BCCA Oral Reassons June 24 2026 CA51193

 These Reaons do not dispute the fact that the PGT cannot pass its accounts using the PPA Patient's Property Act to pass the PGT's accounts.  The accounts have to be passed under Probate laws, after the Patient is dead. The Reasons agreed with what Justice Crerar decided in November 7 2025 wherein the PPA was the correct pathway to pass the PGT's accounts.  But Supreme Rule 25.13 says it is the only mandatgory pathway where accounts of committees can pass.  See 24(2).  The PGT was wrong, Justice Greer was wrong. The BCCA was wrong. And nothing in the Reasons speculated otherwise.   

The PGT wanted its accounts hidden within the PPA so it (the PGT) would be void of any liability for it allowing unfiduciary accounts to be paid.  Since there were 597 pages of items/expenses X 10 items a page, that is 5970 accounts that had to be scrutined but not one was. It is statisically impossible for all the items to pass inspection. They were summarized in a computer transaction spreadsheet only for the eyes of the administrator.  The administrator took no position and later she declined her authority to test the accounts.  Exactly what the PGT wanted.  Now all the PGT had to do was rush an application for summarily approval to a supreme court judge who would rubber stamp the 5976 entries. Such approvals are routine when the PGT is the committee as Courts defer to government actors. The PGT had finality, an Order that no one could touch. 

All the parties are free from surcharges except the beneficiaries who pay for the errors as their inheritences have to eat the losses.

   

the Sickos

 On Monday I attended at the courthouse to do some research and I walked the hall on the third floor and looked in on all the courtrooms.  I was looking for security presence.  There was none.  I asked a security guard why weren't there guards in any of the courtrooms.  He said they only attend if they are requested by counsel. 

Three times on three different hearings there were security guards when I had to attend a hearing. 

I am fed up with Heather Matheson and Candace Cates. They are sickos.  Considering how unprofessionally I have been treated by them, they did it deliberately as it would say to the judges indirectly that there are big problems as these woke lawyers were fearful for their person.  I do not know how else to describe their behavior except as SICKO.

I can understand Candace doing that because she is from the sticks. But the other one works for the Public Guardian and Trustee ... but then maybe that is how the PGT gets parties to consent to what the PGT wants using such intimination to get consent for relocating vulnerable seniors who do not want to be relocated.   

to launder or not to launder

 I was told not to say that the PGT used the Patient's Property Act to administratively laundry its accounts.  The correct wording is the PGT used a "closed accounting route" to pass its accounts.

It is about as dumb as saying that a shoplifter is not a thief but rather an "opportunist."

Lawyers follow the law rather than think the law.

 I had a short nap and upon waking, this was in my head:  lawyers follow the law, they do not think the law.  That is what they do they do not think the law, they do not think how it should be, they just follow what the past said.  It is like they are on autopilot.  It has been done like that for years or decades, and that is the law.  But following the law, is only one part of the law, it has to be tempered with what the intent of the law is. For example, I was perplexed when I found out the form P2 was not served on me or any interested party containing the materials for the appointment of my sister to be the administrator of my brother's estate.  A form P1 was served on the beneficiaries, but it was only a Notice saying my sister was wanting to be the applicant.  At that time I really did not understand what was going on but it seemed to be that she jumped the line. And she did.  What happened her lawyer filed the P2 without serving it on any of the beneficiaries, those that should know what is going on, and my sister became the administrator.  The only problem with that was that she was heavily conflicted and she was totally uneducated to know what is expected of an administrator. Her conflict was that she owed at that time 1.5 years of rent to the estate, so she was a debtor to the estate. Now, she still owes 2.5 years of rent. How her lawyer got around this conflict was to send an estate settlement agreement to all the beneficiaries in the hope that the beneficiaaries would be stupid enough to sign an ESA that had no market value of the rent in it. That did not work and then her  lawyer said it would be discussed at the passing of accounts.  With "cost intimidation" hanging over the beneficiaries. Jenny will claim that she was the caretaker of the property and to go to court to have the court say it is nonsense would cost more legal fees, the beneficiaries would just sign off to make sure that they get what is their "sure" inheritance: the money that is in the bank.  So she gets a windfall of 2.5 free rent plus her share of the estate.  That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the beneficiaries.  And it is not fair, and it is not legal under estate law. In addition to her share of the inheritence, free rent for 2.5 years, she also gets 5% remuneration for being the administrator. Jenny's prime goal was to communicate with the beneficiaries and as far as I can tell, she never communicated with anyone because she never communicated with me.  Candace was running the estate.  And Candace is making sure her fee includes every single paperclip she used. One of the disbursements she included in her invoice of October was $800 for photocopies.  What photocopies, everything is done paperlessly.  Maybe it was for legal research, researching what. Doing research is not necessary as that is her job to know how best to administer an esate.  It is a simple estate, one piece of property, one vehicle, and a monies in a trust account.  

The problem is when an unqualifed administrator gets the Grant to be administrator, it is extremely difficult to have that person removed unless that person resigns.  But that is not going to happen when the lawyer for the adminisrator is looking at the long road, the continuous fee for creating a situation that should not have happened in the first place.  Candace should have told Jenny that since there is a whisper of conflict that Jenny should resign.  And an independent person who has no conflicts be appointed. Lawyers are not supposed to create litigation but she did.  

Invoice from Candace October 22 2025 $ 83,370.37

 I am reviewing some of the items and how they are "groomed" so the other beneficiaries know why the invoice is so egregious.

 During October 2025 it was a very stressful time.  I was facing three court applications, one very, very, very heavy on how to respond to 597 pages of accounts. 

 During that time I received an email from Candace advising that she will oppose further delay and will seek costs against me if matters are adjourned, and that I sais all the lawyers involved are slimy.  Yes and every single time all my requests for adjournments were denied.  It is near impossible to meet court deadlines if you are a self-litigant. And why I am a self-litigant is because the lawyers I approach call the other lawyers under confidentiality before they accept my case because they belong to the favour club of lawyers. They do not want potentially problem clients.  

And the comment.  And that all the lawyers involved are slimy.  I know I did not say that and Candace never attached the email of me saying that.  If I had something to say against the lawyers associated with this "simple" estate it would be worse than SLIMY. 

From invoice: email October 16 2025 $80.00.  Email to Audrey Laferriere advising Estate will oppose further dalay and will seek costs against her if matters are adjourned, and that all the lawyers involved are slimy.      $80 is a week's groceries including toilet paper.  

I am not blaming Candace; I am blaming all the beneficiaries, my blood relatives, who are telling Candace what to do. But we all know that is not true, lawyers tell clients what to do.  Because if you do not do what a lawyer wants, the lawyer quits.  

Heather Matheson and Costs

 On June 3 2026 at a hearing for me asking for an adjournment which her client the Public Guardian and Trustee refused to give me, I noticed when leaving the courtroom a security guard was shielding her as if I was a threat to her body.  Outside the courtroom I asked her why did she need a security guard.  She said that she did not have to talk to me.  Today this situation came up again and her reply in an email was Please know that these kinds of communications will be placed before the court when we make our application for special costs.  She gets a personal body guard at the expense of the Province. The PGT authorized it. What special costs it was a simple applciation for an adjournment.  It did not even require her attendance. But she produced a 100 page affidavit to convince the judge that I should not be granted any adjournment.  At that time I felt that I needed extra time as I was a self representative and needed to prepare properly for oral submissions on June 24. The chamber's judge said that he could not accommodate me as the question of an adjournment was out of his hands.  It rested solely with the registrar of scheduling as per the appeal rules. The point is Heather was a lawyer and she knew that a chamber's judge had no jurisdiction and she could have told me that but NO that wasn't her job. Her job was to incur costs including the kitchen sink to prove she can get special costs so her whole fee to the PGT is covered.  There are different levels of costs when you go to go.  Ordinary costs which are reasonable and then there are special costs which include every paperclip.  Special costs go beyond required costs to include every minute a lawyer deicates to a file.  Special costs are supposed to be for outrageous conduct like not telling the truth to a judge, producing fraudulent documents. The PGT push for special costs so they do not want to pay their lawyers for doing what is not absolutely necessary. And invariably the person fearing additional costs just pays.  It is called litigation strategy. June 3 wasn't the first time a sheriff was in the courtroom, it was the third time. Sheriffs do not attend civil hearings unless requested. Their presence is a subtle intimidation tactic and a credibility‑shaping signal to a judge. It is a sick game lawyers play. The first time was in 2024 when my sister phoned to warn me that Rule and Leah Card were out to get me and for me to be careful.  What is wrong with these sicko lawyers. 

Bernie Madoff: The Man Who Stole $65 Billion and Made Everyone Thank Him

Rule of Law

 from ourstoprotect.ca

What is the rule of law?

In short, the rule of law means that laws — not individuals — govern Canada. It means nobody is above the law. Laws must be clear, fair, and applied equally by courts that are independent from the government. And the rights and freedoms of Canadians must be protected under those laws.

This principle shapes our everyday lives, from our ability to speak freely, to knowing that our justice system is designed to treat everyone as equals. In places where the rule of law is strong, we find thriving communities, stronger economies, better education, greater peace, and longer life expectancy.

But today, the rule of law is under pressure — around the world and here in Canada. Fewer than half of Canadians trust that our justice system works as intended, and more than two-thirds worry that political interference could begin to shape our courts.

None of us should take the rule of law for granted. Protecting our rights takes education, awareness, and a commitment to fairness from all of us. Together, we can keep Canada’s rule of law strong. It’s ours to protect.