I keep thinking about things that I have forgotten that should have never been forgiven. It is called abuse by design. Battered Woman Syndrome. No one can escape their past.
Saturday, April 11, 2026
Sunday, April 5, 2026
Why WESA needs reforming.
From the internet: British Columbia's robust system was designed under WESA to be simple, family-driven, and minimally adversarial. In practice,it has become one of the most expensive, opaque, and least accountable probate environments in Canada. The result is a system where fiduciary abuse can occur quietly, beneficiaries struggle to obtain basic information, and families face prohibitive barriers when trying to remove or challenge an administrator.
In other words, an unqualified person can by stealth become an administrator, and that person can be protected by a lawyer who can frame the law to defraud beneficiaries of their full inheritance.
Monday, March 30, 2026
Where the f did Heather(PGT) get this from.
Most importantly, the PGT wishes to point out that Ms. Laferriere has already attempted to have the grant of administration to Ms. Mead revoked. She is now, through her standing application, attempting to again take on the role and powers of the administrator. … Ms. Laferriere should not be permitted to obtain through the back door, what she could not obtain through the front door.
from submission to the court when I asked for standing so that I could participate in the passing of accounts of the PGT.
The judge decided I should not participate because the administrator and the public guardian and trustee did not want me to know what is going on. They did not want anyone to scrutinize the spending of millions of dollars. As I am not allowed proof of what the expenses were (invoices and discovery) I cannot determine whether or not the administrator used the estate funds as her personal ATM. There is no law that prevents me from participating in a passing of accounts. If there is, please let me know. 778 689 2276.
Most importantly, the PGT wishes to point out that Ms. Laferriere has already attempted to have the grant of administration to Ms. Mead revoked. She is now, through her standing application, attempting to again take on the role and powers of the administrator. … Ms. Laferriere should not be permitted to obtain through the back door, what she could not obtain through the front door.
Considering that Ms Mead was heavily conflicted, the PGT should have made sure that the court knew of such conflicts as the conflicts were facilitated by the PGT. The administrator cannot approve its own spending. The PGT did not vet expenses, it just signed cheques, providing to the administrator/care giver an open expense account to do what she wants at her discretion under the cloud that the expenses were for the direct benefit of caring for my brother.
Sunday, March 29, 2026
How Estates are drained by those who are suppose to protect them like fiduciaries, lawyers and the PGT
1. The Core Problem: Control Without Immediate Oversight
When someone becomes an administrator (or executor), they gain control over:
Estate bank accounts
Property and assets
Payment decisions
Lawyers then often act as the gatekeepers of process, meaning:
They advise what expenses are “allowed”
They prepare accounts
They frame everything as “reasonable”
The key issue:
Money can be spent long before anyone actually checks whether it should have been spent.
2. The Main Ways Estates Get Drained
(A) Legal Fees That Grow Without Resistance
Lawyers bill the estate, not themselves.
Common patterns:
Endless emails, letters, and “strategy discussions”
Internal file reviews billed repeatedly
Multiple lawyers billing on the same file
Charging for preparing their own invoices or cost submissions
What happens:
The estate becomes a blank cheque unless challenged.
(B) “Administrative Expenses” That Are Never Properly Tested
Administrators can pay expenses and later justify them.
Examples:
Caregiver payments (often inflated or retroactive)
“Companion” or support costs with no contract
Living expenses for people benefiting from the estate
Vehicles, housing, utilities benefiting third parties
The problem:
These are often accepted at a high level (“seems reasonable”) instead of proven.
(C) Conflicted Administrators
This is one of the biggest drivers of abuse.
A conflicted administrator may:
Pay themselves (directly or indirectly)
Allow family members to benefit
Avoid documenting arrangements
Resist independent review
And critically:
Their lawyer may not challenge them — because they are the client.
(D) Lack of Documentation (But Still Approved)
Proper fiduciary law requires:
Proof of necessity
Proof of reasonableness
Proof of benefit to the estate
But what often happens instead:
Spreadsheet summaries instead of receipts
No contracts or agreements
No explanation of why expenses were needed
Yet the accounts still get approved.
(E) “Rough Justice” Instead of Strict Accounting
Courts sometimes take a shortcut approach:
“This looks generally fine”
“No one raised detailed objections”
“The outcome would be the same anyway”
This shifts the burden:
From the fiduciary proving their conduct
To the beneficiary proving wrongdoing
Which is backwards under fiduciary law.
(F) Pressure on Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries often face:
High legal costs if they object
Risk of being ordered to pay costs personally
Being labeled “difficult” or “unreasonable”
So many give up.
3. The Structural Loop That Enables It
Here’s how the system can reinforce itself:
Administrator spends estate money
Lawyer records and frames the spending
Accounts are presented in summary form
Beneficiaries lack documents to challenge
Court defers to “reasonableness”
Costs discourage further objections
Result:
The estate is slowly drained without a single clear “illegal act.”
4. What Fiduciary Law Actually Requires (In Theory)
Under fiduciary law (cases like Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co.):
A fiduciary must:
Act solely in the interest of the beneficiaries
Avoid conflicts of interest
Keep proper accounts
Be ready to prove every expense
The key principle:
“Show me the proof” — not “trust me, it was reasonable.”
5. Where Things Go Wrong in Practice
In reality:
Courts sometimes apply a civil/adversarial mindset
Lawyers treat it like a negotiation, not strict accountability
Oversight bodies (like the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia) may defer rather than scrutinize
So instead of:
Strict fiduciary accounting
You get:
Practical compromise and deference
6. The Bottom Line
Estates are typically drained not by obvious fraud, but by:
Accumulated “reasonable” expenses
Lack of strict proof
Conflicts left unaddressed
Legal fees that compound over time
A system that discourages challenge
7. The One Sentence That Captures It
An estate is drained when fiduciary accountability is replaced with “good enough” reasoning and no one forces proof.
Thursday, March 26, 2026
A red flag. conflicts should not be settled at the passing of accounts.
When a lawyer says "conflicts can be resolved at the passing of accounts," what they are really doing is: (1) protecting their client (the conflicted administrator), (2) protecting their own billing stream, and (3) ignoring their duty to due process and the court. These responses are a red flag. Conflicts must be addressed immediately, not at the end of administration. By waiting until the end of the administration, it can be assured that rushed last-minute extraneous legal fees will be added without time to vet them properly. The beneficiaries just want the probate over with and are willing to let such behaviour succeed, provided they even know they have been blindsided.
Tuesday, March 24, 2026
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.....
Thursday, March 19, 2026
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.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)