Here is another perspective:
It is unfair to simply point a finger at one person. It is also possible that an university has certain system issues.

For example, students may have two supervisors. If one is busy or incompetent, then seek help from another. In addition, serious issues could also be resolved during Confirmation of Candidature or yearly review...
Some universities may encourage interactions among PhD students, thus they might even vet or discuss each other work.

In your case, perhaps the co-ordinator could re-assign someone to help you in this last stage.
Or internal examiner could be a bit more proactive under the request of HOD.
That is, your success is also dependent on the "system", not just ONE person or bad supervision.

Alternatively, let your head of department or supervisor etc... know about your hardships or problems of surviving with kids.
(Hopefully, your supervisor will feel bad about your situations. This is better than he felt threatened and planning how to counter-sue you, or providing evidence that you were a weak student etc...)

If you are lucky, maybe someone from your university will raise funds for you or offer interest-free loans.

I agree with BilboBaggins, for example, that it may involve a lot of legal fees such that you may even become poorer. In the end, the lawyers win...

Interestingly, a recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has established a new defined area in which universities no longer have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes with their students. Students seeking money as a remedy for consequences that impact on their career may use the precedent of the case of Manon Gauthier. Just google "Manon Gauthier". However, it is a "very big" risk.

You may want to check your internal examiner's thesis.

I followed the advice of some folks in this forum.
However, my internal examiner disagreed.

In a sense, I felt that my internal examiner was trying to be *difficult*. The comments seem to suggest that I did not do a good job...
The fact is I already had three publications before viva... Even journal reviewers/editors did not question me on these things...

Nevertheless, I decided to take the "negative comments" as an opportunity to improve my thesis as much as possible.
My responses had many, many pages. My attitude was "If you want to play, i will play along".
Somehow the internal examiner did not play with me further. Or maybe i was the one taking it personally? :-)

If you fail, it may also suggest your supervisor did not guide you properly.

I was worried about the quality of my master thesis...
But my supervisor actually suggested me to do the minimal. He commented, "This is only a master thesis".
Anyway, he became my PhD thesis supervisor later...

Purchase a cup and print the following picture on it...
Place it on his table and leave a note "From ALL of us" :-)

Or "Grounded Theory in Netnography: A Study of an Online Community..."?

It should be more appropriate to check with your supervisor.

"A Netnographic Study of an Online Community: A Grounded Theory Approach"
or something like "Is Netnography effective at uncovering consumer innovation?: A Grounded Theory Approach"
or "Incorporating grounded theory approach in a Netnographic Study of an Online Community"

Not sure what you are really doing, but it seems fine to have a few more words.

Think one more step further.

For example, Prof Frank Wilczek had a master degree on Mathematics, and a PhD on Physics.
It also depends on whether you are going pursue master degree in UK or US etc...

I was trying to be vague. :-)

The situation is: several authors have their own descriptions of grounded theory and definitions of different codings and categories...
Thus, the result is confusion! Everyone carries out grounded theory in different way.
Your approach in grounded theory, for example, can be named after you.

Anyway, my suggestion is just focus on 'constant comparison' for a few times until your categories are saturated or stabilized. That's all. Good luck!

Based on my limited experience, several PhD candidates do not use axial or theoretical codings.
Furthermore, you will likely be confused if you read more PhD theses.
We may need to clarify "*whose* grounded theory". Kelpie's grounded theory? Or HifaMo's grounded theory? :-)

Just a cursory reading of my Charmaz (2006) grounded theory... Core category is not defined.

However, according to Glaser (1978), “it always happens that a category will emerge from among many and ‘core out’ ” (p. 95) of its own accord. But probably it depends on your data or context.

Anyway, your B.A. thesis will be very impressive! Even PhD candidates do not use theoretical codings...

Actually, Glaser suggested 18 'Codes'. :-)

a

There is disagreement on the correct way of using grounded theory.
Because some focused on the method of constant comparison, it could be known as "grounded theory approach".
Actually, it is possible that PhD students etc.. don't really follow rules rigorously.
It is also possible that one may not write down the process in detail.

According to Glaser, for example, there should be no literature review in doing grounded theory.
Your categories will be influenced by existing theories or 'external theories'...
Axial and theoretical coding are useful as a guide if you want to develop a relationship or theory...