Money, money, money

 I was going over the estate file.  There it was screaming at me.  Jenny, in 2022, purchased a van with a customized electric wheelchair lift.  With taxes and everything it was $100,000.  Why was that necessary when my brother was mobile.  But then it is easier for a caregiver to restrain him in a wheelchair than to deal with someone who is stubborn.  Chain him into a wheelchair and off you go. I understand that.

But what I do not understand is why the PGT allowed this $100,000 asset to depreciate over 2.5 years to $40,000.  The PGT should have arranged to sell the van immediately upon death of my brother.  When I researched in 2023 the van and the wheelchair lift, I was told that a customized van does not depreciate.  They are in high demand, so how was it being sold for $40,000 to someone in Alberta.  

The point is that asset should have been sold in 2022 by the PGT as she was the person in charge of the estate, therefore the PGT owes the estate $60,000 for not selling the van in a timely matter with the estate incurring a $60,000 loss. The question also is who was using the van after my brother died.  I can't ask my sister because her lawyer won't let her talk to me. Apparently her adult daughter was using it in 2025 as she had it tuned up prior to its sale.  It really does not matter who used what or when, the PGT owes the estate $60,000.

Then we got Candace the lawyer for my sister, the administrator of the estate.  Why didn't Candace go after the $60,000. It was a recoverable debt to the estate. It was her job to get the money from the PGT. And it was also Candace's job to make sure that the PGT collected the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the Estate plus interest.  How many other transactions were also not documented.  

In fact Candace told my sister to take no issue to the debt (see passing of accounts application).  In other words the Estate gifted the PGT $60,000. Remember the money belongs to the beneficiaries. And Candace and Heather are best besties.  They both agreed that beneficiaries have no rights.  

I did a court application asking for standing to participate in the PGT's passing of accounts application and the lawyers opposed it and the Court agreed. They with their half truths convinced the judge at the hearing that I had no rights.   The litigators said that the PPA, the Patients Property Act,  had jurisdiction.  Not true.  After death the property has to be passed by probate which guarantees beneficiaries rights to question all transaction pre and post death of the Person and expect reimbursement of monies to the estate if an expense was not reasonable, necessary or for the direct benefit of the Person. 

The Court made a mistake. There is no such thing as the administrator should get additional compensation because of her "kindness of living on the property ... no doubt she enjoyed living on the rural property and had some benefit from it."   That means to me any caregiver can drain an estate because she is kind.  It is there in black and white Reasons November 7 2025.  And then the court goes on to say that beneficiaries are not entitled to test the expenses because it might be a long drawn-out process. Well, then what is the point of the passing of the accounts.  To me the court is saying its role is to "rubber stamp" 597 pages of transactions without independent scrutiny.  

The Estate is owned by four beneficiaries, and Candace cannot gift anything on behalf of the administrator or anyone else.  And Heather cannot produce a lawful application without disclosing debts owed by the PGT to the Estate. But she did.  The PGT produced a spreadsheet with $8 million of transactions saying to the Court trust me.

This Estate reminds of a shell game.  No one knows or sees where the 'pea' lands.   

Definition from the internet. A police state usually depends on a combination of concentrated state power, weak independent oversight, limited ability to challenge officials, surveillance or intimidation, and secrecy about how decisions are made. When only authorities know the evidence, criteria, internal communications, or reasons for action, it becomes much harder for ordinary people to test whether power is being exercised lawfully. Mirrors the PGT.  Coersive consent.  PGT overreach. 

Half Truths or Narrative Enrichment

 I am extremely upset over the fact that the courts allow half truths in proceedings.  It is nauseating.  When a judge asks a lawyer what is the "silver bullet" to understand a statute, the lawyer in this case Heather shows him the statute that says that the accounts have to be delivered to the administrator.  She just neglects to show him the part that says if the administrator is in conflict then the accounts have to be delivered to the beneficiaries.  Half truths are permitted to my nauseatation.  I always believed that such juvenile behavior did not belong in the courts.  

Another illustration I asked Candace about the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the estate and she said that will not be discussed until the final disposition.  I have been asking her for this for over a year.  My research has been that such disclosure should have been made even before Jenny became the administrator.  But Candace just ignores the law.  Why because she can.  If a lawyer waits to the last minute, the beneficiaries are fed up and they will just agree to any compromise that is unjust just to get the probate over with.  In this case we are talking about 2.5 years of occupation rent at a market rate of $5,000 a month.  The rent covers a rural property with a 4,000 square foot home fully air conditioned in Kamloops, with a swimming pool, and 20 acres of property sloping gently down to a creek.  The property was purchased from monies from the estate so that the administrator had a place to board her four horses for free. This was one of the half truths  (omissions) Heather/Candace did not tell the Justice on November 7.  A passing of accounts has to tell exactly how money was spent (who was being enriched). Such evidence was totally absent at the hearing and also in the 597 pages of transactions submitted to the court. This was fucking outrageous.  I do not have time to go into detail but I will when I have additional time. There is something terribly wrong with our judicial system that allows this.  No wonder it is so expensive when the lawyers spend hours extracting how to present their half-lies.  They are not called lies, they are called omissions.  What I do not understand is why my sister is allowing her lawyer to do it.  And I also want to know why the PGT is allowing its lawyer to do it as well.  That is not a fair playing field.  It is a waste of time and such omisisons do influence court decisions.  I did not know this but judges are not expected to know the law; it is legal for them to defer to the truth of the lawyers for the interpretation of laws. No independent analysis.  And the lawyers rely on this ignorance and they exploit it.  

An example of a half truth.  The swimming pool.  It was purchased for my brother for therapy.  But Jenny decided she needed a fenced area for her "animals" so she had the estate spent $4,000 to have it filled in and have 2,000 square feet fenced in so her animals had a place to play.  And she had more than one animal. The house was like a zoo. 

The narrative enrichment was when Candace/Heather were going on and on about Jenny deserving additional compensation.  Compensation to drain the estate for her own use or maybe the animals were only for the benefit of my brother.  Take that to the fiduciary court.

Now I see what the problem is.  It is Dana Kingsbury, who is the PGT.  She is a dictator.  She does not even have a board of directors to account to.  Horror upon horror.  You can compare her office as that of a police state.  No wonder lawyers are afraid of her.  I have been also been told by others who were badly treated by the PGT to also be afraid. I just checked on the internet; it does not take a rocket scientist to know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What has happened is administrative law has overtaken commonsense. 

A paragraph from my affidavit of January 10 2025.

36. I told the beneficiaries that if they wanted to gift Jenny the rents due and owing they could 

do it independently from their share of their inheritances. Again, I was ghosted. For me this isn't 

only about the money, it is about the unethical stealth way the probate was being done. I expected 

honesty from the beneficiaries and due process from the lawyers. What I got was uncertainty, 

stress, and betrayal, distrust of the legal process, and the lost of all hope of any meaningful 

reunion with family members going forward.

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.