May Ocean Versus Goliath
MAY AGAINST GOLIATH — THE BREAKING POINT
From an insurance battle to the courtroom: Why I Am Calling for a Thorough, Independent Investigation
THE CERTIFIED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT IS NOW AVAILABLE FOR THE PUBLIC TO READ.
Before continuing my story, I invite everyone to examine the evidence for themselves.
I have made my 14-day certified trial transcript, for which I paid approximately $16,000, available along with supporting court documents, correspondence and motion materials.
PUBLIC EVIDENCE — DROPBOX FOLDER:
Look for ITEM 09 — TRIAL TRANSCRIPT (Certified, 14 Days). A contents index is also provided in the folder to help readers navigate the other documents.
I ask readers to compare the testimony and documentary evidence with the publicly available Trial Decision, Ocean v. Bennett, 2026 NSSC 33.
READ. QUESTION. EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE. DRAW YOUR OWN CONCLUSIONS.
Continuing from my previous Change.org update…
For more than 25 years, I have been fighting legal battles that have caused me to question something much bigger than my own circumstances.
Such as, deeply entrenched institutional relationships and practices operating against ordinary people who dare to challenge those with money, power and influence.
I have called this a conglomerate— interconnected interests whereby they work together to ensure those interests by victimizing others.
I do not believe everyone working within this system knows or understands what is happening in the bigger picture, although this remains part of the problem that makes it systemic.
Many may simply be following an established, archaic system, never questioning the harm it may cause.
But when that harm occurs, WHO IS ACCOUNTABLE?
WHERE IT ALL BEGAN — ECONOMICAL INSURANCE
My concerns began with an automobile accident in December 2000 involving an uninsured and unlicensed driver.
I repeatedly insisted that my insurer, Economical Insurance, properly investigate the accident before important evidence was lost.
Instead, I found myself facing an extraordinary financial burden.
My annual automobile insurance premiums rose from approximately $2,000 to $10,000 after I was placed in Facility Insurance.
I was treated as at fault for the accident before a proper investigation had been completed.
Imagine trying to operate a business, support yourself and pursue justice while facing those increases.
In 2001, I approached a lawyer concerning my accident and negligence claim against Economical.
Economical subsequently contacted me directly with an offer to settle for $25,000.
Shortly afterward, my lawyer presented an offer of EXACTLY $25,000, which I understood to have been presented independently.
I refused both.
As the litigation progressed, I began to question aspects of my negligence portion of my claim.
Eventually, my lawyer informed that he would not pursue negligence on my behalf, and I discovered that there was no action in this regard registered with the court.
I TOOK OVER MY OWN CASE AND MADE APPLICATION TO INTRODUCE NEGLIGENCE
That was when my experience of the legal system became even more disturbing.
Gordon Murray, then an Economical Insurance branch manager, wrote an apology concerning the handling of my insurance claim.
He also wrote to my broker acknowledging that Economical believed the uninsured driver was responsible for the accident.
This correspondence was later documented in Bruce Wark's November 12, 2009 article, May Ocean versus Goliath, published in The Coast.
Correspondence also involved an offer of approximately $90,000, accompanied by a proposed NON DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT (NDA) .
The Appeal Courts Decision mentions the letter, so I had submitted into evidence. So another part of the investigation is that the appellate record be examined to establish its exact wording and terms.
Why was the NDA/confidentiality being requested?
What would I have been prevented informing the public of?
I recognize that settlements and confidentiality agreements are not inherently illegal. But in the circumstances of my years-long struggle, I began questioning whether financial pressure and confidentiality were being used to prevent broader scrutiny by the public.
I began referring to what I suspected might be a “GOLDEN HANDSHAKE” between powerful interests.
I wondered whether institutional relationships could disadvantage people who refused to settle or remain silent.
The original records should be examined so these questions can be answered with evidence rather than speculation.
2007 — AN RCMP REPORT INVOLVING A LAWYER'S SON
Then came an incident involving the RCMP that added to my concerns.
In 2007, an incident occurred where a young man had pulled his vehicle onto private property, with a second vehicle coming immediately behind to do the same. I was there outside my home so I informed the two drivers, and I pointed to the fact that they could park along the road. One driver did so, whereas the other simply moved his vehicle so that it then blocked the end of the road, AND blocking an emergency access to the popular High Head Trail. I informed him, but he ignored. Long story short on he and his party’s return from their hike, he confronted me with harsh words and including a threat to return and BURN DOWN OUR HOME.
I contacted the RCMP because I wanted the threat taken seriously and wanted police intervention to deter against the threat. I was not wanting charges to be laid.
What I distinctly recall however, was that the officer had suggested that I may want to reconsider pursuing charges because THE INDIVIDUAL'S FATHER WAS A LAWYER, who could make things difficult for me.
Why should his father's profession have mattered?
Why would that consideration enter a police response to a complaint involving a threat to burn down someone's home?
The resulting RCMP General Occurrence Report failed to reflect important aspects of what occurred and instead portrayed ME as the person causing trouble. The Officer did not ever indicate to me anything of the sort had entered her thoughts, or that such a characterization had been put in her Report and in my file.
Nor did the officer's Report concerning the lawyer's son document what occurred as per the statement I relayed to her over the phone. I was simply informed by the Officer, that my complaint was passed on to the individual and he was appropriately warned.
Shortly after the incident, I subsequently heard information from another source, a childhood friend of Cathy’s, who had heard of the incident through people she knew who had returned from a hike at the time and so had witnessed. Cathy’s friend then informed that the individual's family connections— his father being a lawyer enabled him to avoid consequences for his misbehaviours.
THIS IS JUST ONE OF MANY RED FLAGS AS TO PRECISELY WHY AN INVESTIGATION IS NEEDED.
I want investigators to examine the original report, determine what was recorded and omitted, and establish whether the complaint was handled properly.
This incident occurred shortly the Court contacted me about whether or not I would proceed with my Actions, as the expiry time is nearly up.
I began questioning whether the treatment I experienced in different circumstances might be connected.
2008–2009 — COURT ORDER TO DETERMINE IF I WAS I FIT TO REPRESENT MYSELF?
As I continued as a self represented party against Economical Insurance and the other driver (it was mandatory according to my policy that he be included), something shocking and extraordinary happened.
ECONOMICAL APPLIED TO HAVE MY MENTAL COMPETENCE TO REPRESENT MYSELF ASSESSED BY A PSYCHIATRIST.
In September 2008, Associate Chief Justice Deborah Smith not only granted that application, she herself indicated in the pretrial hearing, that such a move would be sanctioned by her.
I was ordered to undergo a psychiatric assessment to determine whether I was competent to continue representing myself.
How did this happen?! It had to do with the fact that in a bid to prevent my case from being thrown out (due to the deadline being passed), I spent time in Dal Legal library doing research, and found a book called Halliburton’s law that stated one could override something like this by simply claiming to be “incompetent”. I saw the word as meaning “not competent as a lawyer”, but found out in the Hearing that in legal terms, “incompetent” equates to: “not of sound mind… insane… not able to conduct my own affairs … not able to self represent ”.
When I put forward my true intent and understanding of the words meaning, the ACJ Smith would not accept it, she demanded that I get a letter from My family doctor. My doctor then provided written confirmation that I was “competent”.
Nevertheless, the order was still made.
Consider what this meant to me.
I was already struggling financially after an accident, attempting to establish my insurer's responsibilities, and navigating complicated proceedings without legal representation.
Now my very competence to defend my own interests was being questioned.
I challenged the order in the Court of Appeal.
AND I WON.
On July 17, 2009, the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal unanimously allowed my appeal and set aside the psychiatric-assessment order.
The Court recognized the presumption that adults are competent and the fundamental importance of a person's right to represent themselves.
I was also awarded $4,000 in costs.
The published decision is:
Ocean v. Economical Mutual Insurance Co., 2009 NSCA 81
https://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/2009/2009nsca81/2009nsca81.html
This is not merely my recollection. It is a documented appellate decision.
The insurer sought the order. The lower court granted it. The Court of Appeal overturned it.
I regarded the experience as another example of the extraordinary obstacles I faced simply trying to pursue my legal rights.
I also wondered what might happen to other self-represented people who lacked the stamina, resources or ability to pursue an appeal.
THE LITIGATION WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE STAGES
The litigation continued.
Associate Chief Justice Smith subsequently divided the proceedings into three stages, known as trifurcation.
These concerned the accident and liability involving uninsured driver Raymond Patrick Sullivan, my negligence and bad-faith claims against Economical, and the determination of damages.
The appellate judges had suggested that the trial judge reconsider that trifurcation approach, while expressly leaving the decision to the trial judge.
The separation of the proceedings added to my concerns about the length, expense and complexity of obtaining justice.
I believe the full history of these proceedings—including the insurer's conduct, the proposed settlements, the competency assessment and the procedural decisions—deserves careful examination.
What I am asking investigators to consider is whether these were simply separate disputes and legal decisions, or whether any improper relationships or conduct existed behind them.
OCTOBER 2010 — ANOTHER RCMP REPORT
In October 2010, an RCMP complaint involving information supplied by Barbara Sawatsky and Christine Scott entered the record.
I maintain that I was unaware of that complaint at the time.
The RCMP General Occurrence Report records attempts by Constable Crocker to contact Cathy Bennett and me.
It records telephone messages, not a confirmed personal conversation with me.
The report also refers to information subsequently supplied by a complainant who said she had spoken with Cathy Bennett.
Yet in the published Trial Decision in Ocean v. Bennett, Justice Chiasson stated that Constable Crocker had successfully made contact with both Cathy Bennett and me.
THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ORIGINAL RCMP REPORT ESTABLISHES.
This matters because it affects how the public may perceive my sworn testimony that I had not known about the complaint.
Justice Chiasson ultimately assigned the report no weight.
I believe this is a significant discrepancy that deserves independent examination.
Both Christine Scott and Barbara Sawatsky (also a same sex couple), were friends of Cathy Bennett through their involvement as volunteer firefighters, AND, they were fully aware of my legal battle with my Insurance Company and proceedings at trial.
Did that history influence how they then portrayed me?
Did it affect the allegations that were subsequently made?
That is what needs to be thoroughly investigated.
When these RCMP reports are viewed together, I believe they risk creating an impression of me as belligerent or troublesome.
But I do not consider standing up for my rights, resisting threats or questioning authority to be belligerence.
I AM NOT BELLIGERENT BECAUSE I STAND UP FOR WHAT I BELIEVE IS RIGHT.
What concerns me is the cumulative effect of reports, omissions, witness accounts and judicial findings on one person's credibility.
THE FAMILY DIVISION TRIAL — LET THE PUBLIC READ THE EVIDENCE
My dispute with Cathy Bennett eventually proceeded to trial before Justice C. LouAnn Chiasson.
The Trial Decision was published in February 2026.
The judgment contains findings affecting my credibility and reputation, and I dispute those findings.
The judgment is publicly available.
SO I AM NOW INVITING THE PUBLIC TO READ THE ACTUAL CERTIFIED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT.
The transcript covers 14 days of proceedings and cost me approximately $16,000 to obtain for my appeal.
It is available as ITEM 09 in my public Dropbox evidence folder linked at the beginning of this update.
I encourage readers to examine the testimony carefully, especially where I have identified differences between original records, witness evidence and the written decision.
The RCMP production was obtained under a court Order covering records concerning both Cathy Bennett and me.
Redactions were made by the Department of Justice before disclosure.
I DID NOT MAKE THOSE REDACTIONS.
During pretrial proceedings, I recall Justice Chiasson raising the question of restricting certain RCMP material, including the earlier report.
I opposed restricting the evidence. I wanted the reports considered.
The certified pretrial transcripts should allow the precise exchange to be verified.
However, the Order for Production also contains restrictions concerning publication of the RCMP records.
I question why those restrictions should continue to limit the public's ability to evaluate material relevant to findings contained in a publicly available judgment.
NOVEMBER 9, 2026 — MY REQUEST TO THE COURT OF APPEAL
On November 9, 2026, I brought these publication concerns before Justice Carole A. Beaton of the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal.
I sought authorization concerning certified transcripts, court audio and supporting materials, including directions or variation of the restrictions attached to the RCMP production.
My request was dismissed.
Paragraph 6 of the certified Order states:
“All other relief requested at the hearing of the motion and/or contained in the appellant's materials filed in support of the motion is dismissed.”
That paragraph does not separately explain the legal reasoning for each publication issue, nor does it expressly impose a new publication prohibition.
It also does not remove the existing restrictions.
I have sought clarification about the proper avenue for obtaining a determination of my publication rights.
I continue to question how constitutional freedom of expression and the open-court principle apply to evidence used in proceedings that were open to the public.
IF A JUDGMENT IS PUBLIC, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A MEANINGFUL WAY FOR THE PUBLIC TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING IT?
I want the boundaries of lawful public access clearly established—not left uncertain.
THIS IS NOW TOO BIG FOR ME TO INVESTIGATE ALONE
I have raised complaints about the handling of RCMP evidence and testimony, including concerns relating to Constable Nicholas Clarke.
I believe there are discrepancies between police records, testimony and judicial findings that warrant examination.
In 2025, I approached the Civilian Review and Complaints Commission.
On November 12, 2026, I also wrote to Nova Scotia's Serious Incident Response Team, seeking independent investigative assistance.
I have spent years collecting records, studying transcripts, pursuing appeals and attempting to identify the facts.
THIS IS FAR TOO BIG FOR ONE SELF-REPRESENTED PERSON TO CONTINUE HANDLING ALONE.
I need help.
I need an independent investigation with the authority and resources to obtain records, examine testimony, interview witnesses and investigate any evidence of misconduct.
I want investigators to examine whether the events I have described involve institutional failures, improper influence, collusion, conflicts of interest or other wrongdoing.
They must also consider evidence that contradicts my suspicions.
I AM ASKING FOR A COMPLETE, THOROUGH AND INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION.
THE BIGGER PICTURE — HOW FEAR MAINTAINS POWER
This is what concerns me about the possibility of an entrenched network of institutional interests.
IT CAN CREATE FEAR.
Fear of losing your livelihood.
Fear of losing your home.
Fear of being financially destroyed by litigation.
Fear of having your credibility questioned.
Fear of challenging someone believed to possess greater power or influence.
Over time, individuals may decide that pursuing justice simply isn't worth the consequences.
And that is how harmful practices can persist.
But I believe there is something else we must recognize.
Many people working within established institutions may be oblivious to the larger consequences of the practices they follow.
They may not know of any wrongdoing.
They may simply be carrying out duties within a long-established system, accepting procedures that previous generations accepted.
They may never have examined how the system operates as a whole.
My hope is that increased public awareness will encourage people within those institutions to recognize problems and help dismantle harmful practices—rather than continuing them unquestioningly.
It is not necessary to condemn everyone to recognize that change may be needed.
THE BREAKING POINT TO FOSTER CHANGE, BEGINS WITH OPENED EYES, AND SO WHY I AM HERE POSTING ON THIS SITE.
When the greater public becomes aware, people begin questioning things they once accepted.
One person speaks.
Another recognizes a similar experience.
Others begin examining the evidence.
People within institutions begin questioning procedures and practices that they had never previously considered.
And then comes the DOMINO EFFECT.
PUBLIC AWARENESS → SCRUTINY → INVESTIGATION → ESTABLISHED FACTS → ACCOUNTABILITY → REFORM.
That is what I want.
Not fear.
Not revenge.
Not unsupported accusations.
THE TRUTH, ESTABLISHED THROUGH EVIDENCE.
And when wrongdoing is established, accountability must follow.
I believe this is the pathway toward meaningful reform—and toward restoring public confidence in our institutions.
I have spent more than 25 years trying to stand up for what I believe is right.
Now I am asking others to help bring these questions into the open.
PLEASE READ THE CERTIFIED TRIAL TRANSCRIPT — ITEM 09 — AND EXAMINE THE SUPPORTING MATERIALS.
I WANT THE EVIDENCE EXAMINED.
I WANT THE QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
I WANT ACCOUNTABILITY ESTABLISHED.
Not simply for myself, but for ordinary citizens who may never have the resources or energy to fight as long as I have.
Because the ultimate purpose is not to bring people down.
IT IS TO BRING JUSTICE UP TO WHERE IT BELONGS SO THAT WE THE PEOPLE ARE JUSTLY SERVED IN LINE WITH OUR CONSTITUTION AND LAWS.
IT’S TIME TO LEAVE AN UNSHACKLED PRESS AS A LEGACY TO OUR CHILDREN.
— May Ocean
Self-represented Appellant
Nova Scotia Court of Appeal — CA 551567