A Billion Dollar Blind Spot

 Why I am doing this.

Canada's fiduciary landscape is vast:

- public guardians manage the property of tens of thousands of adults without receipts

- private attorneys and committees oversee the finances of aging parents and incapacited relations

- trustees administrer esates worth billions annually.

If 1% of fiduciary managed assets leak through unnecessay fees, undocumented disbursements, or administrative overreach, the annual loss could reach hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

And my experience has been that lawyers direct administrators to fully take advantage of their positions enforcing the justification that they are entitled. The entitled part comes from admistrators enriching themselves by self dealing.  

Fiduciary systems operate behind closed doors, with limited transparecny, inconsistent oversight, and procedural shortcuts that would be untinkable in any other financial sector.  Money drifts away through fees, administrative decisions, undocumented expenditures, and structural blind sports.  

Hidden Anarchy: Bad behavior becomes acceptable

 An essay.

An Ancient Problem: When Harm Is Allowed to Repeat Itself

There is nothing new about this problem. It is as old as human society.

Human beings have always struggled with what happens when power is exercised without accountability. When wrongdoing is ignored, hidden, excused, or treated with indifference, the danger is that it becomes easier for the same kind of wrongdoing to happen again.

We see this throughout human history. Abuse can remain hidden for years because people are silent, because those affected are afraid to speak, or because institutions find it easier not to look too closely. Silence does not necessarily cause the original wrong, but it can create the conditions in which wrongdoing continues.

The same principle applies to money and fiduciary power.

If a person entrusted with another person’s property learns that questionable spending will not be seriously examined, the lesson is not that the law is strong. The lesson is that nobody is watching.

And other people watching the system may learn the same lesson.

That is how standards deteriorate. One shortcut becomes accepted practice. Accepted practice becomes tradition. Tradition eventually becomes something nobody thinks to question.

The law may still be written in the books, but human behaviour has moved around it. Fiduciary trust has drifted to catch me if you can and if you do catch me what are you going to do about it. Appealing is an oxymoron. And those that do wrong and scarcastically tell you to appeal know you never will so bad behavior is sweeped under the carpet or flouted. These options are insidious and insulting.  

This is why accountability matters. It is not simply about punishing somebody after something has gone wrong. Accountability tells everyone else where the boundary is.

Without that boundary, society risks entering a cycle in which harm produces more harm, silence protects the wrongdoing, and indifference allows it to become normal.

That is the ancient danger behind what is hidden anarchy:

Wrongdoing does not have to be openly permitted. It only has to become something nobody is willing or able to stop. And it can repeat over and over so its appears to be normal.  

  

A Second System of Law

 The paradox I am involved.  Committees can apportion funds for their own use and the cost to force them to account is too expensive. I was just talking to a woman and the same thing happened to her mother's estate. The committee drained the estate. So I am not an outlier.  The most insideous of this behavior is most beneficiaries do not even know they were fleeced.  

From an essay off the internet.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation: A second system of law

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

Losing its meaning for the ordincary person, is losing respect for the law, losing respect for the law means stealth anarchy.

I love the word "stealth." It means corruption under the radar.  Corruption does not have to mean criminal, it also means civil corruption: doing something you should not do.  

  

 

Why.

 This whole scenario is over the PGT allowing my sister who was my brother's caregiver while he was alive the ability to use my brother's money as a ATM.  

Initially Jenny was the committee of estate to my brother estate but was removed by the PGT for questionable expenses so the PGT became the committee of estate but Jenny continued as my brother's caregiver with an open cheque book as long as expenses were for the direct care of my brother.  Direct does not mean that she could mix use a $100,000 transport van.  Under strict fiduciary law apportionment of assets are not allowed. And the PGT allowed invoices to pass without proper vetting or no invoices at all.  Jenny was a good person so she would never do anything untoward to the estate.  

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."