The legal illusionist to the left is obviously fictitious, but so is INTACT FINANCIAL's lawyer's delusional claim (per his declaration and signature in legal pleadings filed with the BC Supreme Court), that RB (creator of this website), has never been an Insured of INTACT. Unless this gentleman is able to retroactively change the words of "NAMED INSURED" to "UNINSURED", in correspondence from INTACT, which was filed with various federal and provincial regulatory agencies, BCFSA, FCAC, OSFI, GIO, IBC, as well as the BBB, then he and his Clients have committed perjury to the Court, and false representations to those agencies

It is estimated that INTACT has paid, to date, almost $57,860 for this gentleman's services.

INTACT CEO Charles Brindamour, Executives Mathieu Grenier and Frédéric Cotnoir have refused a formal request by RB (this website creator) to simply instruct that the Customer Experience Team, commissioned by Ombudsman Vincent, complete its Step-2 Complaint investigation, and release its Final Decision letter.

INTACT personnel Amanda Myers, Christa Rae Cordick and Michele Vincent had all declared RB's status as a (First Party) Named Insured. Additionally, the Insurance Broker Gordon Li, Sedgwick Sr Adjuster Daphne Chan, and Heather Bidnall, Compliance Officer of the Insurance Council of BC, also confirmed RB's status as a First Party Named Insured.

However, in perfidious defiance of all of the foregoing authorities, a Whitelaw-Twining Partner devised and conducted the highly lucrative scheme to falsely accuse RB of not being a First Party Named Insured, who submitted a claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of so being. In aggravation of his actions, this Partner proceeded to file two (2) SLAPP actions against RB in the BC Supreme Court, for highly illicit motives.

The Whitelaw-Twining Partner's disservice to his client INTACT goes beyond mere Abuse of Process and Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress of its Named Insured, since the Partner deliberately ignored RB's repeated requests to apprise Sedgwick (the adjusting authority for all of several Scheduled Insurers, under the subject comprehensive BFL Strata Protect policy) of RB's claim, which is covered under the provisions of other Scheduled Insurers' contractual provisions.

06 DECEMBER 2024 UPDATE:

INTACT's offence lawyer is currently prosecuting INTACT's malicious SLAPP action against INTACT'S own Named Insured. Although INTACT CEO Charles Brindamour, Executives Mathieu Grenier and Frédéric Cotnoir may believe that the Defendant is not an Insured of the company (since his name is not listed in the insurance policy), a recent decision by Justice Coval of the BC Supreme Court (where INTACT's SLAPP action is pending), soundly rejects INTACT's assertion. Press below links for details!

Christa Rae Cordick, Intact house counsel, a Plaintiff in INTACT's SLAPP action against its own Named Insured, was instrumental in the legal, regulatory and ethical entanglements that have ensued. By example, at a Provincial Court Settlement Conference, Cordick repeated the odious lie that INTACT's Named Insured was an unstable, vexatious litigant, who visited the feral pigeons, in their roost. That absurd, scurrilous lie drew derision from the Judge, and forever poisoned the Named Insured's position in the litigation before that Court.

Michele Vincent, Intact Ombudsman, committed a litany of false representations and unlawful cover-ups. One of the more egregious was exposed by Intact's Privacy Officer, Helen Cameron. A Plaintiff in INTACT's SLAPP action against its own Named Insured, Vincent's false representations to federal and provincial regulators, and her Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, against the Named Insured and his wife, also a Named Insured, is detailed with documentary evidence, on this comprehensive, public interest website.

As part of her unlawful cover-up, despite letters from INTACT personnel, the authority of Strata Property Act § 155(b), and the Supreme Court ruling, Ombudsman Vincent continues, unabated in her illicit conduct. When the Named Insured requested a common Claims Experience Letter (on 16 May 2024), Ombudsman Vincent replied with a refusal, still denying his status as Named Insured. Her email of 13 June 2024 is displayed below, type enlarged for legibility and emphasised in yellow.

INTACT "Strategic Team Leader" Amanda Myers. In furtherance of her scheme to avoid investigation of the Named Insured's claim, Myers falsified the claims investigation, which was exposed, when INTACT Privacy Officer, Helen Cameron, conducted an internal affairs probe, confirming, in a release of 19 January 2024, that Myers had not only falsified her claims investigation, she had engaged in an extensive cover-up of her activities for over two (2) years. Incredibly, Myers is also Plaintiff in INTACT's SLAPP action against its own Named Insured, notwithstanding the fact that in her letter of 30 September 2021, Myers had confirmed the Defendant's status as a Named Insured!

Listen to the below song, an endearing tribute to "Strategic Team Leader" Amanda Myers.

To the right is an image of an ornamental pigeon roost ledge, situated next to a bedroom window of INTACT's Named Insured's 17th floor residential unit. As indicated in the image, the ledge was replete with large amounts of contaminated, toxic spore-producing faecal matter.

The building Strata Corporation refused to abate the health hazard, so the Named Insured occupant submitted a First Party claim with INTACT.

On this website is a letter dated 30 September 2021, from INTACT, acknowledging the status of Named Insured, and confirming the following policy language:

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

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

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

INTACT'S REGULATORY DILEMMA, AS COMPOUNDED BY ITS LAWYER'S HYPER-ZEALOUS FABRICATION OF FACTS

24 April 2023 Manal, member of INTACT's (Step-2) Customer Experience Team, acknowledged receipt of a formal Complaint, filed by RB, an INTACT Named Insured. In Manal's email, she stated that the Unit Claims Manager (the subject of the Complaint) would be notified, with an opportunity to resolve the Complaint. The Unit Claims Manager ignored the Named Insured's efforts, so in strict compliance with INTACT's Complaint Resolution Protocol, RB proceeded to Ombudsman Michele Vincent (Step 3).

26 May 2023 Ombudsman Vincent commissioned a formal inquiry into RB's Complaint to the Customer Experience Team, assuring RB that the results of the Customer Experience Team's investigation would be provided to him, in a Final Decision letter.

08 July 2024 Although 409 days had passed since the Ombudsman's assignment to the Customer Experience Team, neither case updates, nor the promised Final Decision letter had been provided. Instead of completion of compliance with regulatory protocol, in retaliation for his Complaint, Ombudsman Vincent sued the Named Insured in the BC Supreme Court File No. VLC-S-S-244484

10 July 2024 A mere two (2) days thereafter, Ombudsman Vincent filed another retaliatory lawsuit against the Named Insured, in the BC Supreme Court File No. VLC-S-S-244577

22 November 2024 INTACT's hyper-zealous lawyer Nigel Beckmann threatened even more retaliatory, extortionary litigation against RB, unless RB should unconditionally renounce his freedom of expression rights, by unconditional deactivation of this public service website.

Note: Notwithstanding the fact his INTACT personnel Clients, Amanda Myers and Christa Rae Cordick had assured INTACT's attorney, Nigel Beckmann (* a Whitelaw-Twining Partner), that RB was a Named Insured of INTACT, Beckmann perpetrated a lucrative scheme by falsely accusing RB of submission of an insurance claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of being an Insured.

* A cozy 'boutique' law firm, that represents itself to be a staunch defender of the falsely accused!

THIS PUBLIC INTEREST WEBSITE IS OF NECESSITY, FACTUALLY CRITICAL OF CERTAIN ROGUE PERSONNEL, EMBEDDED WITHIN THE RANKS OF INTACT INSURANCE. 

FOR REASONS OF TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS, THERE REMAINS THE REMOTE POSSIBILITY THAT EXECUTIVES CEO CHARLES BRINDAMOUR, SR LEGAL COUNSEL MATHIEU GRENIER AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER FREDERIC COTNOIR BE UNAWARE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THESE ROGUE ELEMENTS, WHO CONTINUE TO EXPOSE INTACT TO THE IRONY OF INCREASINGLY COSTLY IGNOMINY.

THEREFORE, PRIOR TO THE OPTIMISATION OF THIS WEBSITE'S SEO SETTINGS AND THE INTRODUCTION OF A SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORM, WITH BLOG ACTIVITY, IT HAS BEEN REQUESTED OF INTACT'S LEGAL COUNSEL NIGEL BECKMANN, THAT HE DETERMINE IF ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED GENTLEMEN IS WILLING TO INSTRUCT THAT OMBUDSMAN VINCENT PERMIT THAT THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE TEAM CONCLUDE THE COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION, ASSIGNED BY MS. VINCENT ON 23 MAY 2023.

The staggering administrative costs of Ombudsman Vincent's obstruction of her own Complaint investigation, in conjunction with an estimated (to date) $57,825 in legal fees, to a Partner of Whitelaw-Twining, would be of concern to an actuarial, if not to a disinterested observer. With all due respect to INTACT, this website is intended to be informational, not necessarily as actuarial advice!

Perhaps the below song will accord INTACT a clew !

A COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS (CBA) IS A SYSTEMISED APPROACH USED TO ASSESS THE ADVANTAGES (BENEFITS) AND DISADVANTAGES (COSTS) ASSOCIATED WITH A PARTICULAR DECISION, PROJECT OR POLICY.

In this case, the sum "benefit" to INTACT is the Ombudsman's (temporary) avoidance of issuance of a Final Decision Letter to a Named Insured (who has offered to pay for postage), as well as some Manager's perverse sense of accomplishment, in instructing a lawyer to file two (2) civil actions against the Named Insured Whistleblower, in retaliation for his exposure of the illegal activities of an Alberta Claims Team!

The costs are (1) administrative expenses for two house lawyers (Casey Goodrich and Christa Rae Cordick) and their staff (2) legal costs for specialty lawyer (Nigel Beckmann) and his staff (3) court filing and other fees (4) administrative expenses in warding off regulatory agencies (5) Human Rights Tribunal defence (6) reputational damage, inherent in (7) eventual regulatory compliance enforcement measures (8) employee morale (9) replacement of rogue employees, etc.

Perhaps INTACT should expedite plans to implement GENERATIVE AI !

AT WHAT COST, REPUTATIONAL IGNOMINY?

In summary, this website contains detailed, documentary evidence of the following of INTACT INSURANCE's violations of morality, ethics, regulatory and other legal standards, such as:

(1) A "Strategic Leader" Claims Team's fraudulent fabrication of a claims investigation (uncovered during an internal affairs probe, ordered by INTACT's diligent Privacy Officer)

(2) INTACT's lawyer's false charge of a Whistleblower's having committed the offence of submission of an insurance claim, under false pretences

(3) Extortionary threat by an INTACT lawyer, of litigation against a Whistleblower, unless he should renounce his Charter Rights

(4) Obstruction of justice, by INTACT's conflicted-of-interest Ombudsman/Complaint Officer, by her Order to the Customer Experience Team to cease a Complaint investigation, that she, herself had commissioned

(5) Violations of other federal and provincial insurance company regulations, plus an array of miscellaneous ethical offences

Federal and provincial regulators have refrained from enforcement measures against INTACT, in view of Ombudsman, Michele Vincent's 26 May 2023 referral of Named Insured RB's Complaint to the Customer Experience Team, for an investigation and Final Decision letter (below). However, after more than one year, six months, the Customer Experience Team's investigation has not yet been completed, thus no required Final Decision letter has been released. Ombudsman Vincent's signature 'Open-Ended, Never to be Concluded' (TM) Complaint investigations are belied by INTACT's websites, which state:

"If you have a complaint about the service you have received, you have a right to access your company's complaint resolution process. Intact will provide you with information about how you can ensure that your complaint is [sic] heard and promptly handled". Given Ombudsman Vincent's illicit Complaint Resolution modus operandi, 'promptness' equates to 'never'!

When our CEO, Charles Brindamour orders regulatory compliance, he does not countenance false, deceptive reports to regulators!

As detailed herein, on 26 May 2023, Ombudsman Michele Vincent responded to regulatory inquiries by the BCFSA and FCAC, by assignment of a Named Insured's 3-step formal Complaint to the Customer Experience Team, (Step 2 of INTACT's federally and provincially required Complaint Resolution Protocol). Ombudsman Vincent instructed that, upon completion of the Customer Experience Team's investigation, the results thereof were to be provided to the Named Insured, in a Final Decision letter, within 60 days (no later than 26 July 2023).

Unaware that Ombudsman Vincent had been engaged in an extensive cover-up, the Regulators deferred to Vincent's disingenuous representation that the Customer Experience Team's Final Decision letter would be released. However, after one year and two months of the Ombudsman's assignment to the Customer Experience Team, neither results of any investigation, nor any Final Decision letter has been provided.

Ombudsman Vincent's legal and ethical dilemma was her inability to hold the regulators at bay indefinitely, since due to some perversity, she has had no intention of statutory compliance with the regulations!

Thus, Ombudsman Vincent devised a scheme to sue the Named Insured, in the extortionary expectation that the financial stress would compel him to withdraw his Complaint. In furtherance of her scheme, she agreed to assume the rôle of lead Plaintiff, in a civil action against the Named Insured, as devised by a Whitelaw-Twining Partner, who filed such a civil action on 08 July 2024. When the Named Insured refused to withdraw his Complaint, lead Plaintiff Vincent instructed a second, duplicate civil action against the Named Insured, filed on 10 July 2024.

In all likelihood, CEO Brindamour does not condone such deceptions, in lieu of good faith compliance,

although he has yet to intercede in Ombudsman Vincent's reign of deception. The regulators have recently been notified of INTACT's eternal statutory violations, and have indicated renewed interest in enforcement.

Even at the otherwise evitable damage to INTACT Insurance reputation, Ombudsman Michele Vincent continues her deceptive, dilatory practice of Perpetually Unfinished Complaint Investigations. A case in point, on 26 May 2023, Ombudsman Vincent assigned the subject Complaint to INTACT's Step-2 Customer Experience Team, for investigation into an Alberta Claims Team's documented, unlawful activities. As of 12 November 2024 (536 days later) the statutorily required Final Decision Letter has not been released.

The song to the right has been written in Ombudsman

Michele Vincent's enduring tribute.

INTACT FINANCIAL CORPORATION Annual Financial Report (a Compendium of Unattained Objectives)

In the Annual Financial Report, to the left, INTACT states a woefully unattained, risk management objective:

"To mitigate these risks, we have established escalation procedures to help ensure that our customers have multiple channels to express any dissatisfaction. This includes a Customer Experience Team and an Ombudsman’s Office which both offer the opportunity for customer dissatisfaction to be resolved."

The unadulterated facts expose INTACT's systemic, de facto "Regulatory Authorities Deception Initiative Ongoing [RADIO].

On 26 May 2023 (upon a Named Insured's formal Complaint) in accordance with INTACT Complaint Resolution Protocol, Ombudsman Michele Vincent commissioned the Step-2 Customer Experience Team to investigate an illegal coverage denial. Per INTACT's regulations, the results of the investigation must be provided to the Named Insured, in a Final Decision letter, within 60 days (no later than 26 July 2023).

However, when faced with the daunting prospect of honesty, Ombudsman Vincent suddenly turned rogue, and has artfully eluded federal and provincial regulatory authorities, with a subterfuge, claiming that the Customer Experience Team hasn't completed its investigation. After one year and four months, the Final Decision Letter has not been released, nor has its statutory corollary, the Claims Experience Letter!

In the annual Financial Report, to the right, it is written: "The SVP, Corporate and Legal services reports to the Board of Directions, and its committees on such matters, including with respect to privacy and Ombudsman complaints."

INTACT omits in this Financial Report its deliberate suppression of the investigative discovery of Privacy Officer Helen Cameron.

Under the independent, administrative authority of the Privacy Office, Ms. Cameron conducted her own internal affairs probe, which culminated in the 19 January 2024 announcement that the Alberta Claims Team's alleged "claims investigation" had been an arrant fabrication.

Moreover, it was uncovered that Ombudsman Vincent's refusal to release the Customer Experience Team's findings is part of her elaborate cover-up, to prevent the Alberta Claims Team's fraudulent claims activity from regulatory enforcement exposure!

In collusion with the Ombudsman's illicit acts and omissions, a certain rogue managerial element has nullified CEO Brindamour's enduring conservative fiscal measures, by the funding of an estimated (to date) $57,825 in legal fees, to a Partner of the Whitelaw-Twining law firm, a consummate antagonist that filed two (2) SLAPP lawsuits against the aforementioned Complainant/Whistleblower, naming the wayward Ombudsman Vincent as lead Plaintiff!

In classic irony, at a staggering cost to INTACT's shareholders, Whitelaw-Twining's reckless acts and omissions greatly increase the risks of federal and provincial regulatory intervention against INTACT.

(specific details on this website)

INTACT Insurance could well benefit from the creation of the position of Regulatory Compliance Troubleshooter [RCT], responsible for identifying, analysing, and resolving regulatory compliance issues, to ensure that INTACT's operations adhere to all relevant laws and regulations.

The RCT would work closely with and monitor various departments, such as that of the Ombudsman, to eliminate untoward legal expenses, that serve only to tarnish INTACT's reputation and credibility. The RCT would address and resolve other general compliance challenges, thus fostering a culture of accountability and regulatory excellence.

The Financial Institutions Act (FIA) of British Columbia, specifically Sections 94.1, 158, 189, and 192 require insurers to adopt and comply with the BCFSA Code of Market Conduct. This code ensures fair treatment of customers, including proper handling of complaints and claims.

This code incorporates the principles from the Canadian Council of Insurance Regulators' (CCIR) Fair Treatment of Customers (FTC) guidance. It includes 12 expected outcomes that ensure insurers treat customers fairly throughout the product lifecycle.

The BC Financial Services Authority (BCFSA) requires insurance companies in British Columbia to have a complaint resolution protocol. This protocol ensures that insurers handle complaints in a fair, transparent, and timely manner. The guidelines include:

1. Managerial Oversight: Insurers must have managerial oversight to review and monitor operations, ensuring compliance with established laws and policies.

2. Claims and Complaints Handling Policies and Procedures: Insurers need to have clear policies and procedures for handling claims and complaints.

3. Claims and Complaints File Maintenance: Insurers must maintain detailed records of all correspondence, documents, and interactions related to claims and complaints

AS FULLY DETAILED ON THIS WEBSITE, FOR 538 DAYS INTACT INSURANCE OMBUDSMAN, MICHELE VINCENT, HAD TEMPORARILY SUCCEEDED IN DELAYING [FIA SECTION 80.3] ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS, BY FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL INSURANCE REGULATORS, BY THE ASSIGNMENT OF THE COMPLAINT TO INTACT'S CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE TEAM [STEP-2 OF THE COMPLAINT RESOLUTION PROTOCOL] HOWEVER, IN A FUTILE ATTEMPT TO HOLD REGULATORS AT PAY FOREVER, SHE LATER ILLICITLY RIGGED THE SYSTEM, BY ARRANGING THAT THE STEP-2 CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE INVESTIGATION BE ABORTED; THUS PREVENTING THAT THE OBLIGATORY STEP-2 FINAL DECISION LETTER EVER BE CREATED/RELEASED.

UPON EXPOSURE OF OMBUDSMAN VINCENT'S UNLAWFUL RUSE, BY WHISTLEBLOWERS RB AND PRIVACY OFFICER HELEN CAMERON, VINCENT ORDERED HER ATTORNEY TO SUE RB TWICE, WITHIN 2 DAYS!

Has the Partner of law firm Whitelaw-Twining committed the tort of Barratry? This tort Involves Meddling In the Affairs of Others and Encouraging Others to Use Legal Processes As a Means to Inflict Stress and Strife Rather than to Use Legal Processes for the Legitimate Purpose thereof.

SAINT CIBOIRE !

INTACT has spent tens of thousands of shareholders' capital, and will spend tens of thousands more, just to temporarily avoid having to issue a Claims Experience letter to RB, a person whom they have declared to be a Named Insured!

Intact Financial Corporation's Operating Committee members have been notified of INTACT's wanton subsidization of a law firm that continues to violate CEO Brindamour's "Living our Values" Directive, infra.

• Louis Gagnon, Chief Executive Officer, Canada

• Patrick Barbeau, Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer

• Ken Anderson, Executive Vice President, Corporate Development & Investor Relations

• Frederic Cotnoir, Executive Vice President & Chief Legal Officer

• Anne Fortin, Executive Vice President, Direct Distribution and Chief Marketing and Communications Officer (reports to Louis Gagnon)

• Louis Marcotte, Executive Vice President & Chief Financial Officer

• Benoit Morissette, Executive Vice President, Chief Risk & Actuarial Officer

• Werner Muehlemann, Executive Vice President & Managing Director, Intact Investment Management Inc.

Monsieur Charles Brindamour has been the CEO of Intact Financial Corporation since 2008. Originally established in 1809 under the name Halifax Fire Insurance Association, Intact has grown to become the largest insurance provider in Canada. During CEO Brindamour’s 15-plus year stewardship of the firm, he has been much-lauded for his efforts promoting fiscal restraint, sustainability and innovation within the company. He is also a member of the board directors with Intact, as well as the Geneva Association, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, and the Business Council of Canada.

1. Public Statements: CEO Brindamour has publicly addressed the issue of inflated legal costs in the insurance industry.

2. Industry Reports: Reports from industry organisations, such as the Insurance Bureau of Canada, have echoed CEO Brindamour's concerns about the impact of inflated legal costs upon the insurance industry.

3. Earnings Calls: During Intact Financial Corporation's earnings calls, CEO Brindamour has discussed how the company has been pricing for inflationary pressures, including legal costs, since 2016.

4. Comparative Analysis: CEO Brindamour's actuarial expertise has been recognised in the industry for addressing and reducing legal costs.

Risk Management Expertise: CEO Brindamour's formation as an actuary enables his expertise to assess and manage financial risks, which is invaluable for INTACT's strategic planning and decision-making.

1. Data-Driven Decisions: As an actuary, CEO Brindamour excels at analysing data and using it to make informed predictions and recommendations, helping INTACT to make more accurate and effective business decisions.

2. Cost Efficiency: With his expertise in evaluating financial outcomes, CEO Brindamour has been essential to identify cost- saving opportunities and optimise INTACT's financial performance.

3. Regulatory Compliance: CEO Brindamour is well-versed in regulatory requirements, especially in industries like insurance and finance, ensuring that INTACT stays compliant with relevant laws and regulations.

4. Long-Term Planning: CEO Brindamour is highly skilled in long-term financial planning, which assures that INTACT be prepared for future challenges and opportunities.

Fiscal conservative, INTACT Insurance Company's CEO, Monsieur Charles Brindamour's actuarial prowess has earned the company kudos throughout the insurance industry, for his indispensable ability to rein in frivolous legal costs, a fortiori, reputational legal costs, such as those squandered in the ongoing litigation, predicated upon a malicious, defamatory lie, that has resulted in tens of thousands of dollars of stakeholders' funds, being paid into the bulging coffers of Whitehall-Twining law firm (details on this public interest website).

If CEO Brindamour's inexcusably imperceptive subordinates were to permit that he be aware of the fiscal, ethical and legal travesty that the topic of this website engenders, then he would immediately order the cessation of INTACT's expenditures of an estimated (to date) $57,825 in legal fees, to Whitelaw-Twining, an antagonist that relentlessly stands in lucrative opposition to CEO Brindamour's directive, to "stand up for what is right"! In addition to other improper pursuits, this antagonist falsely accused an INTACT Named Insured of the criminality of submission of a claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of being an insured. Whitelaw-Twining's Partner then filed two (2) malicious SLAPP actions against the INTACT Named Insured, based upon the allegation that the Partner, himself, had contrived!

(specific details on this website)

Here is a brief summary of the important, documented events that led to the creation and maintenance of this website. Each and every representation made in this summary and throughout the site, is true and factual, scrupulously evidenced by hundred of documents.

This summary is of the evidence that RB, creator of this site, will present to the BC Supreme Court, at trial, under oath. As always, any representation of this site, with which Defence Counsel from Whitelaw-Twining, or anyone else, should legitimately believe to be inaccurate, any such rebuttal shall be immediately posted hereupon.

CHRONOLOGY

30 September 2021 INTACT Alberta Claims Team Manager Amanda Myers sent a letter to RB, in which they she confirmed RB's status as a Named Insured of INTACT. For some reason, although she claimed to have conducted a claims investigation, she negligently assumed that a cemented, ornamental narrow pigeon roost ledge, outside and below RB's 18th floor unit had been a bedroom, within the unit, and based upon that grossly negligent miscalculation, the Claims Team declared that RB had triggered an exclusion to coverage.

02 October 2021 ~ RB contacted the Alberta Claims Team on numerous occasions for several months, repeatedly reminding the Team of their obvious error, inviting the Team to dispatch a claims investigator to his unit, in order to inspect the premises, and confirm that the Claims Team's coverage denial had been based upon the false calculation that the pigeon roost ledge was located within RB's 18th floor bedroom.

26 May 2023 Finally, in response to a formal Complaint, in accordance with INTACT 3-step Complaint Resolution Protocol, INTACT Ombudsman Michele Vincent commissioned a formal inquiry into the coverage denial, to be conducted by the Step-2 Customer Experience Team, with the results of their investigation to be stated in an INTACT Final Decision letter.

26 May 2023 ~07 December 2023 Inexplicably, Ombudsman Michele Vincent reneged on her assignment of RB's Complaint to the Customer Experience Team, ordering the Team to cease and desist its ongoing investigation.

07 December 2023 Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Nigel Beckmann sent a letter to RB, threatening to sue RB for submission of RB's insurance claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of being an Insured of the company. At the time, Mr. Beckmann was aware of the fact that the Alberta Claims Team, INTACT house counsel Christa Rae Cordick, the Strata Property Act Section 155(b), and the BC Supreme Court, in the cased of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2080, had defined RB's legal status as a Named Insured of INTACT!

19 January 2024 At RB's request, and in his support, INTACT's Privacy Officer, Helen Cameron, launched her own internal affairs probe, declaring that the Alberta Claims Team's alleged "claims investigation" had been a complete fabrication! 08 July 2024 Finding that RB refused to succumb to Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Nigel Beckmann's false and defamatory accusations, Attorney Beckmann filed a SLAPP action against RB, BC Supreme Court File No. VLC-S-S-244484

10 July 2024 A mere two (2) days thereafter, when RB stood resolute against Attorney Beckmann's false and defamatory accusations, Mr. Beckmann filed another, duplicate SLAPP action against RB, court File No. VLC-S-S-244577

In a stunning example of Attorney Beckmann's relentless, irreconcilable, overlapping solemn conflicts of interest, he even solicited Alberta Claims Team Manager Amanda Myers and Ombudsman Michele Vincent as his Clients, Plaintiffs in the two (2) SLAPP actions against RB! Upon assignment of a trial date, such will be posted on this site, with an invitation to the justice-seeking public, as well as one major and one minor media organisations, to attend.

This song suggests immediate action by INTACT CEO Charles Brindamour, if he is to purge the company of rogue elements, who continue to besmirch our reputation.

The below song is provided for purposes of instruction.

INTACT CEO CHARLES BRINDAMOUR'S "LIVING OUR VALUES" DIRECTIVE WARRANTS DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST ANY ROGUE ELEMENTS THAT CONTINUE TO VIOLATE THE CARDINAL RULE OF "STAND UP FOR WHAT IS RIGHT"!

Whitelaw-Twining Partner, Mr. Nigel Beckmann, Esq. is the source and propagator of the defamatory falsity that RB had never been an INTACT Named Insured; that he submitted his claim, no. 4033526840, under the false pretence of being an Insured. The impetus behind these false accusations, Mr. Beckmann will be examined, under oath, at trial. Thus, Law Society of British Columbia Rules 5.2-1 and 2.1-3 specifically require that since he will be subjected to examination, at trial, he is obligated to entrust the conduct of the case to other counsel.

The falsely accused Defendant has an absolute right to examine trial counsel Beckmann, given the precedent of cases such as R v. Stinchcombe (1991), R v. Quesnelle (2014) R v. Rose (1998) wherein the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the accused has the right to full disclosure of information that could be used to challenge the credibility of a witness, including records of prior dishonesty.

In his INTACT Clients' court pleadings, Whitelaw-Twining's Nigel Beckmann has inculpated himself and his Clients with the perjurious falsehoods (1) that RB has never been a Named Insured of INTACT and (2) that INTACT conducted a "review or investigation".

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

Rule 5.1-2(e) of the Law Society states that a lawyer must not knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal by offering false evidence, misstating facts, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed, or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime, or illegal conduct

Rule 5.1-2(a) states that a lawyer must not abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party.

Rule 5.1-2(b) states that a lawyer must not knowingly assist or encourage any person to abuse the process of the tribunal by instituting or prosecuting proceedings which, although legal in themselves, are clearly motivated by malice on the part of the client and are brought solely for the purpose of injuring the other party.

Rule 5.1-2(c) states that a lawyer must not knowingly make a false or misleading statement to a tribunal.

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

In this INTACT case, Lawyer Beckmann has the requisite element of scienter; i.e. he intentionally created, filed and served the aforementioned pleadings, with the material false representations, with the Court. Thus, said false representations were not and are not matters of Mr. Beckmann's discretionary opinion!

Mr. Beckmann's pleadings (1) that RB has never been an Insured of INTACT, and (2) that his Clients, INTACT's personnel, had conducted a "review or investigation", constitute intentional false representations, in view of his Clients' letter of 30 September 2021, citing Strata Property Act Section 155(b), in confirmation of RB's status as a Named Insured. Furthermore, in her herein letter of 19 January 2024, Privacy Officer Helen Cameron declared that the "review or investigation" that Mr. Beckmann swears was conducted, never occurred!

The documentary evidence of NB's false representations to the court are detailed, herein. The issue is that his Clients will be examined, at trial, and if they fail to denounce the false representations, attributed to them by their lawyer, Mr. Beckmann, then they will be subjected to charges of criminal perjury! Mr. Beckmann has further subjected his Clients to contradict themselves and each other, at trial.

As further detailed herein, Mr. Beckmann will be personally examined at trial, since it was his scurrilous, defamatory letter of 07 December 2023, falsely accusing RB of having submitted a claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of being a (Named) Insured, that mutated into the remunerative (to Whitelaw-Twining), costly (to INTACT) morass of numerous conflicts of interest, illicit claims practices, moral, ethical and legal entanglements of this cause celebre before the BC Supreme Court.

Lawyer Beckmann has elected to become an indispensable witness to his own false, defamatory charges, which necessitates that he be examined under oath, at trial, or RB may elect to file a Motion to Disqualify Mr. Beckmann.

Law Society Regulation

SECTION 5.2-1 THE LAWYER AS WITNESS

A lawyer should not express personal opinions or beliefs or assert as a fact anything that is properly subject to legal proof, cross-examination, or challenge. The lawyer should not in effect appear as an unsworn witness or put the lawyer's own credibility in issue. The lawyer who is a necessary witness should testify and entrust the conduct of the case to another lawyer.

A law firm can be held liable for the acts of its partners, especially in a general partnership where each partner is jointly and severally liable for the actions of the other partners. This means that the firm itself, as well as the individual partners, can be held responsible for any wrongful acts committed by a partner in the course of the firm's business

The document to the left, signed by Mr. Beckmann's Client, Amanda Myers, confirming RB's status as a Named Insured, is evidence that Mr. Beckmann's above representation to the court (#1) is false!

The document to the right, a letter from Privacy Officer Helen Cameron, that no investigation was conducted, is evidence that Mr. Beckmann's above representation to the Court (#2) is equally false!

As a Named Insured, RB's numerous requests for a direly-needed Customer Experience letter constitutes the exercise of a most fundamental, non-pecuniary, contractual right of an Insured. Since INTACT had denied his claim, based upon a fabricated "investigation", such a letter is essential for the underwriters of prospective insurers, in order to enable them to assess the facts, in their determination of RB's insurability, exposure and rates.

Lawyer Beckmann's injudicious advice that his Client, INTACT's Ombudsman, refuse to issue the Customer Experience letter, constitutes the solemn tort of Intentional Interference with the Contractual Relations between INTACT and RB, and represents an impermissible transgression of CEO Charles Brindamour's "Living Our Values" Directive, infra.

PROUD INTRODUCTION OF MONSIEUR CHARLES BRINDAMOUR, THE HONOURABLE CEO OF INTACT FINANCIAL, WHOSE DEVOTION TO INTACT'S CREDO OF HONESTY AND GOOD FAITH IS OF LEGEND. THUS THE HEREIN EXPOSÉ OF THE ALBERTA CLAIMS TEAM'S FABRICATION OF A CLAIMS INVESTIGATION, AND OTHER ILLICIT ACTIVITY, AS CONFIRMED BY INTACT PRIVACY OFFICER, HELEN CAMERON, WOULD BE OF URGENT INTEREST TO CEO BRINDAMOUR.

WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF RESPECT FOR CEO BRINDAMOUR, IN VIEW OF THE DOCUMENTED FACTS, THE ROGUE ELEMENTS OF THE ALBERTA CLAIMS TEAM, AS WELL AS THEIR POLEMICIST AT WHITELAW-TWINING LAW FIRM, ARE IN DIRE NEED OF PROFESSIONAL REMEDIATION!

Quite the consummate fiscal conservative, in the oft-cited, televised chat of 14 May 2024, with CIBC Capital Market Analyst Paul Holden, CEO Charles Brindamour lamented a root cause of insurers’ rising claims costs — inflated legal fees.

As to legal fees, if CEO Brindamour's subordinates were to permit that he be aware of the fiscal, ethical and legal travesty that this matter engenders, then he would immediately order the cessation of INTACT's expenditures of an estimated (to date) $57,825 in legal fees, to Whitelaw-Twining, an antagonist that relentlessly stands in opposition to Mr. Brindamour's directive, to "stand up for what is right"! This antagonist, a fortiori, had falsely accused a Named Insured of the criminality of submission of a claim with INTACT, under fraudulent pretences, as detailed, herein.

Charles Brindamour, has been the CEO of Intact Financial Corporation since 2008. He has shown a strong commitment to maintaining the company's integrity and addressing issues like fraud. He has been vocal about the importance of ethical practices and ensuring that the company operate with transparency and accountability. For more than two years, INTACT's Sr Legal Counsel Mathieu Grenier and Legal Compliance Officer Frédéric Cotnoir have abandoned INTACT's core interests, by artfully distancing themselves from this festering liability. However, given CEO Brindamour's commitment to honesty and good faith, it is essential that he be notified of the ethical, moral and legal entanglements, caused by an Alberta Team's unlawful claims activities, as well as INTACT's offence counsel's scurrillous accusation of a Named Insured having submitted claim no. 4033526840 under the false pretence of being an Insured.

CEO Brindamour appointed Michele Vincent as OMBUDSMAN. As documented herein, Ombudsman Vincent is licensed by the Ontario government as INTACT's COMPLAINT OFFICER.

As COMPLAINT OFFICER, Ms. Vincent commissioned Intact's Step-2, Customer Experience Team to investigate a formal Complaint (made by Named Insured "RB", of illegal claims practices. However, as part of an illicit cover-up, and egregious violation of the Ontario Insurance Act, just as the Customer Experience Team was about to issue its Decision letter, Ms. Vincent, as OMBUDSMAN, ordered the Customer Experience Team to cease and desist the investigation that she, herself, had ordered as COMPLAINT OFFICER. At that point, justice advocate, Whistleblower Helen Cameron, the conscientious Intact Privacy Officer, intervened, with her own internal affairs probe, confirming the validity of RB's Complaint; that his claim had been subjected to a fraudulent scheme by an Alberta Claims Team.

Given CEO Brindamour's enduring commitment to the sanctity of INTACT's public image of honesty and good faith, it is respectfully requested that he immediately intervene in this legal travesty, which has already cost the company tens of thousands of dollars in Whitelaw-Twining's attorneys' offence fees, as well as INTACT's related internal administrative costs.

A significant damage control step in the reestablishment of INTACT's reputation would be that CEO Brindamour Order a legitimate, good faith investigation of claim 4033526840, to replace the sham version, as fabricated by the Alberta Claims Team.

INSURANCE ACT OF ONTARIO

Insurance Ombudsman

5.1 (1) The Chief Executive Officer shall appoint an employee of the Authority as Insurance Ombudsman. (2) The Insurance Ombudsman shall inquire into complaints about insurers’ business practices.

(3) A person may submit a written complaint about an insurer’s business practices to the Insurance Ombudsman if the person has submitted the complaint to the insurer and the complaint has not been resolved within a reasonable time. (4) The Insurance Ombudsman shall give the insurer an opportunity to respond to any complaint submitted under subsection (5) After considering the complaint and any response, the Insurance Ombudsman may attempt to resolve the complaint or may recommend to the Chief Executive Officer that the Chief Executive Officer inquire into the complaint.

PLAINTIFF INTACT'S MERITLESS LEGAL POSITION

1. Not only has Mr. Beckmann contradicted all of his Clients, in their confirmations that RB was a Named Insured of INTACT, Beckmann filed two (2) duplicate civil actions against RB, in retaliation for RB's creation of this informative public interest website. 2. In a letter of 07 December 2023, Mr. Beckmann accused RB of the crime of submission of a claim with INTACT, under the false pretence of being an Insured of the company.

3.Mr Beckmann supports INTACT's position that RB nullified his insurance coverage, by residing in the residential building's 18th floor ledge inaccessible, pigeon roost ledge (as depicted in the hereinbelow images).

4.As required by the Supreme Court, the parties to the civil action must submit a list of documents, intended to be used at trial. Mr. Beckmann has failed to adequately identify the documents that INTACT would introduce, in order to accommodate a requisite exchange of documents.

5.Through Mr. Beckmann, INTACT has ignored RB's offer to dismiss one of the Cross-Defendants.

6.Through Mr. Beckmann, INTACT refuses to respond to an OIPC Freedom of Information request, as part and parcel of INTACT's elaborate and costly legal cover-up

THE FACTS (as documented on this website)

1.(a) In a letter of 30 September 2021, INTACT's Claims Manager, Amanda Myers defined RB's status as a Named Insured.

(b) In a legal filing of 19 May 2023, INTACT's Senior Legal Counsel, Christa Rae Cordick declared RB's status as a Named Insured. (c) Per the BC Strata Property Act, Section 155(b), RB has been a Named Insured of INTACT. (d) In the case of Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2080, the BC Supreme Court reaffirmed that all persons situated as RB, are Named Insureds of policies.

2. As a Named Insured of INTACT, RB's submission of the subject claim was acknowledged and accepted as legitimate by INTACT's aforementioned Claims Team, in addition to the other authorities.

3. As a gentleman, Mr. Beckmann should abandon INTACT's reprehensible narrative of a human being cohabitating with a flock of feral pigeons, upon a physically inaccessible, ornamental pigeon roost ledge. If he should persist in such a delusion, at trial, his strategy will easily backfire!

4. RB has identified all documents to be used at trial, and has attempted to establish the conditions for an appropriate exchange of documents.

5. RB has even offered a covenant not to execute any judgement against a certain of Mr. Beckmann's Clients.

The news organisations contacted by RB have declined covering this cause celebre, public interest case, until trial. INTACT's lawyer, although now assured of the opportunity to litigate INTACT's meritless position, remains uncooperative in the advancement of requisite pre-trial hearings. Perhaps the ultimate consequences of the filing of two (2) frivolous, identical civil actions has its legal shortcomings?????

The creator of this website, RB, is a retired expert, award-winning carpet installer, committed to the protection of his similarly situated, fellow INTACT insureds. His efforts have required that he single handedly hold at bay a billion dollar insurer, with its legal apologists, minimally diverse, Whitelaw-Twining, teeming with 66 lawyers, some multilingual. RB continues in his public interest quest, armed only of the facts and truth, in addition to literacy and conversancy of more languages than the entirety of Whitelaw-Twining's lawyers. For more than three (3) years RB has unsuccessfully attempted to attract the interest of INTACT INSURANCE'S SR LEGAL COUNSEL MATHIEU GRENIER or LEGAL COMPLIANCE OFFICER FREDERIC COTNOIR, of specific fraudulent practices, committed by an INTACT Alberta Claims Team, as detailed herein. Thus, RB has decided to greatly expand the heretofore limited scope of promulgation of this strictly factual, public interest website, and is researching the utilisation of social media influencer networks, and other public interest methods.

RB extends his gratitude to INTACT fellow Whistleblower, the courageous Privacy Officer Helen Cameron, who commissioned her own internal affairs investigation, that resulted in the exposure of INTACT's fraudulent claims practices, as detailed herein.

Another conscientious INTACT employée, who courageously refuses to promote the false narrative, is Senior INTACT Attorney Christa Rae Cordick, who supports the facts and the truth, by repudiating lead counsel, Nigel Beckmann, in his false, defamatory accusations, as detailed herein.

INTACT INSURANCE HAS SQUANDERED TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS OF ITS SHAREHOLDERS' FUNDS, PROMOTING THE FARCICAL, CONFLICTED-OF-INTEREST PRETENCE THAT MICHELE VINCENT, AS INTACT'S COMPLAINT OFFICER, WOULD DISCIPLINE HERSELF, AS INTACT'S OMBUDSMAN

In her rôle as INTACT's COMPLAINT OFFICER, Michele Vincent is licensed by the Financial Services Regulatory Authority of Ontario (FSRA). In strict conformity with the requirements of her licensure, as Complaint Officer, Ms. Vincent has consistently conducted herself and her office in an exemplary good faith, courteous and professional manner. To her credit, as COMPLAINT OFFICER, upon her receipt of a Named Insured, RB's formal Complaint of fraudulent claims practices on the part of an Alberta Claims Team (detailed herein), on 26 May 2023 Ms. Vincent assigned the Complaint to INTACT's Step-2 Customer Experience Team, for an investigation, and a Final Decision letter to RB, upon conclusion thereof. COMPLAINT OFFICER Vincent even exceeded expectations, by meticulously providing the Alberta Claims Team with a copy of the Step-2 Complaint, and her assignment thereof to the Customer Experience Team Investigators. In her rôle as COMPLAINT OFFICER, Ms. Vincent has well complied with the requirements of her licensing authority, FSRA, regarding the Step-2 Complaint:

"In Ontario, a Complaint Officer typically works within an organisation to handle and resolve complaints from the public or internal stakeholders before they escalate. Their role includes:

Receiving Complaints: They are the first point of contact for individuals who have grievances or issues with the organization's services or conduct.

Investigating Issues: They gather information, review the circumstances, and investigate the validity of the complaints.

Resolving Complaints: They aim to address and resolve issues at an early stage, providing solutions or explanations to the complainant.

Escalating When Necessary: If a complaint cannot be resolved internally, the Complaint Officer may refer it to higher authorities or an external body, such as an Ombudsman."

SUMMARY OF THE MERITS OF MICHELE VINCENT, COMPLAINT OFFICER 1. Chronicled RB's status as an INTACT Named Insured. 2. Commissioned the Customer Experience Team to commence a Step-2 Investigation of RB's formal Complaint. 3. Complied with Strata Property Act Section 155(b), which guarantees RB's legal status as a Named Insured of INTACT. 4. In view of Privacy Officer Helen Cameron's discovery that the Alberta Claims Team had fabricated their claims "investigation", sought to replace the fraud with a legitimate claims investigation. 5. Disavowed the Alberta Claims Team's absurd accusation that RB had resided upon an ornamental pigeon roost ledge, with a flock of feral pigeons and their faecal matter. 6. Opposed the filing of any civil action, in her capacity as Complaint Officer. 7. Had no authority, as Complaint Officer, to issue a Claims Experience letter to RB.

In her surreal, Kafkaesque, alter ego rôle as INTACT's OMBUDSMAN, Michele Vincent, who is not licensed as Ombudsman by any regulatory authority, has pugnaciously defied herself and her own directives, such as her Order to the Customer Experience Team to cease and desist the Step-2 investigation of RB's formal Complaint, that Vincent, herself, had commissioned, in her rôle as a licensed Complaint Officer.

Michele Vincent is the quintessential example of an individual, conflicted of interest with and of herself. As Complaint Officer, she was a prosecutress of the Alberta Claim Teams' fraudulent activities. However, in her alter ego rôle as Ombudsman, she became a staunch apologist for the Claim Team's illegalities!

For obvious reasons, Vincent intentionally limited her alter ego rôle to Ombudsman, in her filings of duplicate, carbon copy SLAPP actions of 08 and 10 July 2024, against Whistleblower, INTACT Named Insured RB, in retaliation for his accurate exposure of her illicit Ombudsman activities.

Vincent's false statements to federal and provincial regulatory agencies, include the BC Financial Services Authority, GIO, BBB, FAC, etc.

Vincent, as Ombudsman, has thus far escaped regulatory intervention, since in Canada, Ombuds personnel are not licensed, thus are not held to the same stringent standards as required by licensing authorities, such as the FSRA. In commercial situations, Ombuds personnel are arbitrarily appointed by company administrators. Since there is no requirement of licensure, Ombuds personnel are merely "expected" to be truthful, but not subject to enforceable extra-company, governmental oversight.

SUMMARY OF THE DEMERITS OF MICHELE VINCENT, OMBUDSMAN 1. Not only refused to recognise RB as a First Party, INTACT Named Insured, Ombudsman Vincent misrepresented RB's legal status to the BCFSA, BCPC, OIPC and other governmental agencies. 2. Ordered that the Customer Experience Team cease and desist its Step-2 Investigation, that she, as Complaint Officer had commissioned. 3. Willfully violated Strata Property Act Section 155(b), which guarantees RB's legal status as a first part Named Insured of INTACT. 4. Suppressed Privacy Officer Helen Cameron's discovery that the Alberta Claims Team had fabricated their "investigation". 5. Zealously promoted as factual the Alberta Claims Team's defamatory accusation that RB had resided upon an ornamental pigeon roost ledge, with a large flock of feral pigeons and their faecal matter. 6. Became lead Plaintiff in two (2) duplicate civil actions against RB, in retaliation for his exposure of her criminality. 7. Refuses to issue a Claims Experience letter to RB, on the falsity that INTACT has no records of any such person.

Even after the filing of two (2) duplicative, carbon-copy lawsuits against the Insured, in retaliation for exposing INTACT's fraudulent claims practices (as detailed hereinbelow), INTACT's Claims Team of Amanda Myers persist in their falsifications of two (2) separate, essential issues. Offence lawyer Nigel Beckmann asserts his own brand of false allegations, in a futile attempt to cover-up the factual realities of INTACT's illegalities.

LIE NO 1 INTACT's Claims Team swear that they had jointly conducted and completed an investigation of claim no. 4033526840 (1033684645). However, in rebuttal, INTACT Privacy Officer Helen Cameron conducted her own internal affairs enquiry of the facts, and has confirmed that no investigation has ever been conducted of either claim.

LIE NO 2 The Claims Team swears that the Insured "RB" had forfeited the entirety of his INTACT coverage, by having physically "possessed", "occupied" and "used" an infected and infectious, faecal matter-laden, ornamental, pigeon roost ledge, which is physically inaccessible from the Insured’s high rise unit. The ledge is devoid of any means of ingress/egress. It is legally, physically and architecturally, common property; not part of any unit of the residential building. The below image is of the pigeon roost ledge and the hazard abatement specialist team member.

LIE NO 3 It has been more than three (3) years since INTACT designated "RB" as a Named Insured, but despite INTACT's ongoing federal and provincial regulatory and civil legal entanglements, in response to the Insured's Freedom of Information access request, Ombuds[wo]man Michele Vincent lies that INTACT has no records about the Insured.

For more than three (3) years, INTACT has refused to withdraw its fraudulent coverage denial (below), based upon INTACT's false, defamatory conclusion that "RB" had resided in the common property, ornamental pigeon roost ledge. "RB's" damages include his inability to procure property- liability insurance coverage. Although INTACT's coverage denial was based upon a fabricated "investigation" and fraudulent premise, no insurance company underwriter will approve the application of an Applicant that is deemed to have resided with feral pigeons, as INTACT continues to defamatorily assert. Even if INTACT has not reported the coverage denial to any interinsurance database, it is factual that INTACT denied coverage within the past 5 years. Since "RB" is bound to state all coverage denials on insurance applications, INTACT's fraudulent coverage decision continues to deprive "RB" of his right to a truthful and accurate insurance profile! INTACT even ignores its Whistleblower, Privacy Officer Helen Cameron's commitment to the truth, when she confirmed that Claims Manager Amanda Myers had fabricated her claims "investigation".

INTACT Insurance's ongoing, fraudulent claims practices constitute the tort of Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

A mere six (6) days prior to the letter (to the right), INTACT's lawyer Nigel Beckmann had threatened litigation against INTACT's Insured, unless he should remove from this factual, public interest website, citation of Strata Property Act Section 155(b) and INTACT's letter of 30 September 2021, defining him as a Named Insured.

When the Insured refused to succumb to Beckmann's extortionary threats, Beckmann fired off the letter (to the right), wherein he revokes the option to modify this website to conform with INTACT's censorship, now demanding the deactivation of the entire website, irrespective of its content!

Since Beckmann was/is unable to specify any instance of false representation of this website, he no longer insists upon INTACT's censorship of statements that it finds uncomplimentary, however factual.

Beckmann instead, doubles down on his extortionary threat of litigation, unless the Insured should summarily renounce all of his sacred rights to free speech expression, by summary and permanent removal of the entire website from the internet.

THREAT OF SLAPP LITIGATION

On 02 October 2024 the Justice Services Branch of BC Attorney General Niki Sharma responded to the Whistleblower's request for intervention. Although the AG generally refrains from intervention in individual cases, there are exceptions, whenever the issues of individual cases have broad public interest ramifications, such as in this case. Although the AG hasn't yet made any commitment of intervention, she has invited further submissions, assuring that the Court will apply the provisions of the Protection of Public Participation Act, infra.

Sr Legal Counsel MATHIEU GRENIER and Legal Compliance Officer FREDERIC COTNOIR

are aware of this case, currently before the BC Human Rights Tribunal, INTACT had instructed its legal counsel, Nigel Beckmann, to subject an elderly, INTACT insured couple to the ignominy of the loss of their dignity, honour and reputation, by defamatorily accusing them of the criminal act of submission of an insurance claim, under the false pretence of being Insureds of INTACT.

Interestingly, according to his internet advertisements, Lawyer Beckmann's specialty is defamation/abuse of process defence, which legally holds him to an enhanced professional standard, particularly in view of his new role as a defamation "prosecutor" and purveyor of INTACT's wanton display of abuse of the Supreme Court's processes, in order to maliciously prosecute an INTACT Named Insured, as minutely detailed herein.

In aggravation of Mr. Beckmann's initial offence, he threatened and finally did sue the Insured, for the defamatory, false charge that Mr. Beckmann, himself, had fabricated! 

    Particularly, in view of his specialty, Mr. Beckmann is aware of the falsity of his scurrilous, defamatory charges, because INTACT Lawyer Christa Rae Cordick had repudiated Mr. Beckmann's defamatory charges, when she filed a legal pleading, in support of the Claimant; that the claim was NOT submitted under false pretences, as RB was a Named Insured under the INTACT policy!   Despite Lawyer Cordick's repudiation of Mr. Beckmann's fabricated, defamatory accusation, he refuses to retract same, even after his examination of a letter from INTACT, admitting that the Insured was a Named Insured under the policy. Despite his knowledge of the factual truth, Mr. Beckmann nonetheless engaged in the malicious prosecution of the Named Insured, by pursuit of two (2) arrantly conflicted of interest lawsuits against the Named Insured, on behalf of INTACT's rogue elements, Amanda Myers and Michele Vincent!

INTACT's violation of Human Rights began when the INTACT Named Insured (RB) filed an insurance claim in 2021, which was assigned to Claims Manager Amanda Myers. In contravention of legitimate claims practices, without even permitting that the Claimant submit a claims form, or even state the nature of his claim, Myers preemptively, summarily and arbitrarily nullified the entirety of the Insured's coverage, based upon a claims "investigation, which they falsely allege having conducted. To the right (redacted of confidential information) is the letter of 30 September 2021 that Myers sent to the Insured, falsely alleging the completion of a claims "investigation".

Since the coverage nullification had been based upon a spurious, fabricated claims "investigation", RB contacted Myers, with photographs and other evidence that the coverage nullification was based upon a falsity, but his pleas were ignored.

Thus, RB filed a complaint, pursuant to INTACT's 3-stage Claims Resolution protocol, which was acknowledged by INTACT's Ombuds[wo]man Michele Vincent. In said email (below) Vincent confirmed that she had assigned the Complaint to the Customer Experience Team (stage-2), for investigation and notification with a "Final Business Decision" letter.

Finally, several months later, the Insured received the notice of the result of INTACT's internal affairs investigation, the coveted Final Business Decision Letter, confirming that Myers had lied; that the allegation of a claims "investigation" was a complete fabrication!

In light of INTACT's confirmation that Myers and had fraudulently fabricated their "investigation", the Insured requested of Management's Frédéric Cotnoir and Mathieu Grenier that they assign the claim to one of the numerous, honest Claims Managers, in order to conduct an actual, standard good faith investigation. However, instead of rectifying the basis for the Claims Manager's fraudulent coverage denial, INTACT engaged lawyer Nigel Beckmann, who maliciously filed the two (2) separate civil actions against the Insured.

Although the Ombuds[wo]man denies that the Insured's Complaint had ever been assigned to the (Step 2) Customer Relations Team, the below email dispels yet another episode of her litany of lies:

Canada Criminal Code Sections 372(1), 137, 366(1), 380(1) were enacted to prevent this type of fraud, as committed by claims representatives!

However, instead of "remediating" the noxious rogue elements, INTACT's Corporate Managers have elected to allow the fraud to continue, by squandering thousands of dollars in fees for three (3) attorneys, plus administrative costs. The most recent waste of shareholder funding was INTACT's filing of two (2) civil actions against its whistleblower Insured, who had sought to protect INTACT's promise to the public as being "the most trusted Auto and Home insurance brand in Canada".

Indeed, well prior to the creation of the website, the Insured had repeatedly requested (1) that INTACT conduct a legitimate claims investigation, to replace the fabricated claims "investigation" by which (according to Privacy Officer Helen Cameron), Claims personnel Amanda Myers had fraudulently nullified the entirety of the Insured's coverage, and (2) that INTACT issue a Claims Experience letter to the Insured.

The Insured, RB, had always offered to permanently deactivate the website, in exchange for INTACT's agreement to the above two (2) compelling requests.

However, instead of agreeing to simply conduct a standard, good faith claims investigation, INTACT intransigently elected to sacrifice and abuse the judicial system, by the malicious filing of two (2) cloned, duplicate civil actions against the whistleblower Insured, which doubly compound the malicious derogation of the Insured's heretofore stellar credit rating!

As irrefutable evidence of INTACT's, Amanda Myers' and Michele Vincent's vexatious, malicious intent, none of them claims or seeks any monetary or other damages from the Insured, since they inflicted, not sustained any damage or injury. The only relief that these litigants seek is injunctive; i.e. that the Court order the Insured to permanently deactivate this website, the precise relief that the Insured had repeatedly, extrajudicially offered to INTACT for several months prior to the filing of their two (2) retaliatory civil actions. Thus, these vexatious Plaintiffs have committed a prima facie tort of abuse of process.

As to the requisite elements of a cause of action for the tort of abuse of process, in Oei v. Hui the B.C. Court of Appeal clarified that the tort has the three (3) elements, that are in abundance in the instant civil action: (i) a collateral and improper purpose; (ii) an overt act in furtherance of the collateral and improper purpose; and (iii) resulting loss. Stay tuned, as the cases wind their way to trial, at which Amanda Myers and Michele Vincent will be examined, under oath!

In measured response to INTACT's malicious expansion of the scope of its fraud, the Insured will continue to disclose, in an absolutely transparent, truthful and factual manner, a running account of INTACT's wrongful activities. As detailed herein, INTACT Privacy Officer Helen Cameron conducted a comprehensive, internal affairs inquest, which revealed that Claims personnel Myers had engaged in a fraudulent coverage rescission, based upon an "investigation" that they had jointly fabricated!

At a great personal financial and emotional expense, the Insured has filed responsive legal pleadings and a Cross-Complaint against INTACT and its rogue elements. It is urged that INTACT abandon any impulse to undertake punitive measures against the courageous Privacy Officer, whistleblower Helen Cameron!

INTACT's two (2) cloned, duplicate civil actions against its whistleblower Insured constitute yet another instance of INTACT's relentless, disgraceful, malicious crusade to punish its Insured, for the exercise of his Charter rights to freedom of speech and expression.

INTACT Claims Manager Amanda Myers, by way of criminal fraud, arbitrarily, capriciously and summarily rescinded a Named Insured’s coverage, on the false, fabricated basis that as the result of her claims “investigation”, the Insured had physically "possessed", "occupied" and "used" an infected and infectious, faecal matter-laden, ornamental, pigeon roost ledge (as depicted above) which is physically inaccessible from the Insured’s high rise unit. The ledge is devoid of any means of ingress/egress. It is legally, physically and architecturally, common property; not part of any unit of the residential building.

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

In the letter to the left, Claims Manager Amanda Myers notified the Named Insured of their arbitrary, capricious, summary nullification of the entirety of his INTACT property insurance coverage, per the findings of a joint claims investigation that they alleged to have conducted and completed.

When the Named Insured filed a formal Step-2 Complaint with the Customer Experience Team, Unit Claims Manager Donna McKernon fired off the below email, confirming her opinion of the validity of Myers' coverage nullification, and that the Insured's only option would be litigation.

In the letter to the right, INTACT's conscientious Privacy Officer Helen Cameron announced the results of her internal affairs investigation, exposing Amanda Myers' fraudulent nullification of the Named Insured's coverage. According to Privacy Officer Cameron's probe, Myers' averment of having conducted and completed the claims investigation had been an arrant fabrication!

INTACT'S WHISTLEBLOWERS' COMPLAINT INVESTIGATORS

(Ein allgemein bekanntes Symbol für Täuschung sind die drei Affen, die nichts Böses sehen, hören oder sagen.)

INTACT INSURANCE AND ITS INCREASINGLY COSTLY BAD FAITH CAMPAIGN

In a resounding rebuke of Attorney Nigel Beckmann's position that Strata Property Act Section 155(b) does not exist, the BC Supreme Court recently not only reaffirmed the scope and purview of Section 155(b), it ruled, a fortiori, that even Airbrn overnight guests are insured under a strata corporation’s property insurance policy. [Citation: Strata Plan VR 2213 v. Schappert, 2023 BCSC 2080].

INTACT INSURANCE CO v R.B. (VLC-S-S-244484 and VLC-S-S-244577)

SLAPPs are Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation. These malicious lawsuits chill free speech and stifle the whistleblower's prerogative, indeed moral imperative, to duly report fraud and other criminalities. SLAPPs are used to curtail free speech and harass whistleblowers by necessitating that they expend personal financial resources, in defence of meritless and malicious SLAPPs. The two (2) duplicate SLAPP civil actions that INTACT has prosecuted against its own Insured is a stark case in point, and it is urged that INTACT refrain from filing a similar SLAPP against its own Privacy Officer, Helen Cameron, who had reported to the OIPC the findings of her internal affairs investigation, which confirmed that an INTACT Claims Manager and her subordinate had engaged in fraudulent claims practices! As detailed herein, by the filing of two (2) duplicate, arrantly meritless SLAPP actions against its Insured, INTACT has doubly exploited and doubly abused the judicial system, in its costly crusade to curtail the freedom of speech rights of the Insured whistleblower, who had filed a fact-based, formal complaint against INTACT with the BC Human Rights Tribunal, regarding INTACT's fraudulent, discriminatory claims practices. The purpose of INTACT's SLAPP litigation is to exhaust the Insured's personal financial resources, such as to compel him to withdraw his whistleblower complaint. As it is essential public policy to protect whistleblowers' rights to report fraudulent activity from the chilling effect of a SLAPP, the province of British Columbia has enacted legislation that provides a process for courts to identify a claim as a SLAPP and summarily dismiss it.

Listen to a song about INTACT's verbotene business practices, of filing duplicate, clone SLAPP actions against a whistleblower who had exposed wrongful activities, on the part of certain rogue claims personnel

When Plaintiff, Claims Manager Amanda Myers testifies at trial, she will be tasked to justify her fraudulent claims "investigation", as well as other discrepant claims practices!

The CBC's "Go Public" staff has expressed an interest in this extraordinary story. However, the Insured has refrained from presenting the details to the CBC, in the naïve expectation that while INTACT's lawyer, Nigel Beckmann, considers compliance with Court Rule 7-1(1), that he recommend to his Client that it timely cease its cover-up of fraud.

Section 346 (1) Every one commits extortion who, without reasonable justification or excuse and with intent to obtain anything, by threats, accusations, menaces or violence induces or attempts to induce any person, whether or not he is the person threatened, accused or menaced or to whom violence is shown, to do anything or cause anything to be done.

Section 372 (1) Everyone commits an offence who, with intent to injure or alarm a person, conveys information that they know is false, or causes such information to be conveyed by letter or any means of telecommunication.

Section 137 Every one who, with intent to mislead, fabricates anything with intent that it shall be used as evidence in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed, by any means other than perjury or incitement to perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

Section 366(1) Every one commits forgery who makes a false document knowing it to be false, with intent (a) that it should in any way be used or acted on as genuine, to the prejudice of any one whether within Canada or not; or (b) that a person should be induced, by the belief that it is genuine, to do or to refrain from doing anything, whether within Canada or not.

Section 380(1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means, whether or not it is a false pretence within the meaning of this Act, defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any property, money or valuable security or any service (a) is guilty of an indictable offence.

This public interest website is dedicated to INTACT's alleged pursuit of good faith claims management practices

WITHOUT PREJUDICE/RESERVATION OF RIGHTS

Exemplary of INTACT's aversion to the truth and the facts, and commitment to extraorindarily egregious bad faith, Ombudsman Michele Vincent falsely denies that this matter had been assigned to the 2nd step Customer Experience Team, in response to the Named Insured's formal Complaint. In yet another measure of Vincent's malicious approach, she refuses to provide the Insured with a common insurance industry-wide Claims Experience letter, as he had requested!

Another instance of Ombuds[wo]man Vincent's contempt for the facts, she refuses to issue a Claims Experience letter (request to the right), pretending, after almost three (3) years of INTACT's exploitation and abuse of the Insured, provincial and federal insurance regulators, OIPC, as well as the Courts, that INTACT has no records of the Named Insured!

As indicated by the letter to the left, and the below legal pleading, INTACT had confirmed that RB was a Named Insured of the policy. However, as indicated by his letter to the right, INTACT Lawyer Nigel Beckmann contradicted INTACT's confirmations of RB's status, by fabrication of a false charge, defamatorily and falsely accusing RB of submission of the insurance claim under the false pretence of being an insured (letter to the right). In aggravation of the initial offence, Beckmann pugnaciously committed the tort of abuse of process, by filing two (2) duplicate civil actions against RB, for the exposure of Beckmann's wrongdoings, as well as the fraud of his clients.

Curiously, Lawyer Beckmann recently filed a legal pleading, by which he contradicts his own Clients, who admit that RB is a Named Insured. If Mr. Beckmann has access to an internet connexion, then it is respectfully requested that he press the below link to Strata Property Act Section 155(b).

In a bizarre twist to this cause celebre case, on 13 August 2024, Attorney Beckmann filed a legal pleading, wherein he finally admitted that Claims Manager Amanda Myers had falsified her claims "investigation", but Mr. Beckmann blames the Insured for being so naïve as to believe that an investigation had been conducted, since no investigator had ever come to the pigeon roost ledge to inspect, supra!