers Beckmann and Jain have weaponised defamation to circumvent the law that prevents them from suing the Claimant directly.

  These Whitelaw-Twining lawyers are forcing INTACT and its personnel into a collision course with these precedents, sacrificing their Clients' reputational interests, in order to maintain a highly lucrative perfect legal storm.

10 January 2026

FORMAL NOTICE TO INTACT INSURANCE AND WHITELAW-TWINING

WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO THE PROTECTION OF PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ACT

NOTICE OF HAZARD AND INSTITUTIONAL PERJUDICIAL CONDUCT

This is a formal notice, to address a critical divergence between your current litigation strategy—the "Defamation Offence"—and the documented institutional record of INTACT Insurance.

Your joint legal position contradicts the written admissions of INTACT personnel, Amanda Myers, Breanna Gray, and Christa Cordick, who had affirmed the SLAPP Defendant's legal status as INTACT Insured. You are attempting to manufacture a reality that places the aforementioned personnel and Whitelaw-Twining Associate Lawyer Meera Jain, in direct ethical peril.

2. Ethical Hazards and the Duty of Candour

This unethical strategy creates a profound conflict for Meera Jain, the Associate Lawyer whom you have assigned to this case. Under Rule 5.1-2 of the BC Code of Professional Conduct, an associate lawyer has an independent duty not to knowingly assist in or encourage any dishonesty or fraud. Filing documents or calling witnesses to testify in a manner that contradicts the firm’s own client files is a direct breach of the Duty of Candour owed to the court.

3. Preservation of Integrity and Good Faith

The SLAPP Defendant has made every effort to preserve the reputational interests of INTACT and Whitelaw-Twining. The offer to remove the Beckmann letter from the public record, in exchange for a factual retraction was a "safe harbour" designed to:

1. Prevent the commission of institutional perjury;

2. Protect the associate lawyer’s professional standing; and

3. Uphold the integrity of the judicial process.

Your refusal to accept a settlement based upon documented truth, in favor of one based upon a tactical lie, confirms an improper purpose and an abuse of process.

As documented, infra, Whitelaw-Twining Partner Nigel Beckmann and Senior Associate Lawyer Meera Jain continue to perpetrate the malicious, defamatory letter of 07 December 2023, which they refuse to retract. Additionally they have been instrumental in myriad violations of human rights and ethical standards. The following is the documented, factual narrative of how the Whitelaw-Twining lawyers have aided and abetted their Clients INTACT and its inhouse counsel, Christa Cordick's unethical acts and omissions.

The SLAPP Defendant and his family had sustained substantial damages, including costs of the abatement of the pigeon faecal matter hazard emanating from the external ledge of unit 1702. Other damages include sanitisation of the rooms, particularly of the bedroom unit, situated above the inaccessible external ledge, and alternate housing during the remediation procedures.

INTACT inhouse Counsel, Christa Rae Cordick's perjured Affidavits and false and defamatory representations to the Provincial and Supreme Courts, infra, represent only a small element of her unethical and unprofessional acts and omissions. "Insurance expert" Cordick is primarily responsible for the systematic failure of INTACT Insurance to comply with the explicit terms of the BFL Canada/CapriCMW Strata Program policy CMW M1756, claims no. 4033526840 and 1033684645 (which, according to claims personnel Breanna Gray's and Don McLaughlin's file notations of 30 April 2024, is still pending, which has implications regarding the tolling of the statute of limitations).

1. Attorney Cordick’s Egregious Fiduciary and Statutory Breaches

• Summary Denial and Obstruction: Cordick acted as a "human firewall," unilaterally refusing to open a claim or address reported biohazards, despite being notified of the pigeon faecal matter and other issues, which, according to INTACT's records, were reported by INTACT personnel Sara Alkhatib and Thierry François, during August 2021.

• Perjury regarding "Control": In her Supreme Court Affidavit, Cordick falsely declared that Strata LMS2845 had "neither responsibility nor control" over the inaccessible, exterior pigeon roost ledge, infra. This contradicts Section 72 of the Strata Property Act, which mandates Strata repair of Strata property which is inaccessible by any resident of the building, and ignores the fact that Chubb Endorsement No. 18 and Zurich Z Choice Pollution Liability cover such conditions at any location insured under the policy, with no "exterior" exclusion.

• Suppression of Scheduled Insurers: Cordick ignored direct requests to notify other Scheduled Insurers, falsely claiming (1) that since the INTACT policy provided no such coverage, that Lead Insurer INTACT had no responsibility to apprise the other Scheduled Insurers of the claims, and (2) that the Strata Corporation had no such coverage.

2. The Suppression of Specialized Remediation Funds

Despite having the policy deck, INTACT, by way of its "insurance expert" Counsel Cordick failed to disclose or trigger two important, independent sources of coverage:

• Chubb Endorsement No. 18 ($100,000): This specifically covers costs to "clean up, remove, restore or replace property" due to Fungus (defined as mildew, mould, mycotoxins, or spores). The general virus/bacteria exclusion explicitly does not apply to this fungus coverage.

• Zurich Z Choice Pollution Liability: This policy provides coverage for On-Site Cleanup Costs resulting from a "pollution event" discovered during the policy period. The record of the August 2021 report of "two biohazards" constituted a discovery that INTACT was legally obligated to investigate under this policy.

3. INTACT’s Institutional Bad Faith

INTACT, as the lead Insurer, breached the Duty of Utmost Good Faith through the following documented actions:

• Willful Refusal to Respond to Emergency: On 20 August 20 2021, at 20:35, INTACT’s FNOL intake recorded the statement of the claims, affirming coverage, and that the Strata was "refusing to open a claim".

• Administrative Sabotage: At 20:46, just 11 minutes later, Intact personnel downgraded the emergency to a "regular adjuster during business hours," falsely claiming there was "no need for a restoration company" despite the reported biohazard and unlivable conditions.

• Breach of Duty to Advise: As the lead manager of the subscription, INTACT had an affirmative duty to inform the Claimant of the Chubb and Zurich coverages. Instead, they remained silent, allowing the false, "non-insured" narrative to facilitate a permanent loss of these contractual benefits.

4. Violation of the Subject Insurance Contract

• Reporting Compliance: The Claimant fulfilled the contractual requirement to report the claim "as soon as possible" via the August 2021 FNOL.

• Indemnity Deprivation: By refusing to coordinate with the other Scheduled Insurers, INTACT deprived the Claimant of valuable insurance coverage.

A testament to Attorney Cordick's antagonistic, malicious posture, Whitelaw-Twining's Lawyers have enabled and compounded Cordick's own human rights oppressions by representing her in of two (2) malicious SLAPP actions, as detailed infra.

For Whitelaw-Twining's anglophonic viewers of this public interest website, a brief introduction to the legendary Willie Lamothe would be in order.

Willie was not educated at Laval, University of Montreal Law School or Sherbrooke, but he sang to truth and the dignify of the human species.

Your offensive SLAPP litigation can be stressful, so find a comfortable, state of the art, "ergonomic relaxer" (chair) at your exquisite harbour view offices, and listen to the below "Ode to WHITELAW-TWINING", in a rendition that only Willie could deliver!

Whitelaw-Twining Partner's Malicious Interference with Statutory Regulatory Rights

As evidenced by the Exhibit to an Affidavit, filed by Whitelaw-Twining, its Partner unethically threatened to file a (SLAPP) action against a confirmed INTACT Insured, unless the Insured should cease communications with INTACT Claims personnel, Claims Representative Breanna Gray, Claims Manager Amanda Myers, and Ombudsman Michele Vincent, who had assigned the Insured's Complaint to INTACT's Customer Experience Team, for investigation.

The lawyer also threatened litigation, unless the Insured should forfeit his right to maintain this public interest website, that documents the facts of lawyer's unethical conduct. (When the Insured refused to succumb to the Whitelaw-Twining lawyer's intimidative tactics, the lawyer filed not only one, but two (2) SLAPP actions against the Insured).

The Protected Right to Complain: Under the Financial Institutions Act § 80.3, and BCFSA regulatory protections, every insured has a "Right to Complaint Resolution." This is an independent regulatory track that exists outside of a the offence lawyer's control.

The Ethical Breach: Under the Law Society of BC Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 3.2-5), it is improper for a lawyer to "threaten to lay a charge or make a complaint to a regulatory authority in order to secure a civil advantage." Conversely, using the threat of a civil lawsuit to induce the withdrawal of a legitimate regulatory complaint is an abuse of the administration of justice.

Obstruction of Oversight: By demanding that the INTACT Insured cease pursuit of a Complaint that had been assigned to the Customer Experience Team, the lawyer unethically prevented INTACT's personnel from compliance with INTACT's internal complaint resolution protocol, infra, which led INTACT on a costly venture that has accomplished tens of thousands of dollars of offence costs, and an indelible departure from the CEO's "Living Our Values" directive.

The Whitelaw-Twining Partner also published his defamatory letter to personnel of INTACT, as he had done with his letter of 07 December 2023, infra. Such adds yet another layer of intrigue to Whitelaw-Twining's lucrative venture!

09 January 2026

As explained in precise detail on this website, Whitelaw-Twining Partner is not merely litigating; he is conducting an unethical experiment that requires the moral compromise not only of his Clients (INTACT, Amanda Myers, Breanna Gray, Christa Cordick and Michele Vincent), but of Meera Jain, the Associate Lawyer whom he assigned to this case.

The SLAPP Defendant had attempted to resolve issues extrajudicially, by removal of his counterclaim of defamation of the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's letter of 07 December 2023, infra, as well as deletion of all images and references thereto from this website.

However, the Partner has rejected the Offer, which necessitates that his Clients choose between:

(1) AssertIon of their legal and ethical rights to uphold the integrity of their own emails, Affidavits and court-filed statements of record, regarding the Defendant's legal status as an insured of INTACT. OR

(2) Commission of perjury, by support of the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's false and defamatory letter of 07 December 2023.

The Ethical Contagion of Tactical Falsehood

In Canadian law, a conflict of interest exists when there is a "substantial risk" that a lawyer’s loyalty is affected by his/her own interests (Strother v. 3464920 Canada Inc., 2007 SCC 24).

Abuse of Process - Nixon v. Cochrane, 2013 BCSC 133. Using the threat of litigation to achieve a "collateral purpose" (denial of the existence of true records) is an abuse of the court

Honest Performance - C.M. Callow Inc. v. Zollinger, 2020 SCC 45. Parties have a duty of honest performance. Manufacturing a false narrative to avoid a contractual obligation is prohibited.

Duty of Candour- R. v. Neil, 2002 SCC 70. A lawyer's "Bright Line Rule": He cannot act in a way that is adverse to the established legal/factual truth of a client's own files.

Material Misrepresentation - Slotkin v. Citizens Casualty Co. A lawyer can be held personally liable for a settlement obtained through the concealment of material facts

The Associate's Peril - Under the BC Code of Professional Conduct (Rule 5.1-2), an Associate Lawyer has an independent duty not to assist in "dishonesty, fraud, or illegal conduct." If the Associate facilitates a demand that she knows contradicts the written affirmations of her Clients, INTACT’s own staff, there are legal consequences.

The purpose of citation of ethical guidelines is to remind the involved Whitelaw-Twining lawyers of their ethical obligations. The Defendant has no intention of filing a complaint with the LSBC !

The SLAPP Defendant looks forward to the trial of INTACT's and the other Plaintiffs' meritless SLAPP litigation.

However, as documented herein, despite the Defendant's requests and demands that Plaintiffs' Counsel Meera Jain, advance her lawsuit to trial, she continues to refuse, for reasons that anyone familiar with the case would understand.

Attorney Jain is a powerful advocate, rising star at Whitelaw-Twining, trained at a major, no nonsense law firm. Nonetheless, the documented evidence displayed on this website, presents a veritable challenge, even to such a formidable adversary. Confident that the truth and facts are absolutely incontrovertible, the SLAPP Defendant has respectfully submitted the following "Proposed Consent Order" to Attorney Jain, in an effort to present the evidentiary facts to a Judge, without Plaintiffs' further delay and dilatory tactics that have, thus far, enabled them to avoid justice.

Attorney Beckmann's inopportune 07 December 2023 letter, supra, is the source of a widening divergence between INTACT's personnel (Claims Manager Amanda Myers and Claims Representative Breanna Gray) that the SLAPP Defendant was in Insured of INTACT. Mr. Beckmann's defamatory assertion stands in isolation, unsupported by INTACT and inconsistent with the company’s operational understanding of the issues in its SLAPP litigation.

As an egregious '3 way" conflict of interest, INTACT's current Counsel Meera Jain continues to defend Mr. Beckmann's letter, thus requiring INTACT to fund a costly position that is inimical to its interests, in conflict with its own claims personnel, and that originates not from its personnel, but from Attorney Beckmann’s personal insistence upon preserving his defamatory letter. This insistence serves to temporarily maintain Mr. Beckmann’s face, rather than to advance the interests of Attorney Jain's Clients. The resulting misalignment exposes INTACT to unnecessary friction and reputational drag.

In all fairness to Attorney Jain, although her actions suggest her support of the Mr. Beckmann's defamatory letter, it is possible that her loyalties are with her Clients' interests, and not with the position advanced by Mr. Beckmann. This places her in a conflicted posture.

As a gesture of relief from the 3-way conflict, the Offer to the left should be considered with due solemnity, as it may be withdrawn, without notice.

For Attorney Meera Jain's immediate reference, it is requested that she review the case of Bent v. Platnick, 2020 SCC 23 — distinguishes between solicitor–client privilege and defamation privilege.

The "Whitelaw-Twining Effect" - How a Personal, False and Defamatory Letter Became a Corporate Liability

As abundantly documented on this website, Whitelaw-Twining Senior Partner, Director of its Defamation and Insurance Law Departments, positioned himself as an Insurance Law expert, when he provided his Client INTACT with an advisory letter, directly countervailing INTACT's own documented recognition (letters, infra, from Claims Manager Amanda Myers and Claims Representative Breanna Gray), of the SLAPP Defendant as an Insured of INTACT.

For more than two years, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner has refused to retract or clarify the false premise that he advised. His false assertion has become the pivot point around which INTACT’s perception shifted. Instead of relying upon its own evidentiary documentation, INTACT responded to the narrative that the Whitelaw-Twining Partner imposed, allowing his false claim to override INTACT's established protocol, and a posture highly inimical to INTACT CEO Brindamour's "Living Our Values" directive.

The result was a prolonged and unnecessary misalignment: the Partner’s illicit, personal assertion reshaped the trajectory of the dossier, turned INTACT against its own Insured, and drew the client into a labyrinth built upon a premise that was never grounded in the reality of its own records. This is the core of the "Whitelaw–Twining Paradox" — a situation in which a single uncorrected false statement created institutional confusion, reputational exposure, and a cascading series of consequences that INTACT could hardly have intended.

Well‑intentioned lawyers within Whitelaw-Twining have become burdened, navigating a position that they did not create, while the firm’s public image and ethical responsibilities were placed at risk by the assumption and continuation of a stance highly inimical to the interests of its Clients INTACT, Amanda Myers, Christa Rae Cordick, Michele Vincent and Breanna Gray.

16 December 2025 As documented in precise detail on this public interest website, Whitelaw-Twining lawyers Meera Jain and Nigel Beckmann, have artfully lured INTACT Insurance into numerous (lucrative to Whitelaw-Twining) abuses of the BC Supreme Court (SLAPP cases no VLC S-S-244577 and VLC S-S-244484). INTACT remains steadfast in its refusal to resolve the gravamen of its SLAPP litigation, infra, by simply allowing its Customer Experience Team to complete its 2023 investigation of Claims Manager Amanda Myers' wrongful claims practices, infra. Under Whitelaw-Twining's "creative" guidance, INTACT continues to subvert its own obligatory, internal resolution procedure, in violation of BC Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1), as well as numerous other provincial and federal regulatory statutes.

In its relentless campaign of regulatory defiance, INTACT continues to exploit the Court as if the judicial system were a mere clearinghouse for INTACT's refusal to resolve Complaints administratively, without wasteful Court intervention. INTACT's relentless abuses of the Court's processes have already exacerbated the problem of overloaded dockets, significant delays, and increased reliance upon several (lucrative to Whitelaw-Twining) frivolous Applications. INTACT's violations of law represent challenges to access to justice, professional conduct, and systemic inequality. Recent high-profile decisions from across Canada demonstrate that the Courts increasingly apply a strict standard of reasonableness when reviewing the decisions of insurance and other companies. The application of the reasonableness standard means the Courts uniformly defer to the expertise and first hand knowledge of insurance companies, to manage their own affairs, administratively. As a result, particularly regarding individual rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms or monitoring proper business practices, the Courts require the fundamental rule of self-governance, and in the case of INTACT Insurance, the cornerstone of CEO Brindamour's tarnished "Living Our Values" unctuous directive!

19 December 2025

BC INSURANCE ACT Section 12 — Dispute Resolution Process

• Applies to disputes under Statutory Condition 11 or other contract conditions requiring this process.

• Either party may demand dispute resolution in writing after proof of loss is delivered.

• Within 7 days, each party must appoint a dispute resolution representative.

• Within 15 days of those appointments, the two reps must appoint an umpire.

• The reps must:

  • (a) try to resolve the dispute by agreement.

  • (b) if they fail, submit the matter to the umpire.

• The written determination of any two (either both reps or one rep and the umpire) is binding.

Since INTACT is obligated by law to comply with BC Insurance Act §  12 and Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1), its lawyers attempt to avoid compliance with sophistry. In the below email, the INTACT's attorney states "The dispute resolution process in s. 12 of the Insurance Act does not apply to our clients' claim against you.....". However, this case is not about INTACT's claim against its Insured, but rather a dispute of the Insured's claim against INTACT.

The INSURANCE ACT, SECTION 12 dispute resolution process, which INTACT has ignored for more than four (4) years, was described by Justice Punnett in Westland Insurance Company Limited v. Pounden, 2020 BCSC 264 at para. 65. aff'd 2021 BCCA 156:

"The dispute resolution provisions under the Act are clearly intended to reduce the duration and expense of litigation and encourage settlement of disputes outside of court as they are a simple, cost-effective method to resolve disputes at an early stage. A party who neglects or refuses to participate in the dispute resolution process under s. 12 frustrates this purpose".

Despite INTACT's lawyers futile attempts at obfuscation, Section 12 clearly:

• Applies to disputes between an insurer and an insured “about a matter that under Statutory Condition 11… or another condition of the contract, must be determined using this dispute resolution process.”

• It’s triggered after proof of loss is delivered, and either party may demand participation.

INTACT's lawyers are incorrect, since:

• The Insured submitted a Complaint and Intact assigned it to CET — that’s conduct consistent with recognition of the Complainant as an insured.

• INTACT did not reject the Complainant's standing at the outset. Instead, they engaged procedurally, which would estop them from later denying applicability.

• If INTACT's denial hinges on coverage interpretation, that’s precisely the kind of dispute Section 12 is designed to resolve.

• INTACT is trying to have it both ways: accept the complaint for internal review, then deny the Complainant's status when it’s time to engage the statutory dispute process.

20 December 2025

INTACT’s mishandling of the claim, subject of this public information website, does not only raise issues under the Insurance Act and Financial Institutions Act.

INTACT’s conduct also creates risk with its reinsurers and co‑insurers:

• Shared risk obligations: The Schedule of Insurers shows multiple carriers (Zurich, Chubb, Wawanesa, Lloyd’s syndicates, Everest, Starr, HDI, Sovereign) sharing property and specialty lines. INTACT is required to notify and coordinate claims across these participants. The record indicates that INTACT Lawyer Christa Rae Cordick refused to act upon the Insured's request to alert the other Insurers.

• Failure to notify: INTACT's denial of coverage unilaterally obstructs statutory dispute resolution, and it risks breaching contractual duties to co‑insurers who expect timely claim disclosure.

• Reinsurance treaty standards: Reinsurers monitor claims handling for fairness and compliance. Bad faith denials or inconsistent insured status assertions can trigger treaty consequences, including refusal to indemnify, premium increases, or stricter audit terms.

• Direct exposure lines: Intact holds 100% liability under General Liability, Strata Directors & Officers Liability, and Crime coverage. In these areas, mishandling claims hits INTACT directly, without reinsurance protection.

• Reputational risk: Documented refusals to comply with statutory or coordination duties undermine INTACT’s credibility with reinsurers and co‑insurers, creating long‑term exposure beyond the immediate dispute.

08 December 2025

The SLAPP Defendant expresses special thanks to the legal tip, a message in the contact form, written by an anonymous viewer, ostensibly a lawyer. The viewer broached the fact that INTACT has technically never refused to comply with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) or Strata Property Act §  155(b); that the prior focus upon literal non-compliance was somewhat flawed, thus allowing Whitelaw-Twining an easy escape clause. The viewer suggested, instead, that the focus be redirected upon INTACT's deprioritisation of the Complaint (of the Claims Manager's illicit claims practices) which was formally accepted by Ombudsman Vincent, who assigned such to the Customer Experience Team more than two and one half (2 1/2) years ago. This issue of the inexcusable delay in the Customer Experience Team's investigation and issuance of the Final Business Decision (FBD), has been addressed in numerous cases, such as

Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), 2000 SCC 44 → unreasonable administrative delay can amount to abuse of process.

Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29 → backlog and delay undermine fairness and efficiency, even absent outright refusal.

Strickland v. Canada (Attorney General), 2015 SCC 37: While relating to a different statutory context, the Supreme Court of Canada affirmed the principle that a long, unexplained delay in a mandatory administrative process can render the agency's action unreasonable.

Apotex Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2017 FCA 247: Specifically discusses that unreasonable delay is a ground for judicial review, particularly when the delay prejudices the applicant or frustrates the purpose of the statute (like the FIA).

Gould v. Yukon Order of Pioneers, 1996 CanLII 139 (SCC): Establishes that where delay is so long that the statutory purpose is defeated, it can justify intervention.

Consumer/Insurance Acts (provincial) → require insurers to handle complaints “promptly and fairly.”

· Customer Satisfaction page (INTACT’s official website) — Intact acknowledges it has a formal Complaint Handling Protocol and notes that customers may contact them for “information on how we process complaints, how to file a complaint or inquiry on the status of a complaint.” The very fact that INTACT intimates backlog and status inquiries suggests that delays are a recognised issue.

· Trustpilot reviews — INTACT Insurance has a very low TrustScore (1.2/5 from nearly 200 reviews). Many reviewers complain about poor service, difficulty reaching adjusters, and long waits for resolution.

· ComplaintsBoard — Lists multiple unresolved complaints, including policyholders reporting claims and complaints dragging on without timely resolution. The site shows Intact rated poorly (1.3/5) with repeated mentions of delays.

RevDex consumer complaints — Customers describe repeated attempts to contact Intact without response, brokers not returning calls, and matters left unresolved for long periods.

In light of the SLAPP Defendant's new and improved legal strategy, the Application to Compel INTACT to comply with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) has been modified to an Application to Compel INTACT to comply with the statute's and case authorities' requirement that compliance be within a reasonable period of time; and that Rule 1-3 strictly requires that such timely resolution obviate the sanctionable burden upon the Supreme Court!

Of course, Whitelaw-Twining's reviews are probably typical of a boutique law firm that yearns for national recognition, yet experiencing "growing pains" -

Common Negatives according to Glass Door:

• Pay & Workload: Frequently noted as underpaid for the amount of work, leading to high stress and burnout.

• Management & Culture: Some reviewers find management unprofessional, the environment cliquey, gossipy, or toxic, with a lack of accountability and empathy.

• Support Staff Issues: Instances of snobby or unhelpful behaviour from senior support staff, and a feeling of being treated like a "robot'.

Overall Sentiment:
Reviews suggest a firm undergoing growth, with potential for a positive experience if you're in the right team, but management and cultural issues persist for some employees, leading to high turnover. The SLAPP Defendant and his wife have expressed their reviews, by way of the subject matter of this informational, factual website.

To the left is Exhibit C, the attachment to the Affidavit of Claims Manager Myers, supra. Note that the letter refers to both of the claims that the SLAPP Defendant submitted to the Ombudsman. The first claim (no. 4033526840) is currently with the Customer Experience Team's investigators, awaiting completion after more than two and one half (2 1/2) years, supra.

According to the letter, the second claim (no. 1033684645) "will be dealt with through Intact's operational representatives and the court", an unambiguous statement that Ombudsman Vincent seeks the Supreme Court's involvement, rather than the simple administrative remedy, as required by Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and Rule of Court 1-3, supra.

To the left is Exhibit B, the attachment to the Affidavit of Claims Manager Myers, supra. Note the Exhibit refers to claim no. 1033684645, and as of 04 July 2023, the claim was still open.

Since Whitelaw-Twining Associate Meera Jain has forbidden the SLAPP Defendant from direct communications with INTACT, he is deprived of any extrajudicial manner to ascertain the current status of claim no. 1033684645.

To the left is Exhibit C, the attachment to the Affidavit of Claims Manager Myers, supra. Note the Exhibit refers to claim no. 1033684645, and as of 30 April 2024, the claim was still open. As stated above, since Counsel Meera Jain has forbidden the SLAPP Defendant from direct communications with INTACT, he has no extrajudicial manner to ascertain the current status of claim no. 1033684645. At least, ignoring the SLAPP Defendant's requests provides limited attorney's fees!

08 December 2025

As an indication that the INTACT insists upon its refusal to comply with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and Rule of Court 1-3, in response to the below email, with a copy to Whitelaw-Twining Counsel Meera Jain, the response was the predictable systematic disinformation and outright distortion of law and facts, claiming the falsity that the BC Provincial Court has injunctive relief jurisdiction, and that the Provincial Court (which has no injunctive relief jurisdiction), had ordered that INTACT be immune from compliance with Financial Institutions Act § 80.3(1) and Strata Property Act §  155(b).

Curiously, with all this posturing, Attorney Jain still hasn't filed her oft-threatened Application of Summary Judgement, infra.

Up until now, all of the legalities of this SLAPP litigation have been focused upon only one of the two (2) claims accepted by INTACT's Ombudsman, claim no. 4033526840. However, the Customer Experience Team has not informed the Claimant of the status of the other claim, no. 1033684645, although as evidenced below, INTACT's intercompany correspondence indicates that the claim was active and assigned to claims adjustors on 29 March 2022, 04 July 2023 and 30 April 2024, to Breanna Gray, the Claims Representative who co-authored Claims Manager Amanda Myers' provocative letter of 30 September 2021, infra.

The issue of the active status of the second claim, adds a new, expansive window of inquiry to the "tempête juridique parfaite" that Whitelaw-Twining has tailor-made, according to INTACT's costly, enhanced bad faith specifications!

27 September 2025

1. The Core Legal Doctrine: Collateral Attack

By Canadian law, INTACT’s Whitelaw-Twining lawyers Meera Jain’s and Nigel Beckmann's plan to file an Application before a new Justice, in order to re-litigate or nullify the effect of Justice Elwood's Order is prohibited under the Rule Against Collateral Attack.

This rule prevents the abuse of process by ensuring finality and respect for judicial authority. Since INTACT’s lawyers prefer to nullify Justice Elwood's Order, instead of complying therewith (which requires them to prove lingering defamatory posts), INTACT’s only legitimate course of action is to appeal that Order to a higher court, not to Apply that a different Justice oversee Justice Elwood's Order.

Key Supreme Court of Canada Authority

The leading case that defines and prohibits INTACT's planned tactic is the Supreme Court of Canada decision:

Toronto (City) v. C.U.P.E., Local 79, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 77

In this decision, the Court clearly defines an Abuse of Process as a proceeding that is “inconsistent with the objectives of the administration of justice.” INTACT’s planned course of action is inconsistent with the realities of the judicial system, because Whitelaw-Twining seeks to undermine the finality and authority of Justice Elwood's ruling.

Whitelaw-Twining lawyers propose to compel the court system to hear the same issue twice, consuming judicial resources and bringing the administration of justice into disrepute—the very definition of abuse of process under the C.U.P.E. case.

2. Professional Conduct and Ethical Prohibition

Beyond the case law, the lawyers’ conduct violates the ethical standards that govern the Canadian bar.

Federation of Law Societies Model Code of Professional Conduct

The provincial Law Societies (which oversee the Bar) generally adopt rules requiring lawyers to uphold the integrity of the profession. Specifically, the Model Code prohibits lawyers from "engaging in conduct that brings the administration of justice into disrepute."

When a lawyer:

1. Fails to comply with a mandatory judicial order (Justice Elwood's Order).

2. Attempts to circumvent that order by using a different judge (Judge Shopping).

3. Acts with an ulterior motive (demanding full website deactivation instead of just removal of specific posts).

28 September 2025

NOTICE OF CONFLICT AND DEMAND FOR CLARIFICATION OF INSURED STATUS

To: Whitelaw-Twining's Meera Jain is a member of the INTACT SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) prosecutorial team.

Ms. Jain's first major assignment at Whitelaw-Twining was the formal, legal responsibility of INTACT's retaliatory SLAPP litigation, by oral argument before the Honourable Justice Elwood of the BC Supreme Court (detailed on this website), and by virtue of her recent filing of pleadings responsive to the SLAPP Defendant's Rule 3-7(22) and (23) Application.

The SLAPP Defendant, RB, hereby serves this Notice to Ms. Jain, INTACT's, Amanda Myers', Christa Rae Cordick's and Michele Vincent's Counsel of Record, concerning a fundamental and previously asserted factual inaccuracy central to the Plaintiffs' legal position and the ethical conduct of the litigation.

The Asserted Factual Conflict

1. Prior Assertion: The Plaintiffs’ other Whitelaw-Twining Counsel, Nigel Beckmann, acting on behalf of INTACT, sent a formal letter to the Defendant dated 07 December 2023. This letter contained the explicit and solemn accusation that the Defendant was “falsely claiming to be an insured of Intact Insurance Company.”

2. Current Conflict: The Plaintiffs have since filed an Amended Notice of Civil Claim, for which Meera Jain has assumed joint responsibility. This new pleading, and the continuation of this SLAPP litigation, requiring the Plaintiffs’ firm, Whitelaw-Twining to stand by the facts necessary to maintain the action.

Demand for Public Clarification

The assertion that the Defendant was "falsely claiming to be an insured" directly conflicts with the foundational realities of the fact that INTACT Claims Manager, Amanda Myers falsified her investigation of Defendant's claim, and serves to mislead the Court, and any interested third parties (including the Plaintiff’s own personnel responsible for monitoring litigation).

The Defendant formally and publicly demands that Counsel of Record, Meera Jain, immediately and unequivocally confirm the firm’s and the client’s current, sworn position on this matter:

• A. Confirmation of Retraction: Confirm in writing that the assertion contained in the 07 December 2023, letter—that the Defendant was "falsely claiming to be an insured"—is hereby retracted and will not be relied upon for any purpose, including as an implied background fact, in this litigation.

• B. Confirmation of Position: If the assertion is not retracted, Counsel of Record must clearly state the current factual position of Intact Insurance Company: Do the Plaintiffs maintain that the Defendant was an uninsured third party claimant to the company at the time of submission of his claims?

The Purpose of This Notice

This Notice is being served not merely for procedural clarity but to ensure the Plaintiffs’ counsel Meera Jain and Client adhere to the Duty of Candour owed to the Court and to the Defendant.

TAKE NOTICE that the failure of the Counsel of Record, Meera Jain, to retract this patently false or misleading statement—which was used to intimidate the SLAPP Defendant—will be raised in all future applications concerning the Plaintiffs’ lack of good faith, excessive costs, and abuse of process, and will be used to inform all parties with a legitimate interest in the conduct of this litigation, including the Insurer’s senior management and operational personnel.

The Defendant requires a response to this Demand for Public Clarification within seven (7) days of service.

29 September 2025

FORMAL LEGAL COMPLIANCE & REVIEW NOTICE

To: Meera Jain, Esqs. Fm: SLAPP Defendant RB

I do not purport to influence your stated intention to file an Application for a rehearing of Justice Elwood's Order of 13 August 2025, nor am I at all intimidated thereby. However, I do respectfully suggest that instead of your futile attempt to nullify the Order that conflicts with INTACT's position, that you stop ignoring my numerous letters and emails, inviting you to comply with the Order, by citing any specific post on this or the website claimsmanagerreport.com that you believe to be defamatory.

In your below email, you stated : "We are seeking an order that you remove and/or deactivate your websites. Your proposal consent order only contemplates removal of defamatory posts."

Ms. Jain, with all due respect, Justice Elwood's Order, directed personally to you, specifically denied the removal or deactivation of either website. His Order was merely that you identify specific posts that you should deem defamatory, after I had made efforts to remove posts that objectively could be deemed defamatory.

In compliance with Justice Elwood's Order, I immediately removed from both websites, posts that could objectively, even remotely be deemed to be defamatory. Even Mr. Beckmann noted that I had removed a substantial number of posts. However, since the issuance of the Order, you have ignored the entirety of my letters and emails, and instead of compliance with Justice Elwood's Order, you now seek to have the Order nullified, by filing an Application to have the Order reviewed by another Justice! In conclusion, I hereby respectfully demand that you provide me with (1) a list of any and all posts of either website that you, in your sole discretion, should legitimately believe to be defamatory, or (2) if you can find no defamatory posts to exist, that you so state. OTHERWISE, UNLESS YOU ARE MERELY BLUFFING, PROCEED TO FILE YOUR AFOREMENTIONED APPLICATION, BUT BE PREPARED FOR A VIGOROUS COUNTEROFFENSIVE, IN DEFENCE OF THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT'S PROCESSES, WITH EXPOSURE OF YOUR DOCUMENTED PROCEDURAL OBSTRUCTIONS. THE IMPOSITION OF PUNITIVE COSTS AGAINST YOU AND YOUR CLIENTS WILL BE SOUGHT.

26 September 2025

INTACT's Defiance of Procedural Integrity: Evasion and Strategic Suppression

Plaintiff INTACT's Whitelaw-Twining Lawyer, Meera Jain, is in direct violation of a mandatory standing Order issued by the Honourable Justice Elwood of the BC Supreme Court.

Justice Elwood's Order required that Meera Jain provide a definitive list of any and all lingering defamatory posts that might have been inadvertently overlooked, in the SLAPP Defendant's ongoing, longitudinal review of both websites.

Failure to Comply: To date, despite the SLAPP Defendant's numerous requests, INTACT's Lawyer, Meera Jain, has failed to identify a single existing defamatory post. This non-compliance is evidentiary that no actionable defamation remains.

PROOF OF OVERREACH: The Demand for Total Deactivation

INTACT's ongoing procedural misconduct is compounded by clear evidence of its Lawyer, Whitelaw-Twining Associate Meera Jain's ulterior motive, as stated in her below email of 06 August 2025: total suppression.

In the below email, Ms. Meera Jain, explicitly demanded the complete and immediate deactivation of the entire websites. This demand goes far beyond the scope of removing specific alleged defamatory posts as stated in the original Order.

Meera Jain's email expressly confirms that INTACT's illegitimate objective is not to protect a reputation from specific statements, but rather to misuse the legal process, to silence legitimate criticism and commentary entirely.

ABUSE OF PROCESS: Attempt to Nullify a Standing Order

Instead of complying with Justice Elwood's binding directive, Meera Jain and her Associate Nigel Beckmann have confirmed their intention to file a new, collateral application before a different Justice. This action is a textbook example of Judge Shopping and an Abuse of Process, designed solely to circumvent or nullify Justice Elwood's existing Order.

In absolute defence of the sanctity of the Honourable Justice Elwood's Order of 13 August 2025, the SLAPP Defendant resolutely challenges INTACT's lawyers' instances of non-compliance, particularly the wrongful procedural evasion. The SLAPP Defendant is insistent upon upholding Justice Elwood's Order and will vigorously oppose any Application that attempts to subvert such.

12 September 2025 The Whitelaw-Twining Partner has artfully sabotaged the SLAPP Defendant's amicable gesture of voluntary deactivation of this website. The Partner's trademark, unyielding, confrontational modus operandi is arrantly inimical to any semblance of a resolution of any of the various issues, as factually detailed on this website. In his inimitable, signature bravado, in yesterday's email, the Partner threatens more malicious, oppressive (lucrative) litigation, unless both websites be deactivated. Therefore, in preparation for yet another round of the Partner's anticipated, frivolous Applications, Respondent will include Affidavits of the following and other emails, which succinctly expose the Partner's improper ulterior motive - the deactivation of the websites, despite the fact that the Partner is unable to cite any specific defamatory content on either website. MOREOVER, DESPITE THE PARTNER'S UNTRUE ALLEGATIONS, JUSTICE ELWOOD DENIED THE PARTNER'S APPLICATION FOR DEACTIVATION OF THE WEBSITES!

Therefore, should any of the SLAPP Defendants [by way of Further Amended Counterclaim (FACC)] - INTACT, Amanda Myers, Christa Rae Cordick or Michele Vincent have an interest in the permanency of a resolution that the FACC Plaintiff has recently demonstrated, then she should communicate such interest to him, by way of her personal Lawyer!

11 September 2025

Whitelaw-Twining Partner Beckmann has threatened more aggressive litigation, ostensibly in order to enforce strict compliance with the 13 August 2025 Order of the Honourable Justice Elwood.

In view of the fact that neither Justice Elwood, nor any other Justice, has ever ordered the deactivation of any website, the FACC Plaintiff proudly proclaims the reclamation of his freedom of speech rights to maintain this and the other website, and reconfirms his commitment to seek good faith communication from Mr. Beckmann and/or Ms Jain, as to any remaining content that they should deem defamatory.

As meticulously documented on this public interest, factual, informational website, a Partner of law firm Whitelaw-Twining engaged in numerous bad faith initiatives, including the filing of two (2) prohibited SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) lawsuits, in violation of British Columbia's protective anti-SLAPP legislation, the Protection of Public Participation Act [PPPA].

Among the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's lawyerly transgressions are the filings of pleadings and Affidavits that: (1) the Insured SLAPP Defendant had inhabited the noxious pigeon roost depicted in the image to the right, (2) the Insured SLAPP Defendant's submission of a claim with INTACT was illegitimate, because his alleged habitation of the pigeon roost disqualified him from insurance coverage, and (3) Despite having been confirmed as a Named Insured, by an INTACT, Claims Manager, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner accused the Insured SLAPP Defendant of fraudulently posing as an Insured, when he submitted his claim.

Analysis of the Bad Faith Accusations

The accusation that INTACT's Insured inhabited that pigeon roost, in a legal or insurance context is a classic example of a bad faith ploy. This tactic is not a legitimate legal argument but rather a deceptive manoeuvre designed to undermine a valid claim. The primary purpose of such an absurd accusation is to evade the legal and financial obligations owed to INTACT's Insured.

The Nature of a Bad Faith Ploy

A bad faith ploy, particularly in insurance, is an action taken by an insurer that is dishonest, deceptive, or malicious, and is intended to avoid a contractual duty. Unlike an honest dispute over the facts of a claim, a bad faith ploy uses irrelevant or fabricated information to create a false controversy.

Why the Pigeon Roost Accusation is a Bad Faith Ploy

The accusation that INTACT's Named Insured inhabited a pigeon roost is a textbook example of a bad faith argument, for several reasons:

1. Absurdity and Lack of Credibility: The claim is inherently unbelievable and lacks any reasonable basis in reality. No court, jury, or rational person would accept that a human being, particularly a Named Insured, lives in a pigeon roost. This makes the accusation frivolous on its face, designed to waste the court's time and the Insured's resources.

2. Distraction and Misdirection (The Red Herring): The accusation is a classic red herring—a piece of information that is irrelevant to the case but is introduced to divert attention from the real issues. Instead of arguing about the facts of the policy, the nature of the damage, or INTACT's liability, this allegation forces the Insured SLAPP Defendant to waste time and effort disproving a nonsensical falsehood.

3. Prejudice and Character Defamation: The ploy is a calculated attempt to besmirch INTACT's Insured's character. By suggesting the Insured is so eccentric, unstable, or untrustworthy as to live in a pigeon roost, INTACT is attempting to prejudice the court or jury. The goal is to make the SLAPP Defendant Insured appear unbelievable, thereby casting doubt upon his entire, legitimate claim. This tactic is a direct violation of INTACT's duty to deal fairly with its Insureds.

4. Lack of Causal or Legal Link: Even if the accusation were true (which, obviously it is not), it has no legal relevance to the Insured's claim. It does not prove that the damage isn't covered by the INTACT policy, that the claim is illegitimate, or that the Insured is in violation of any policy terms. The accusation is completely disconnected from the legal and factual basis of the case.

Conclusion

In summary, Whitelaw-Twining's defamatory accusation that INTACT's Named Insured inhabited a pigeon roost is not a legitimate assertion, but rather a fabricated, absurd, and irrelevant allegation, calculated to distract from the true merits of the case and to unfairly prejudice INTACT's Insured. It is a clear example of a bad faith ploy intended to avoid a legal obligation, by way of the prosecution of malicious SLAPP litigation!

Courtesy of WT-F! LAW OFFICE

10 September 2025

EL ESPEJO MENTIROSO de WHITELAW-TWINING

23 August 2025

Whitelaw-Twining lawyers Nigel Beckmann and Meera Jain (who was in Courtroom 30, when Justice Elwood pronounced the Court's decision) are in violation of the Order, by their wrongful attempt to alter such, by threats of further court Applications, to remove Beckmann's defamatory letter of 07 December 2023, inter alia. The below two (2) emails evidence Whitelaw-Twining's ulterior motives-the avoidance of Mr. Beckmann's voluntary or ordered retraction of his defamatory letter.

22 August 2025

For five (5) years, the INTACT Plaintiffs and for two (2) years, their henchwomen and henchmen at Whitelaw-Twining, have cruelly ignored the pleas of the SLAPP Defendant, to retract the wrongful, unsubstantiated claims denial of Claims Manager Amanda Myers.

INTACT and the SLAPP Plaintiffs are well aware that Myers' wrongful coverage denial has proximately caused the SLAPP Defendant and his wife to suffer, and will continue to suffer, substantial consequential damages, since they have been obligated to disclose this denied claim on all past and future applications for insurance and financing, including applications for real estate mortgages. Myers' wrongful denial of coverage was without factual or evidentiary basis and was contrary to the terms of the policy. Her purported 'investigation' lacked a proper or thorough inquiry into the facts and circumstances of the claim, and therefore, could not serve as a good faith basis for the denial.

Myers' denial unfairly and adversely impacts the Defendant's financial reputation, unfairly signaling to prospective lenders that he is an irresponsible or high-risk borrower. This has proximately caused, and will continue to cause, substantial economic harm, including but not limited to the denial of financing and the inability to purchase real property.

To compound its oppressive trajectory, the Whitelaw-Twining representatives threaten even more (meritless) Applications, as if the BC judicial system were a tool for INTACT's and Whitelaw-Twining's Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress!

24 August 2025

The Further Amended Counterclaim (to the right) has undergone extensive, corrective additions and deletions, and will be filed and served within the few days.

It will please INTACT employées, Amanda Myers, Christa Rae Cordick and Michele Vincent, and their lawyers at Whitelaw-Twining, that their collective, oppressive efforts have well come to fruition. The SLAPP Defendant continues to stumble through the maze of unfamiliar Court rules, Responsive Pleadings, Applications and other "legal" obstacles, in the Provincial and Supreme Courts, merely to compel these antagonistic silhouettes for hire Plaintiffs, and their Counsel, to investigate Amanda Myers' proscribed coverage denial, and to release a coveted Claims Experience letter. Another tribute to Whitelaw-Twining's W-TF! TM legacy!

"SUITS and SCHEMES" Whitelaw-Twining Partner's Lucrative False Accusation has been Exposed

(SLAPP) SUITS

This minutely detailed, public interest website is an exposé of the abetment of a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining, by his two (2) SLAPP lawsuits against an Insured of his Client INTACT INSURANCE. The Whitelaw-Twining' Partner filed the two (2) SLAPP actions in retaliation for the Insured's creation of this public interest website, in recognition of the courageous efforts of whistleblower, INTACT Privacy Officer Helen Cameron, who had defied rogue, managerial elements within INTACT, by conducting her own, independent, internal affairs investigation, which exposed the cover-up of Claims Manager Amanda Myers having invented the untrue assertion that she had conducted a claims investigation, as well as other wrongful claims practices.

20 June 2025 As minutely detailed and documented on this informational website, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's deceitful, defamatory, spurious accusations that RB was not an insured of INTACT, and had submitted his claim under false pretences, has been entirely discredited by Strata Property Act § 155(b), which was incorporated into the recent Decision of the Honourable Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court, case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 B.C.J. No. 2272, 2023 BCSC 2080], in addition to almost 40 percipient witnesses, including SLAPP Plaintiff Amanda Myers.

However, the most compelling fact of the false accusation of Whitelaw-Twining's Partner's letter of 07 December 2023, is that SLAPP Plaintiff Michele Vincent, Ombuds[wo]man] of INTACT, legally affirmed RB's status as a customer of INTACT, referring to RB as a Customer of INTACT, by acceptance of his formal Complaint (against Claims Manager Amanda Myers), with Vincent's assignment thereof to the Customer Experience Team, for an investigation and release of a Final Business Decision Letter, to RB. In light of the indisputable facts, displayed on this website, it is respectfully requested that the Whitelaw-Twining Partner donate his ill-gotten fees to a homeless shelter assistance organisation of his choice, in atonement for his malicious acts and omissions!

20 June 2025

AS PRECISELY DOCUMENTED ON THIS INFORMATIONAL WEBSITE, THE WHITELAW-TWINING PARTNER HAS FILED TWO (2) SLAPPs AGAINST HIS CLIENT'S NAMED INSURED, THUS AIDING AND ABETTING HIS CLIENT AND ITS ROGUE PERSONNEL, IN THEIR ATTEMPTS TO CONCEAL THEIR VARIOUS UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES. AT WHITELAW-TWINING's SECOND HEARING OF ITS APPLICATION TO TEMPORARILY DEACTIVATE THIS WEBSITE, MADAME JUSTICE LAURIE CHIDED WHITELAW-TWINING's LAWYER, FOR HIS DEVIOUS SHORT-TIME HEARING ESTIMATE OF 1.5 HOURS, WHEN HE FINALLY ADMITTED THAT HE NEEDED AN ENTIRE DAY OF THE COURT'S TIME.

AT THE THIRD HEARING, THE COURT WILL BE ALERTED TO THE FACT THAT THE RELIEF THAT WHITELAW-TWINING SEEKS (THE DEACTIVATION OF THIS WEBSITE), HAD BEEN OFFERED AND REJECTED ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS, PRIOR TO THE FILINGS OF ITS SLAPPs, AS WELL AS THEREAFTER.

IN THE LIKELY EVENT THAT THE WHITELAW-TWINING PARTNER SHOULD IGNORE HIS SLAPP DEFENDANT's OFFER TO DEACTIVATE THE WEBSITE REGARDING INTACT, AT THE BEGINNING OF THE ENTIRE ONE DAY HEARING THAT THE COURT HAS SCHEDULED FOR WHITELAW-TWINING's APPLICATION, THE SLAPP DEFENDANT WILL ALERT THE COURT TO THE FACT THAT AN ENTIRE DAY OF ITS PRECIOUS TIME AND RESOURCES HAS BEEN SACRIFICED BY WHITELAW-TWINING's ABUSE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, IN A COVER-UP OF THE RESULTS OF ITS CLIENT's PRIVACY OFFICER'S INTERNAL AFFAIRS PROBE, THAT UNCOVERED THAT CLAIMS MANAGER AMANDA MYERS HAD ENGAGED IN THE ILLEGAL CLAIMS ACTIVITIES, AS DETAILED AND DOCUMENTED ON THIS WEBSITE.

07 June 2025

INTACT INSURANCE has squandered tens of thousands of dollars, having engaged four (4) hyper- zealous lawyers, such as Nigel Beckmann, who alleged untrue statements in an investigative report to the company. INTACT continues its aggressive campaign, to avoid the consequences of its human rights abuses, as detailed on this informational website.

There is currently pending in the BC Human Rights Tribunal, a Complaint against INTACT, for its abuses of the human rights of the whistleblower Defendant of INTACT's two (2) SLAPPs.

At the Human Rights Tribunal hearing, testimony will be elicited from fellow whistleblower INTACT PRIVACY OFFICER Helen Cameron, whose internal affairs probe exposed INTACT Claims Manager Amanda Myers' wrongful claims activities.

INTACT Public Entities (a subsidiary of Intact Insurance) has been faced with the dilemma of a significant increase in discrimination claims being filed against INTACT, such as the case of Shahin v. Intact Insurance Company (2024 ONSC 2059). General damages awarded by Human Rights Tribunals in Canada for injury to dignity, feelings, and self-respect, are on the increase, due to such egregious abuses, as minutely detailed on this informational website.

FORMAL LEGAL NOTICE OF INTENT AND PURPOSE*

*This website has been created and maintained by "RB", a Canadian retired, locally renowned carpet installer, and a Named Insured of INTACT Insurance.

The intent and purpose of this website is to respectfully render a plea to Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Nigel Beckmann, to withdraw his letter (to the right), wherein Mr. Beckmann falsely and defamatorily accused "RB" of not being an insured of INTACT Insurance, and thereby "deceiving any potential reader of the Post about [RB's] status and relationship with [INTACT]." Mr. Beckmann's untrue accusation, numerous legal, regulatory and eventual SLAPP litigation against "RB" ensured. , In aggravation, Mr. Beckmann's untrue letter came to suppress the results of an internal affairs probe, conducted by Privacy Officer Helen Cameron, who uncovered that Claims Manager Amanda Myers had concocted the investigation of a property claim that "RB" had submitted, as well as others of Myers' wrongful claims practices.

The overwhelming bases, in support of "RB's" respectful request of Attorney Beckmann, includes Strata Property Act § 155(b), which was incorporated into the recent Decision of the Honourable Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court, in the landmark case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 B.C.J. No. 2272, 2023 BCSC 2080. Moreover, as detailed on this website, there are almost 40 independant witnesses to the fact that "RB" was a Named Insured, in contradiction of Attorney Beckmann's lone position, as expressed in the letter to the right!

Another element of this website are the two (2) oppressive, Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation SLAPP) actions that Whitelaw-Twining Partner Nigel Beckmann filed against Named Insured "RB".

British Columbia has protective anti-SLAPP legislation, entitled the Protection of Public Participation Act [PPPA], Section 4 of which encourages courts to cleanse the judicial system of such abusive litigation, upon a Defendant's Application for a Dismissal Order. Unable to find a lawyer who will represent "RB" for less than $20,000, he intends to file for such a Dismissal Order, as as he has sufficiently researched such a "DIY" project.

SLAPP actions, such as Whitelaw-Twining Partner Beckmann's, are universally disfavoured by Legislatures and the Courts. Indeed, the Supreme Court of Canada released its latest decision interpreting anti-SLAPP legislation in Canada. A 6-1 majority of the Court in Hansman v Neufeld, 2023 SCC 14, restored an order dismissing a plaintiff’s claim under British Columbia’s anti-SLAPP legislation.

The Supreme Court of Canada’s decision centered upon the balancing of the public interest in protecting the defendant’s impugned expression against the plaintiff’s right to protect their reputation. The Court had specific reference to Charter jurisprudence under ss. 2(b) and 15(1) in determining the level of protection that should be afforded to certain expressions. In particular, where the impugned expression is “counter-speech” intended to respond to ignorant or harmful expressions against a vulnerable group, that may weigh more heavily in the balancing exercise in favour of protecting that speech.

CONCLUSION

This website, documenting the facts of WHITELAW-TWINING's oppressive litigation against "RB's" right to freedom of expression to communicate with INTACT's managerial personnel, in a factual, albeit critical manner, does not constitute defamation!

Above image of Attorney Beckmann's letter, falsely accusing "RB" of not being an insured of INTACT.

IF FREE SPEECH RIGHTS ARE TO PREVAIL, AS METICULOUSLY DOCUMENTED ON THIS WEBSITE, INTACT INSURANCE's NAMED INSURED, THE IN PRO SE DEFENDANT OF ITS TWO (2) SLAPP ACTIONS MUST SUCCESSFULLY EXPOSE THE FACT THAT HIS OPPONENT, "SLAPP PROSECUTOR", NIGEL BECKMANN (PARTNER OF LAW FIRM WHITELAW-TWINING), HAS RESORTED TO THE FILING OF DEMONSTRABLY MISREPRESENTATIVE PLEADINGS, AS WELL AS FLAWED AFFIDAVITS.

IN VIEW OF INTACT's ABUSIVE OF PROCESS MANIPULATION OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AS A VEXATIOUS TOOL TO HARASS THE NAMED INSURED DEFENDANT, AND INFLICT UPON HIM EMOTIONAL DISTRESS, THE SITUATION WARRANTS AN APPLICATION ON DEFENDANT's PART, TO DISMISS WHITELAW-TWINING's MALICIOUS SLAPPs.

ALTHOUGH THE NAMED INSURED DEFENDANT HAS ENDEAVOURED TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF PROPAGATION OF THIS WEBSITE, WHITELAW-TWINING's INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTION DISTRESS UPON HIM NECESSITATES THAT HE SLIGHTLY EXPAND THIS WEBSITE's PARAMETRES, IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE INTEREST OF A PRO BONO LAWYER, OR IF SHE SHOULD BE UNAVAILABLE, AT LEAST ONE WHO WOULD AGREE TO A SLAPP DEFENCE, FOR LESS THAN $20,000.

THUS, DEFENDANT IS ON TO AN EXTENSIVE EFFORT TO LOCATE A PRO BONO LAWYER, OR A SOCIAL INFLUENCER, ANTIPATHETIC TO WHITELAW-TWINING's RELENTLESS CRUSADE AGAINST FREE SPEECH AND FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS.

THE OFFICE OF THE BC ATTORNEY GENERAL IS CURRENTLY RECONSIDERING INTERVENTION IN THE INTACT SLAPPs SINCE, UNLIKE COMMON SLAPPs, INTACT's SLAPPs CONTAIN THE DUPLICITOUS ELEMENT OF WHITELAW-TWINING ATTORNEY's FABRICATION OF THE PREMISE UPON WHICH INTACT's SLAPPs ARE PREDICATED - THAT INTACT's NAMED INSURED HAD SUBMITTED AN INSURANCE CLAIM UNDER THE FALSE PRETENCE OF BEING A NAMED INSURED OF INTACT.

STATEMENT OF INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THIS METICULOUSLY DETAILED AND DOCUMENTED DAY-IN-THE-LIFE, FACTUAL PRESENTATION

FACING THE LEGAL "DILEMMA" OF THE LACK OF PRETEXT TO COMMENCE SLAPP LITIGATION AGAINST A NAMED INSURED OF HIS CLIENT, INTACT INSURANCE, "BOUTIQUE" LAW FIRM WHITELAW-TWINING's PARTNER, NIGEL BECKMANN, RENDERED THE FALSE CHARGE OF "SUBMISSION OF AN INSURANCE CLAIM, UNDER THE FALSE PRETENCE OF BEING A NAMED INSURED", AGAINST AN ACTUAL NAMED INSURED OF THE COMPANY.

The purpose of this public interest website, is the presentation of the illicit claims and administrative acts and omissions of INTACT Insurance and a select few of its rogue (among the vast majority of honest, competent and well-intentioned) personnel.

AS EXPOSED BY AN INTERNAL AFFAIRS PROBE, CONDUCTED BY INTACT INSURANCE PRIVACY OFFICER HELEN CAMERON, IN 2021 INTACT CLAIMS MANAGER AMANDA MYERS WHO INVENTED THE NARRATIVE THAT SHE HAD CONDUCTED A CLAIMS INVESTIGATION, IN ADDITION TO OTHER WRONGFUL ACTS, REGARDING A CLAIM SUBMITTED BY A NAMED INSURED OF INTACT. THE NAMED INSURED IMMEDIATELY FILED A FORMAL COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ERRANT CLAIMS MANAGER WITH INTACT's OMBUDS[WO]MAN, MICHELE VINCENT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 80.3(1) OF THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ACT.

HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF INVESTIGATION OF THE CLAIMS MANAGER's DOCUMENTED WRONGFUL ACTIVITIES, INTACT ENGAGED NIGEL BECKMANN (PARTNER OF THE ERSTWHILE BOUTIQUE LAW FIRM WHITELAW-TWINING), WHO SERVED A LETTER UPON THE NAMED INSURED, THREATENING TO SUE THE NAMED INSURED FOR THE FACTUAL, DOCUMENTED INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION DISPLAYED ON THIS WEBSITE. WHEN THE NAMED INSURED REFUSED TO SUCCUMB TO MR. BECKMANN's DEMANDS, MR. BECKMANN FILED TWO (2) SLAPPs AGAINST THE NAMED INSURED.

ALTHOUGH THE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION ON THIS WEBSITE IS UNAVOIDABLY CRITICAL OF THE ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF WHITELAW-TWINING's PARTNER, ALL STATEMENTS ARE FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE METICULOUS DOCUMENTATION OF THE FACTS.

The factual, statutory, judicial and regulatory authority in conflict with the Whitelaw-Twining Partner's assertion include:

Strata Property Act Section 155(b) (2) the landmark case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 B.C.J. No. 2272, 2023 BCSC 2080 (decided by the Honourable Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court), correspondence of INTACT personnel (SLAPP Plaintiffs Amanda Myers and Christa Rae Cordick), Adam Trott investigator of the BC Ombudsman Office, Bruno de Sando investigator of the GIO, Patrick Williams of renowned law firm Clark Wilson, CHOA (Condominium Homeowners Association of BC), the BCFSA, personnel of various Scheduled Insurers of the subject INTACT property liability policy, Insurance Broker Gordon Li, Property Manager Nico Barbu, Sedgwick Insurance Sr Adjuster Daphne Chan, Heather Bidnall, Compliance Officer of the Insurance Council of BC, et al.

In a futile attempt to justify his two (2) SLAPPs against the Defendant, the Whitelaw-Twining Partner is the only person (not even his own Clients) who asserts the Defendant as not being a Named Insured of INTACT. Moreover, no other lawyer from Whitelaw-Twining has come forward to support the Partner's contrary-to-fact allegation.

777Per Court filings and other misrepresentations, Whitelaw-Twining Partner has propagated the arrant falsehood that the Defendant had forfeited his Named Insured INTACT insurance coverage by occupying and using an area which is, in fact, a physically inaccessible, contaminated, narrow, cemented ornamental pigeon roost, which required a 3-person specialty crew to remediate. (see images to the left). Those percipient witnesses of Whitelaw-Twining's material false Affidavits and other fabricated accusations include:

Dr. Leo Perra, LMS 2845 Strata President, Alexandre Korecki Property Management Owner, Nico Barbu Property Manager, Scott Chen Unit 1702 Owner, Michael Bromm lawyer of Unit owner, Humane Solutions Remediation Specialist, Mike Blackall, Property Manager, Ray Nouri LMS2845 Building Superintendent.

As fully documented on this whistleblower's website, Whitelaw-Twining Partner's false filings and perjured Affidavits are only some of the malicious falsehoods that he has perpetrated upon regulatory agencies and the Supreme Court.

With its aggressive SLAPP prosecutions, replete with perjured Affidavits, Whitelaw-Twining refuses to withdraw its Partner's malicious accusation that Defendant had misrepresented himself as a Named Insured of INTACT, and that he had filed an insurance claim under the false pretence of being such.