R v Cohn

 R v Cohn, a criminal charge of contempt.  And there is also constructive contempt, where a party interferes with the administration of justice by being wilfully blind, found in fiduciary law.   If a party knew of a procedural defect and stood by while the court was misled, the conduct meets the definition of contempt, but in fiduciary law it is not called contempt.  It is called failure of the party to correct procedural irregularity, or worse, stands by silently while the court proceeds on incomplete information.  It blows my mind that when you deal with fiduciary law, you cannot talk English, you are required to talk in code, so only a select few know what you are talking about.  This colouring came from the courts of King Henry VIII where if you told the truth, you would be beheaded. Right now, in this time frame of history, it is called the language of the woke. No wonder I am confused and the ordinary person does not understand what the code means. There is no reason for the courts to use code to disquiet dishonest behavior. 

Pintea v. Johns 2017 SCC 23

 Instead of me being given consideration I was disrespected by all the lawyers who used strict practice to deny me access to justice like not allowing me to have adjournments so I could be properly prepared to attend hearings.  The first time was when I hated my brother, a beneficiary, so much that I never wanted him to get his inheritance.  He signed an affidavit.  The legal bill for that affidavit was $1,000 for which I was assessed to pay. No one asked me if I hated my brother. The second time, was because I wanted standing to know what was going on with a passing of accounts, I was wasting the court's time and the lawyers were misaligned. I was assessed costs because they said what I really wanted was to be the administrator and this was a backdoor way of achieving that status. We were at the end of probate and it was a bit late for me to challenge the appointment of the administrator.  Of course, untrue motives mean something negative to say to the court, or else the lawyers would not have put them in the records at considerable legal costs which I was assessed to pay. The rules of court say if yoiu lose, you pay.   

Self-represented parties often identify misconduct that was overlooked, which should have been considered by the court (Pintea v. Johns).  

Why this blog.

 This blog is about my family's greed and how it deprived me of natural justice.  Except for greed, there was no reason to treat me so cruelly.  And it was and it is still cruel.  I was subjected to eight court hearings and they are still not yet satisfied.  None of this was necessary.  I ams urprised that I am still functioning.  When I said to one lawyer I was being denied access to justice, she said I deserved it.  

Post hearing.

 I cannot get over what happened at the hearing on November 7 2025 the hearing to my mind was unfair as I believed that the court would never pass the accounts as there were disputes surrounding some of the expenses.  I believed, the court would pause the process. The expenses have to be reasonable and necessary.  Not discretionary as there is no scope as to what discretionary means. If there is discretion, it means: do you want cream in your coffee? Yes or No. Not we are going to buy you a coffee plantation so you can have fresh ground coffee beans for your morning coffee.  I keep thinking of Somali and how crazy that went.  Here is billions of dollars paid up front and we do not need receipts. No audit. We trust the NGO, it would only act in good faith. The NGO will feed the children.  

Sharp Practice

 In my dealing with the lawyers on the estate, I knew they were doing "sharp practice" but I did not know that it is not allowed and I could lodge a complaint with the Law Society of BC.  

I am fed up with the thinking that the lawyers can psychologically harm you and I can't do anything about it.  Now I can.

The LSBC's Code of Professinal Conduct prohibits "sharp practice" -- tactics that take unfair advantage of another party's ignorance, mistake, or procedural vulnerability."  

What they did to me in October 2025 was calculated harm.  And when I asked for an adjournment as I was not prepared for the November 7 2025 hearing as I did not know I had to be prepared, they refused adding to my harm.  All of them were using a process where the outcome came without any accountability for use of a better word "mismanagement" of thousands and thousands of dollars, to protect their clients from scutiny but not to protect the beneficiaries who lost the benefit of those thousands and thousands of dollars  To reverse the wrong they did, would require an appeal. Who is going to pay $100,000 to a lawyer to make the PGT accountable for its mismanagement.  I am not sure what this is called maybe slight of hand but in their vocabulary I think they call it strategy.  I will never forget the horror of it. My belief in due process shattered.   

cc to Candace Cates

cc to Heather Mathison

cc to Leah Card

cc to PGT

I hate this double talk.  In estates stealing is never referred to as theft but rather misappropriation of funds.  In our culture of "no shame" misappropriation of estate funds is normal.  Why is it normal because there is no real enforcement. It is a fait complete. And the rot can be seen in every probated estate if you look for it.  

Devestation

 I can't get over the devastation I feel over the methods used by the lawyers to deny any responsibility to assist the parties in hiding their culpability to loot my brother's estate and accuse me of defamation.  To them, it is only about the money; to me, it is far more serious; it is using the law to erode the rule of law. But that motivation is trite. I am not a legal academic scholar, so I do not know how to articulate meaningfully what I know is happening.  I know the legal process has to have strict limits, but that is as a last resort, not to be used at the initial contact.  Being told by the lawyers for Jenny and Ron that they were going "to get me" for what, making applications to say that both Jenny and Ron were unsuitable to be administrators.  That is an opinion, not a hate crime. It was a plea on my part that both Jenny and Ron consider that both of them were unqualified to be administrators according to fiduciary law, WESA, Trustee Act, PPA, commonsense.  Both had dealings/history that would make them ineligible. Even a whisper would make them ineligible.  It was a signal that both should withdraw and an independent administrator be appointed. Why is that so difficult to understand.  I look at the forest, they look at the trees.  And not even the PGT objected. 

And I resent being told by Stephanie that my altruism is foolhardy.  

“If the public understood what actually happens inside probate and fiduciary proceedings — including what has happened in my case — their confidence in the system would collapse.”

 “If the public understood what actually happens inside probate and fiduciary proceedings — including what has happened in my case — their confidence in the system would collapse.”