27 May 2025 6 min read

Canada v. Stillman

Not A Complaint

I am not a lawyer.

But I am, me.

On May 27, 2025, I prepared a Statement of Claim in the Federal Court of Canada.

It's not about money. It's not about vengeance. And it is not private.

It is a constitutional intervention — against the coordinated misuse of law firms, regulators, and professional insurers to silence expression, extract private information, and suppress democratic discourse.

This case names Stillman LLP, every partner involved, its strategic controller Hassin Sam Mraiche, the Law Society of Alberta, and the Alberta Lawyers Indemnity Association (ALIA) as Defendants.

This is not theory.

This is the system exposed — with names, signatures, jurisdiction, and remedy.

THE TRIGGER: ONE ARTICLE, ONE THREAT

In February 2025, I published “No Money, No Power.”

It was a structural analysis of how power insulates itself — through legal infrastructure, regulatory inertia, and the weaponisation of threat.

It contained no untruths. It was based entirely on public information and operable processes.

Stillman LLP, acting for and under the control of Hassin Sam Mraiche, responded not with a lawsuit — but with coercion.

On May 23, I received a threat letter:

Demanding I remove my article.
Demanding I hand over private financial records.
Demanding I produce communications — not about them — but about Nate Pike, a third party they are suing elsewhere.

No process. No pleadings. No court.

Just intimidation.

Just pressure.

Just proof.

WHY FEDERAL COURT? WHY NOW?

Because what happened next revealed a collapse of institutional oversight.

The Law Society of Alberta was notified. Their response? “We don’t regulate law firms — only individuals.”
ALIA, the insurer underwriting Stillman’s threats, received a formal risk disclosure. They refused to investigate or suspend coverage.
And every partner at Stillman LLP? Silent. Complicit. Still operating.

So I filed what no one else would.

A constitutional case — naming not just the actors, but the system that enabled them.

WHAT THE STATEMENT OF CLAIM DEMANDS

This is not a typical legal remedy.

This is a structural demand for national precedent.

The Statement of Claim seeks:

$50 million in general damages for coordinated abuse of legal infrastructure;
$25 million in punitive damages for intentional constitutional harm;
An ownership transfer of Stillman LLP into a federally regulated public trust — not for punishment, but public correction;
Permanent exclusion of Mraiche from legal involvement in any Canadian proceeding, in any capacity, due to systemic abuse of process;
Mandatory reform orders against the Law Society and ALIA, requiring oversight protocols, Charter compliance frameworks, and trustee intervention for repeat offenders.

This isn’t about me.

It’s about preventing this from ever happening to anyone else.

THE CORE CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS

The Claim asserts five primary causes of action:

Section 2(b) Breach — Freedom of Expression:
The letter was not a legal claim. It was an attempt to erase protected political commentary through the weight of institutional threat.
Section 7 Breach — Security of the Person:
The threats targeted my livelihood, my professional standing, and my psychological security — without process, justice, or jurisdiction.
Abuse of Process and Civil Conspiracy:
Law firms cannot convert legal infrastructure into tools of coercion. This was not litigation — it was a shakedown, staged through procedural theatre.
Unauthorized Practice of Law:
If Mraiche is not licensed, he directed strategy unlawfully. If he is, his conduct constitutes actionable misconduct. Either way, the firm obeyed him — and the system let it happen.
Institutional Negligence:
The Law Society and ALIA were not passive. They are enabling. Their refusal to act upon notice constitutes complicity in a systemic Charter breach.

THE NEW NAMES MATTER

By naming the Law Society of Alberta and ALIA as Defendants, this case does what no precedent has yet achieved:

It makes regulators answer for their refusal to regulate.
It makes unregulated insurers answer for indemnifying unconstitutional conduct.
And it makes the legal profession answer for what it has become — a tool of suppression, masked as due process.

This is not a claim against a firm.
It is a reckoning against an industry.

THE STRUCTURAL REMEDY

The Statement of Claim does not ask for compensation.
It demands correction.

The proposed remedies include:

Full control of Stillman LLP transferred to a federal public interest trust under judicial supervision;
Mandatory reform protocols imposed on the Law Society of Alberta and ALIA;
A permanent legal firewall installed around Mraiche — preventing him from ever again using litigation as a tool of private threat.

Because when the law is misused — it must be restructured.

Not from within.

From above.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR CANADA

This claim raises constitutional questions the courts can no longer avoid:

Can legal process be used to punish speech — without ever filing a suit?
Do regulators and insurers bear legal responsibility for suppressive actions committed under their protection?
When institutions fail to prevent systemic harm, does the Charter require structural reform — not just individual accountability?

This is not a fight between two parties.

This is a test of whether our legal system can still defend itself from within — or whether it now exists only to serve those who pay it.

WHAT HAPPENS NEXT

The Statement of Claim is filed.
The constitutional questions are submitted.
The public has been notified.

Now the institutions must answer — not just to me, but to the Charter.

To silence this claim, they will have to silence democracy itself.

And that is no longer possible.

Ben Beveridge
Proconsul

This is what I’m working on. Tell me what you think, I enjoy the conversation! Subscribe and follow the work in real time.

Thanks!

They threatened me with the law — to delete a legal article, hand over private data, and betray another citizen.

Now they, their firm, their regulator, and their insurer are all named in a federal constitutional lawsuit.

Filed. Public. Permanent.

PS -

This isn’t litigation. It’s structural audit.

The firm? Stillman LLP.
The controller? Hassin Sam Mraiche.
The enablers? The Law Society of Alberta and ALIA.
The offence? Using the law to suppress democracy, not defend it.

They threatened me to gain leverage over Nate Pike.
They demanded I betray private communication.
They used legal weight to extract — without filing.
No court. Just pressure.

Now:

A federal constitutional challenge
Naming every actor who signed, supported, or stayed silent
Demanding $75M in damages
Calling for a full ownership transfer of Stillman LLP into public trust
Forcing regulators and insurers into judicial accountability

This case isn’t mine. It’s Canada’s.

Next drop: the full Statement of Claim, annotated and open-sourced.
The system’s record is now permanent.

ben@proconsul.ca