Finding a lawyer when the PGT is involved.

 Possible reasons that lawyers refuse to act when the PGT is a party.

1.  Frear of institutional retaliation or reputational risk.

    i) Lawyers worry that opposing the PGT would jeopardize their standing with the courts, other government agencies, or future referrals.

    ii) The PGT is seen as a trusted institutional actor.  Challenging them might be viewed as adversarial or risky, especially if the lawyer relies on goodwill within the legal community.

2. Quiet collusion or professional courtesy.

    i) there maybe unspoken norms.  Do not rock the boat.  Do not challenge the PGT or Don't take on cases that expose systemic failure.

    ii) lawyers may feel pressure not to expose misconduct or negligence by fellow professionals, especially if it implicates fiduciaries, notaries, or other lawyers. Creates "favour clubs."

3. Moral Cowardice.

    i) Sme lawyers simply do not want to confront injustice when it is institutional.  They prefer clean cases, not ones that expose moral collapse of professional complicity.  

Threatening an institution such as the PGT fails vulnerable persons, fiduciaries betray trust, and legal professionals look away.  

-----------------------------

When my trip started I contributed my confusion to those involved lawyers being amateurs, they were not amateurs they were specialized in framing.  And they were good.  Their poisoning made sure that I would never be able to hire a professional.  I was expendible. And who are these lawyers, they are groomers.  They groom with half truths to those who exercise their lives through greed.  In other words, bullies who extend their reach to cohorts who support what they are doing even without knowledge that they are being supportive.   A misplaced comma can destroy your life and your belief system in the legal system.   And now I am thinking of a converstion when Leah discussed with Rule, lawyer from Kelowna, that they were going to get me.  Get me for what.....  

Is the Passing of Accounts an oxymoron.

---

📝 Accountability Without Scrutiny: When Legal Remedies Become an Oxymoron (AI)

At its core, a passing of accounts is supposed to be a moment of accountability.

A fiduciary — whether a trustee, administrator, or the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT) — must show how they managed someone else’s money. Those affected, especially beneficiaries, must be able to review and, if necessary, challenge those accounts.

That is the foundation of fiduciary law.

But what happens when there is approval without scrutiny?

In my case, the fiducariy sought to have its accounts approved under the Patients Property Act (PPA) after the death of the person whose assets were being managed. At that point, an estate existed. Beneficiaries existed. And yet, the process used did not meaningfully allow those beneficiaries to challenge the accounts.

This creates an oxymoron.

It is called a “passing of accounts,” but there is no real passing. There is approval, but no true accountability. There is a legal discharge, but no meaningful scrutiny by those who bear the financial consequences.

In practical terms, this means a fiduciary can be released from responsibility without ever being fully tested by the very people whose inheritance may have been reduced.

That should concern everyone.

Fiduciary law is built on a simple but powerful principle: those who control another person’s property must be able to justify every dollar spent. This safeguard exists to prevent misuse — whether intentional or not — and to ensure transparency in the management of another’s affairs.

But there is a second, deeper problem.

Even where a right to challenge exists in theory, the cost of doing so can be so high that it becomes practically impossible. Legal fees, procedural barriers, and the risk of adverse costs can deter even the most legitimate concerns.

The cost of legal services exposes a serious flaw in access to justice. In estate matters, beneficiaries are often told they have the right to question fiduciary accounts, yet the cost of doing so can be prohibitively high. Contingency fee arrangements are rarely available, and hourly rates can quickly exceed what is at stake. The result is a system where accountability depends not on the merits of the concern, but on the financial means of the person raising it. When the cost of scrutiny is out of reach, accountability itself becomes uncertain — and in some cases, illusory.

Some may argue that judicial review alone is sufficient. But fiduciary law has never depended on passive review. It depends on adversarial testing — the right of affected parties to ask questions, demand explanations, and challenge the evidence.

Without that, the process risks becoming little more than a formality.

This is not just a personal grievance. It is a structural issue.

If legal frameworks allow accounts to be approved without meaningful participation by beneficiaries, and if the cost of challenging those accounts is prohibitively high, then the system begins to contradict itself.

Calling this a “passing of accounts” is, quite simply, an oxymoron.

Because accountability without scrutiny is not accountability at all.

Beneficiaries may have the right to question fiduciary accounts, but when the cost of doing so is prohibitive, that right exists in name only.

If the fiduciary spent money unnecessarily the fiduciary can be surcharged and the the monies reimbursed to the estate. Monies have to be paid for the direct benefit/care of the Person.

Billions of dollars drained from estate by fiduciaries.

The Hidden Drain: How Much Money Disappears Each Year Under Canada’s Fiduciary System?

By [Author Name] From AI

Every year, billions of dollars belonging to elderly Canadians, incapacitated adults, and estates pass through the hands of fiduciaries—trustees, attorneys under power of attorney, committees, and public guardians. These fiduciaries are supposed to protect the vulnerable. They are supposed to safeguard assets. They are supposed to be accountable.

But the truth is far more complicated.

Across the country, fiduciary systems operate behind closed doors, with limited transparency, inconsistent oversight, and procedural shortcuts that would be unthinkable in any other financial sector. The result is a quiet but pervasive form of financial leakage—money that drifts away through fees, administrative decisions, undocumented expenditures, and structural blind spots.

No one knows how much is lost.
No one is measuring it.
And no one is required to.

This is the story of a system designed without feedback loops—and the people who pay the price.

A Billion‑Dollar Blind Spot

Canada’s fiduciary landscape is vast:

• Public guardians manage the property of tens of thousands of adults.
• Private attorneys and committees oversee the finances of aging parents and incapacitated relatives.
• Trustees administer estates worth billions annually.

If even 1% of fiduciary‑managed assets leak through unnecessary fees, undocumented disbursements, or administrative overreach, the annual loss could easily reach hundreds of millions of dollars.

If the leakage is closer to 3–5%, the losses climb into the billions.

These numbers are speculative—but they are not unrealistic. They reflect what happens when large sums of money move through systems with minimal scrutiny.

Where the Money Goes: The Five Mechanisms of Fiduciary Drain

1. Administrative Overcharging

Fiduciaries often bill hourly or charge percentage‑based fees. Without rigorous oversight, these charges can quietly expand.

In many cases, beneficiaries never see the invoices.
In some cases, the fiduciary is the only party that ever sees them.

2. Unsworn or Incomplete Accounts

In several jurisdictions, fiduciaries can submit accounts that are:

• unsworn
• unsupported by receipts
• not filed with a formal application
• not served on beneficiaries

When no one demands documentation, no one knows whether expenditures were necessary, reasonable, or even real.

3. Procedural Shortcuts

Some courts approve accounts through summary processes designed for living adults, not estates. These shortcuts reduce scrutiny and eliminate the structured objection process that probate law normally requires.

The result: fiduciaries receive judicial approval without ever being required to justify specific expenditures.

4. Institutional Deference

Public agencies often receive a level of judicial trust that private actors do not. This can lead to approvals based on institutional reputation rather than evidence.

When courts assume propriety, the burden of proof quietly shifts away from the fiduciary and onto the beneficiaries—contrary to basic fiduciary law.

5. Exclusion of Beneficiaries

Perhaps the most troubling pattern is the exclusion of the very people whose money is at stake.

Beneficiaries are often told:

• they have no standing
• they have no right to object
• they cannot participate
• they cannot see the accounts

When the people harmed are excluded, the harm becomes invisible.

The Systemic Incentive Problem

Fiduciaries operate within a structure where they:

• control the information
• draft the accounts
• choose the level of detail
• decide what to disclose
• and often argue that beneficiaries have no right to question them

This creates a profound incentive imbalance.

In most financial sectors, the party controlling the money is subject to strict oversight. In fiduciary systems, the opposite is often true: the party controlling the money controls the oversight.

This is not a recipe for accountability.
It is a recipe for leakage.

Why No One Knows the True Cost

The most alarming aspect of fiduciary drain is not the leakage itself—it is the absence of measurement.

There is no national audit.
There is no annual report on fiduciary loss.
There is no independent body tracking systemic patterns.
There is no requirement to publish data.

In many cases, the only people who notice irregularities are beneficiaries—and they are often dismissed as “misinformed,” “difficult,” or “lacking standing.”

When the system excludes the people with the most incentive to detect problems, the problems remain undetected.

The Human Cost

Behind every dollar lost is a person:

• an elderly adult whose savings evaporate
• a disabled person whose quality of life diminishes
• a family who inherits less than they should
• a beneficiary who is told they have no right to ask questions

These are not abstract losses.
They are losses that shape lives.

The Coming Crisis

Canada is aging rapidly.
More adults are losing capacity.
More estates are being administered.
More fiduciaries are being appointed.

The volume of assets under fiduciary control is rising every year.
Without reform, the volume of untracked loss will rise with it.

This is not a small problem.
It is a structural one.

Three Reforms That Would Change Everything

1. Mandatory Sworn Accounts

Every fiduciary—public or private—should be required to file sworn accounts with receipts. No exceptions.

2. Guaranteed Participatory Rights

Beneficiaries must have standing.
If their money is at stake, they must have a voice.

3. Independent Oversight

Canada needs an independent fiduciary audit body—external, transparent, and empowered to investigate systemic patterns.

Without these reforms, fiduciary drain will continue unchecked.

The Real Question

The real question is not whether money is being lost.
It is how much, how often, and why no one is measuring it.

Until those questions are answered, fiduciary drain will remain one of the quietest, least examined financial leaks in the country—affecting the elderly, the incapacitated, and the families who inherit what remains.

voiceofgoneballistic.blogspot.com 

Why would a lawyer a do this.

 On January 13, 2025, Leah Card had my brother sign a false affidavit saying that in or about November 2024, during a phone call between Audrey, my wife, Grett, and me, Audrey stated she would fight until there are no monies left in the Estate.  It would have been a long distance call and there would have been a record of it. No record.  Why would Leah draft such an affidavit and said affidavit continued to poison my involvement in the Estate.  It was used to assessed costs against me.  When I asked my brother why did he sign the affidavit he said he did not read it, no one explained it to him, he just signed it wanting the probate over with. It is relatively common for clients to sign affidavits without reading them as they trust their lawyers. I did an application to the court asking that the Grant be revoked because materials were not served on all the parties and then I was faced with that.  At first I just thought Leah did not know what she was doing, but she did, and so did Candace Cates.  It was setting me up so if my application failed they could ask for special costs as my motive was improper. Such behavior was premediated and I ask now how was that permitted by the court.  

Judges have Immunity

 

From the internet.

In Canada, judges have judicial immunity.

A judge cannot be sued or penalized for how they decide a case -- even if they are mistaken in the law, misunderstand the facts, or fail to grasp the seriousness of an issue such as fiduciary breach or self-dealing.

This immunity exists to protect judicial independence, so judges aren't constantly looking over their shoulder, fearing lawsuits.

If a judge makes a wrong legal or factual decision, the only remedy is an appeal or review. Both routes are very expensive, so injustices go unresolved.  

Those who abuse go on to abuse others, and the victims are silenced by prohibitive cost assessments and their reputations damaged, never to be repaired because a judge made a mistake.  

And lawyers:  Law Society of BC Rule 5.1-2 (Duty to the court) obliges a lawyer not to mislead the Court by silence when aware of facts that could affect the outcome.  AND who decides if facts privy to the lawyer could affect the outcome.  

Procedural Ambush

 I could not understand why I was treated so badly by everyone even the courts.  I was told it is common for lawyers to engage in procedural ambush (unfairness) from the beginning. They will do whatever to make you look bad and wreck your confidence. It is gaslighting. 

I can see this happening in regular court litigation (maybe) but not in estate litigation.  I want to know why they did this.  

I remember my sister phoning me saying her lawyer (Shahdin) and my brother's lawyer (Leah) were going to get me.  Jenny told me to be careful.  I thought it strange.  These are professional women with children, why would they speak like that? Get what.  

Lost of Public Trust, we saw it with Covid and it is/was continuing in estates. Beneficiaries lose millions/billions of dollars each year, by "leakage." The word that is used for estate theft.

from the internet. 

---

When Fiduciary Duties Fail in Practice: Why Public Trust in the Legal System Is Eroding

Most people grow up believing that the law is a stable, reliable system — that judges apply the rules consistently, that government bodies act in the public interest, and that fiduciaries are held to the highest standards of accountability. But when you step inside the machinery of the legal system, especially as an ordinary citizen without a lawyer, you quickly discover a very different reality. The gap between what the law promises and how it actually operates is wide enough to swallow public trust whole.

One of the clearest examples of this gap appears in cases involving fiduciaries — especially government fiduciaries like the Public Guardian and Trustee. On paper, fiduciary law is one of the strictest areas of the common law. It requires complete transparency, full accounting, loyalty, and fairness. It reverses the usual burden of proof: the fiduciary must justify its actions, not the beneficiary. These rules exist to protect vulnerable people from being taken advantage of by those who manage their money or make decisions on their behalf.

But in practice, these protections often evaporate the moment the fiduciary is a government institution.

Instead of applying strict scrutiny, many judges and lawyers treat statutory bodies as inherently trustworthy. The assumption is that a government fiduciary is neutral, objective, and incapable of meaningful error. This belief is not grounded in law — it is grounded in institutional culture. And it has real consequences. When a beneficiary raises concerns about missing documents, incomplete accounts, or procedural unfairness, the response is often a shrug. The institution is presumed correct; the citizen is presumed mistaken.

This dynamic creates a structural imbalance that the public rarely sees until they are caught in it. Fiduciary duties, which should protect the beneficiary, end up protecting the institution instead. Procedural fairness, which should be the foundation of every legal process, becomes optional. And the ordinary person — the one the law is supposed to protect — is left feeling unheard, dismissed, and powerless.

The erosion of public trust doesn’t come from dramatic scandals. It comes from these quiet, everyday failures of accountability. It comes from courts treating government actors as infallible. It comes from lawyers who decline to challenge institutional decisions because they believe it is futile. It comes from a legal culture that prioritizes efficiency and deference over scrutiny and fairness.

The tragedy is that the law itself is not the problem. Fiduciary principles are clear, powerful, and protective. Procedural fairness is a cornerstone of justice. The problem is the disconnect between doctrine and practice — a disconnect that the public is never told about, but experiences firsthand when they try to assert their rights.

Restoring public trust requires more than repeating that “the system works.” It requires acknowledging where it doesn’t. It requires judges to apply fiduciary duties consistently, even when the fiduciary is a government body. It requires lawyers to challenge institutional assumptions instead of reinforcing them. And it requires transparency — not just in legal doctrine, but in how the system actually functions.

Ordinary citizens can trust the law only when the law is applied as written, not as assumed. Accountability is not a threat to institutions; it is what keeps them legitimate. And until fiduciary duties are honoured in practice, not just in textbooks, public trust will continue to erode — not because people misunderstand the law, but because they understand all too well how it fails them.

---