lewin

Well, not within the lifetime of any laptop OP would be purchasing.

Nah, you're response, although your opinion, was very undermining and judgmental. How are you gonna tell someone you don't know "You don't seem invested in the process." An ass hat statement.You were judging the individual and didn't really, in my opinion, try to give any real answer as to how the person can go about the way. I'm immature? If you say so. And yes I was very triggered at your responses, which was met with my "wall" that called you out. And again, you were obviously pressed or should I say, insecure, since you perceived the author to be full of his/herself based on her accomplishments and what she brings to the table, which again I don't know what you skipped over, but the person wrote some. Your statements, in my opinion, was condescending and judgmental and was met with a response. 
And again, your response didn't address how the author could go about writing it in their application AT ALL. Just your extra opinion on the matter was included, whether right or wrong. 

If you are looking for greater independence, you may consider an institution that doesn't offer funding at all. You will sacrifice pedigree for independence, however.
I'm reading a lot about what you want from a programme and how you'd like to be exempt from certain requirements, but I'm not seeing what you bring to the table. What will you contribute? I see you want the programme to give you authority and reputation but you want to maintain distance from it, not become part of it.
When I read what you wrote, I get a sense that you feel you're "above" a lot of these things, due to your prior success and financial situation. Am I reading too much into it?
From this information alone, you don't seem invested in the process enough to be worth accepting as a student. You're obviously more than capable of doing all the learning and work by yourself. The degree is just a way of elevating your status. 

I’m not sure how likely it is that programs would accept a student who does not want to do research and wants to work only on their own terms. It’s not how a PhD works regardless of funding status. 
 
Why not find an online program and buy your PhD? Or do a course-based masters? 

...and don't copy/paste from their website, which is more common than people would think.

I think this is perfectly fine. To conserve space, I simply put a titile (Statement of Purpose) and then my name in the top right header.
I obviously cannot speak for the admissions committees, but I would imagine that the content of the letters matters much more than the formatting.

A PhD in psychology will not help you operate on a macro level. Even in counseling or community psychology programs, which are more systemically-oriented than clinical programs, for example, you're still operating on the level of the individual but by placing that individual in their context. A graduate degree in public policy may be useful, but I feel like a MSW is equally as useful if not more so. You may need additional education surrounding policy issues, but to throw tens of thousands of dollars at that goals seems wasteful.

I am so sorry this happened to you. It sounds like you have been through a lot recently and have taken great steps toward making meaning of this and taking care of your health. All good signs for the path toward a Ph.D., in my opinion.
Now, despite all that, I would strongly advise you against mentioning it in your SoP. It's not necessarily that PIs think people who have psychiatric disorders and/or histories of trauma are incapable of earning Ph.D.'s or being good graduate students, but many don't want to know that about their applicants. Regardless of someone's personal history and diagnosis, their academic, research, and clinical work and training should be strong enough to earn them a spot in the program. In the process of the PI getting to know you, it's important that your persona as an academic/researcher/clinician is first and foremost. Also, it comes off to many as unprofessional to discuss diagnoses and to share information at that level. It could spark concern that a person would not be able to keep their mental health issues out of their work if they needed to state them up front in the first place. I know several PIs who have sent applications straight to the trashbin after disclosures of mental health issues... even if these were stories of resilience and current thriving. It may sound harsh, but in the clinical Ph.D. world, the best way to indicate that your work won't be substantially limited by your diagnosis is to have your diagnosis be something no one knows about or needs to know about. I personally know MANY graduate students with current or past diagnoses of almost everything, but all the successful ones have been very selective in when they share that, how much detail they share, and with whom they share that. 
I have heard it expressed that they don't care if their student has a diagnosis, they just don't want to know that much about them. 
It sounds like you might have a new angle of perspective on your research interests now. And I am sure you can use them to your advantage in thinking about research and clinical work. I think it's best to keep that out of your statement. It sounds like you will be a great applicant based on your work and training alone.

https://psychology.unl.edu/psichi/Graduate_School_Application_Kisses_of_Death.pdf

Yep. Plus six years of graduate school and like a thousand supervised clinical hours

My suggestion is don't mention it. I'd say it falls under one of the kisses of death mentioned in the Appleby article. They specifically say mental health but I don't see why that advice wouldn't generalize to other chronic illnesses, especially the last bit of this quote: "The discussion of a personal mental health problem is likely to decrease an applicant’s chances of acceptance into a program. Examples of this particular [kiss of death] in a personal statement included comments such as “showing evidence of untreated mental illness,” “emotional instability,” and seeking graduate training “to better understand one’s own problems or problems in one’s family.” More specifically, one respondent stated that a KOD may occur “when students highlight how they were drawn to graduate study because of significant personal problems or trauma. Graduate school is an academic/career path, not a personal treatment or intervention for problems."
A second reason is that the person statement is a misnomer. Personal narrative about how you got interested in or passionate about the topic is fluff; the space is better served talking about your concrete experiences and future research contributions - see Brown (2004).
A third reason is that, unfortunately, chronic illness still carries stigma with some people. They might read it and think, "This candidate isn't going to be as productive or will need a leave of absence before they're done."  That's unfortunate and shouldn't be the case but is what it is.

SSHRC and CGS-M are the same thing. You apply for a CGS-M funded by SSHRC so it’s just one application. 
There might be provincial scholarships too depending one where you apply. Like OGS for Ontario schools. 

I’m not sure what you mean by also applying to NSERC, CIHR or SSHRC. They aren’t separate, CGS-M is administered by the tri-council agencies. You choose the one most applicable to your research and apply for the CGS-M through that agency. 
The deadline is usually around December 1 but might not be that exact day. Detailed instructions are available on the NSERC website (same instructions apply for SSHRC and CIHR). 

...particularly in this case because David Funder is one of or the most preeminent personality psychologists today. He'll get a lot of applicants. Another search method would be to look up his coauthors or former students.

Personal opinion: #1 unless #4 has a PhD.
For #2, two months is not enough time to write a strong letter.
For #3, Data entry and prepping questionnaires is important work but doesn't demonstrate research aptitude or independence, which makes me lean towards #1 instead. Also in terms of status, a postdoc is the same as a VAP in the sense that neither are tenure track.

The distinction between clinical/ counselling is largely historical. In Canada, or at least where I live, You will see counselling psychologists working in clinical settings and vice versa. For example, I interned at a place where counselling psychologists worked with people with severe PTSD. That being said, in general clinical psychology is aimed at more severe problems, such as working with people in hospitals or who are in a residential treatment program. Counselling psychology might be more things like career counselling, mild to moderate mental health issues, or relationship problems. However, there is so much diversity within the field that it's hard to fit the two into neat little boxes. 
Generally research experience is still important for getting into counselling, but less so than for clinical. You may have a better shot at course-based (non-thesis) programs, though these will make it harder to get into a PhD if that is your goal. Alberta and Saskatchewan do not require a PhD to practice. 
Are you able to start volunteering in a lab where you live?

Like PsyDgrad pointed out, if you are interested in a clinically focused career and subsequently a clinically focused degree, an online program would not suffice. 
What do you mean that you want it to "set you up" for a PsyD? Masters degrees arent required for doctoral programs, though they're sometimes recommended to boost your application (though I'm sorry to say an online masters is not likely to boost your application in any substantial way, and may actually be a detriment to your application. Online degrees in our field are not looked upon fondly). A reputable in person masters degree can be good if you had a poor undergraduate GPA, but otherwise, you can gain experience through other means (volunteer or paid research assistant, for example).

An online masters is psych is usually frowned upon. Research is a big component in the field, and you can't do that through an online school. Also, getting any sort of practicums will be more difficult because the school will have limited resources to help you. If it's a clinically based program, then you can't really teach and practice the clinical skills as effectively in an online environment. 
Also, what kind of program are you looking for? Are you interested in a master's level clinical licensure? Are you looking for an experimental psych program to boost your competitiveness for PhDs?

You're in the field so probably have a better perspective than I do, but my understanding is that school psychology is primarily a professionally oriented degree where you learn how to conduct and report assessments related to disabilities and development. ASD is a clinical disorder and clinical programs are much more research-oriented, so I do agree you'll probably have better luck searching there.

If you want to conduct talk therapy as your main job, you can do that with either degree. PsyD programs are more expensive and take longer, and there are many predatory "diploma mills" that offer PsyDs. I generally give my friends the advice to go for the Master's level, but if you really have your heart set on a PsyD - you better do a TON of research on the programs you're looking at - their internship match rates, training models, reputation, etc. 

Every program is different and list different expectations of the recommendation letter. What seems to be a general understanding is that there should be 3 recommenders on your behalf, with two of them being faculty members (PhD level). They should be able to speak on your academic, research, and clinical experiences if you have any. 
 
This is not something that you will be submitting, but something that those recommenders will submit on your behalf. 

If you want to practice, you will need to attend a (hopefully APA accredited) clinical or counseling program. 

Unfortunately, I don't think that will be the case. While "good" general GRE scores are subject to individual opinion a lot of the time, subject GRE scores tend to not be because they are completely psych-based. Since you are applying to a psych-oriented graduate program, presumably with an undergraduate psych degree, low scores might cause some red flags to come up. Think about it this way, a lot of what was tested on the subject GRE was information that was taught in first-year psych courses - while there are MANY reasons why someone would score low on this test (test-day anxiety etc), supervisors will look past that and just think it's odd that you scored any lower than 90th percentile. I'm sure you could look it up and find the stats, but I believe most applicants naturally do score within that range given the material that's being tested. Supervisors and grad students have said to me that any score that's lower than that would be considered 'odd'. In the face of stellar grades, extremely comprehensive research experience and a few publications, this may not make that much of a dent. But that's really taking a chance. If I were in your place, and I had time, I would 100% take it again and try to aim within the 90th + region. 

I don't believe this is correct and it varies dramatically by your funding committee. Funding rates for NIMH and NIH are 18-20% and for CIHR are 15-20%--so pretty comparable. It's true to say that everybody has to fight for external funding, so you'll find more in common between UBC and an American R1 than between UBC and, say, Brock or Lethbridge (or an American PUI). If you can get into SSHRC instead, recent competitions have had success rates of 30-50%. The current Liberal government has allocated massive funding increases, in contrast to Trump, who wants to cut science funding. 

I don't believe this is correct and it varies dramatically by your funding committee. Funding rates for NIMH and NIH are 18-20% and for CIHR are 15-20%--so pretty comparable. It's true to say that everybody has to fight for external funding, so you'll find more in common between UBC and an American R1 than between UBC and, say, Brock or Lethbridge (or an American PUI). If you can get into SSHRC instead, recent competitions have had success rates of 30-50%. The current Liberal government has allocated massive funding increases, in contrast to Trump, who wants to cut science funding.