I just received documentation from the lawyer for the PGT (May 29 2026). Upon the instructions of the PGT, she has issued a Response to my Form 4 asking that the hearing scheduled for June 24 not be adjourned for multiple reasons. I was causing unnecessary delay. There was also an 87-page affidavit. You should see the rubbish the affidavit has. They never said that I was after money, just that I hated my brother and I did not want him to get his inheritance. If he never got his inheritance, I would not get mine either.
The served documentation did not include my answer Form 4 to the court filed May 19 2026, an inconvenient truth for thePGT.
Heather's response in paragraph 30 is "The Respondents appreciate that this may be complex and stressful for the Appellant, and she ought to have some time to prepare. But this is her choice to pursue these matter in court and there should not be unreasonable delay." Isn't that a dumb statement, that I should be unduly stressed over what the PGT did and would not remedy. It is the PGT who should be on trial here, not me. And to any delay I can argue the delay was caused by the administrator and her lawyer and then the lawyer for the PGT. A recent delay was sending out a statement of account. This was done in February 2025 and yet the PGT did not file its application until October 8 2025. That same statement could have been provided June 28 2024, being the day after the Grant was issued. Mussio said that the PGT is as slow as molasses and now I am being accused of delaying everything. The beneficiaries were given an interim distribution of their inheritances and Candace Cates was paid $83,000 her interim invoice for her professional fees. No one was hurting.
It was not my choice to get involved; it was my duty to get involved. Fiducary law (Estate law)was being abused. And my sister initially wanted me to become the administrator then she changed her mind after she hired Candace Cates to be her lawyer. I agreed that if my sister changed her mind, we could coadministrer. On August 15 2023 I served my P1 form by registered mail on all the beneficiaries: Jenny Mead, Ron Popove, Stephanie Willett, Natalie Willett, and the PGT. No one told me that they opposed my application, least of all Jenny. We had renewed our distant relationship. That is what you do when you reach the end of life, you forgive and reach out to your estranged family.
It was NINE months later after Jenny hired Candace Cates that I was advised of the popularity contest. Lawyer only want to deal with one administrator, preferrably someone who has no idea what fiduciary duties mean.
For decades, the PGT allowed my sister to use the PGT as her once-removed personal ATM to apportion assets from my brother's estate for her own use. By using the Patient's Property Act the PGT escaped being accountable for any lack of oversight. And unless the appeal is set aside (the Order of Justice Crerar November 7 2026) the expenses will not be tested as to whether or not they were necessary. If expenses were not necessary the PGT could be required to reimburse the estate for the PGT's failure to do its job. Using a PPA loophole is what the PGT uses to settle most of its estates.
My sister was part of the rodeo circuit which is a very expensive hobby. She would siphon whatever she needed from the estate by claiming it was for my brother. My brother did not even like horses. When she was committee of the estate and my brother's caregiver, she purchased a 20-acre rural property to augment her lifestyle and board her numerous horses. When my mother was alive, she would care for my brother and after my mother died, she had the PGT pay a companion up to $8,000 a month so she had time to groom her horses. When you spoke to her she would complain she was struggling financially. She had a $100,000 horse trailer parked in front of the house. The property had a 4,000 square foot fully finished two level home on it. She was my brother's caregiver and lived there rent free, she never had to pay for a light bulb. When she purchased the house, there was a swimming pool on it for my brother's use, and she had it filled-in and a construction fence installed enclosing 2,000 square feet so her other animals had somewhere to be. She had a lot of animals. Prior to purchasing the rural property, my brother owned a home in Kamloops proper. There he was close to the amenities a person with a disability should have.
Even telling the Respondents of my disabilities (age being foremost) they did not care. What cruelty. They had arranged their Reply to my application to adjourn the appeal, weeks in advance. The minute I objected to their preemptory condition for the September 8, 2026 hearing, they filed the package in the court registry and delivered it to me within one hour. I could not agree to a preemptory condition as I could not know what the future is. And there is not rush for the PGT to pass its accounts. All the monies were paid out and all they are doing is trying to prevent me from being prepared for the appeal hearing. The reason for the 87 page affidavit. The way the PGT has structured the probate is that the PGT is separate from the estate hearing. There is nothing stopping the administrator from paying out the rest of the monies and keeping a holdback for taxes.
And I note on page 4 the PGT wants the costs of this adjournment be awarded to the Respondents payable in any event ot he cause which means even if the chamber's judge allows the matter to be heard after the summer court recess, that I should pay for everyone's costs as well. That means they want me to pay for the 87 page affidavit discrediting me. Let's talk about the lawyers: Heather Matheson, Candace Cates, Leah Card, Wes Mussio and Stan Rule.
Court of Appeal File No. CA 51193
Laferriere v PGT and Mead
Affidavit of Audrey Laferriere
COURT OF APPEAL
ON APPEAL FROM the
orders of the Honourable Justice Crerar of the Supreme Court of British
Columbia pronounced on November 7, 2025.
BETWEEN:
Audrey Laferriere
APPELLANT
Applicant
A N D:
The Public Guardian and Trustee and Genevieve Gail
Mead
RESPONDENTS
PGT Applicant and Application Respondent
Ms. Mead Application Respondent
AFFIDAVIT
Application to Vary Registrar’s Direction Setting
Appeal Hearing Date
I, AUDREY
LAFERRIERE, of the City of Vancouver, in the Province of British Columbia, MAKE
OATH AND SAY AS FOLLOWS:
1. I am the appellant in this appeal. I am
self-represented.
2. I make this affidavit in support of my Form
4 application to vary the Registrar’s direction dated May 11, 2026, which set
the appeal hearing for June 24, 2026 in Vancouver.
3. Except where I state otherwise, the facts in
this affidavit are within my personal knowledge. Where I refer to information
received from others or from court correspondence, I believe that information
to be true.
4. I am not bringing this application for
delay. I am asking for a realistic hearing date so that I can prepare focused
oral submissions and meaningfully assist the Court.
The Registrar’s Direction
5. By letter dated May 11, 2026, Registrar
Outerbridge directed that this appeal be set for hearing in Vancouver on June
24, 2026 for one full day. A copy of the May 11, 2026 letter is attached as
Exhibit “A”.
6. In that letter, the Registrar stated that
the appeal had been ready for hearing since April 21, 2026.
7. The Registrar also stated that “the parties
would have more than two months to prepare for oral argument, and that this was
entirely reasonable even if the appeal were characterized as particularly
complex. Indeed, that amount of
preparation time is at the outer limit of what ordinarily be afforded to a
self-represented litigant in comparable circumstances”. This is a general policy statement.
7.1 The appeal has to be assessed as to
proportionality to the importance and the complexity of the appeal. This appeal raises a significant legal issue
with far-reaching consequences for estate law, the authority of the Public
Guardian and Trustee, and the rights of beneficiaries. I cannot be constrained by what might be
‘ordinarily’ afforded to a self-represented litigant in a routine matter. Because the consequences are significant,
proportionality requires more time, more care, more preparation, and more
procedural fairness.
8. I understand that the Registrar made a
scheduling direction based on the information then before him. I attach my
email letter Exhibit “B” dated May 9 2026.
9. I ask the Court to consider the hearing date
on the fuller information now before the Court, including my actual usable
preparation time, my personal circumstances, and the volume and complexity of
the appeal materials.
Actual Usable
Preparation Time
10. The calendar period from April 21, 2026 to
June 24, 2026 does not reflect my actual usable preparation time.
11. Until May 5, 2026, I was preparing for and
attending a separate Supreme Court hearing.
12. Preparing for that May 5, 2026 hearing
required significant time and attention. I could not devote that period to preparing
for this Court of Appeal hearing.
13. After the May 5, 2026 hearing, I had personal tasks
that demanded my attention and I had to address the June 24, 2026 hearing date,
which I had objected to because of a private commitment and because I knew I
required more time to prepare.
13.1 Originally the hearing was to have been in
Kamloops with a tentative date in September 2026. I was agreeable to this as I believed
I would then have enough time to fully prepare for the appeal hearing. I did not know that the hearing could be moved
to Vancouver as it was a Kamloops file. But,
the Respondents without my knowledge decided that it would be more convenient for me, because of my
age, not to suffer a bus ride to Kamloops and to have the hearing in Vancouver.
14. I also had to prepare this Form 4 application,
this affidavit, a written argument, arrange filing and service, and prepare for
the June 3 2026 chambers hearing.
15. As of approximately May 18, 2026, only about
five calendar weeks remained before the June 24, 2026 appeal hearing.
16. Those five weeks are not five full weeks of
uninterrupted appeal preparation.
17. If this application is not granted at the June
3, 2026 chambers hearing, only approximately three weeks will remain before the
appeal hearing.
18. I do not believe that the remaining time would
be a meaningful preparation period so that I can be truly prepared for the oral
submissions at the hearing of the appeal.
My Personal
Circumstances
19. I am self-represented. I do not have legal training, legal staff, or
appellate experience.
20. I am 80 years old which alone is a
disadvantage and I have dyslexia. I have
always had dyslexia but I have learned to cope with it and it is normal for me.
Dyslexia affects reading, writing and
processing. Advanced age causes
cognitive changes (slower processing speed and working memory declines
including difficulty recalling names, dates and information). At age 80 it takes me longer to remember
basic information and I have difficulty recalling things compared to when I was
younger.
20.1
With dyslexia, advanced age, and stress, the combination is compounding and
cumulative, meaning each one makes the other worse: dyslexia makes reading and
processing slower; advanced age slows processing speed and working memory;
stress diverts brain resources to “fight or flight” and impairs reasoning. Together they create a multiplier effect
where cognitive abilities are significantly more impaired than any single
factor alone. The is not just “harder,”
it’s a systemic barrier to meaningfully participating in a complex legal
appeal.
21. My dyslexia substantially increases the time I
require to read, process, organize, cross-reference, check, and accurately
present legal materials. Because of my
dyslexia I need extra time to produce results that a younger person could do in
a far less time frame without frustration.
22. I am also experiencing severe litigation
stress and anxiety arising from the pressure of these proceedings making
deadlines hard to keep. The stress
impairs my concentration, decision making and ability to focus on dense legal
documents.
23. That stress affects my concentration, reading
stamina, processing speed, and ability to organize complex material.
24. I have made efforts to retain appellate
counsel, but those efforts have not resulted in counsel being available to act
for me in time for this appeal hearing.
Appellant lawyers are limited by time and in what cases they do narrowing
their availability. This is an access to
justice issue.
25. I must therefore reluctantly continue to prepare
the appeal without legal assistance.
Nature and Volume
of the Appeal Materials
26. The appeal requires me to review the appeal
record, appeal book, orders under appeal, reasons below, respondents’ factums,
authorities, transcripts, relief sought, and likely questions from the appeal
panel. I will have to review all the materials more than once maybe three or
four times to gain a comfort level with them.
27. The appeal
concerns whether the Public Guardian and Trustee properly passed its
committee-of-estate accounts after death under the Patients Property Act rather
than under the estate/probate framework. This is a highly specialized area of law, and
I require additional time to ensure my argument is as complete and
well-supported as possible.
28. The appeal also involves issues of statutory
interpretation, fiduciary accounting, beneficiary participation, standing,
procedural fairness, registrar scrutiny, and costs.
29. The underlying accounting material is
substantial. One accounting document is 597 pages.
30. On May 15 2026 I received from the Respondents:
1144 pages of Authorities, including 40
cases, which I must review and understand sufficiently to prepare meaningful
oral submissions. Reading case law is
very time consuming; for comprehension it can’t be done in one read. It might take 2 or 3 times.
30.1
It took me four minutes to read one page p. 819 of the Baker v Canada case on
procedural fairness. Reading Conroy v
Stokes one page p. 126 took me 3 minutes.
At the end of each read I will have to clarify what many
words/references mean. Reading case law, is like a rabbit hole, an endless
spiral, where it can consume you 24/7 leaving you confused and overwhelmed. Unless you are a trained professional a
self-litigant does not know when to stop. This rabbit hole isn’t specific to case law,
it is to every single litigation pleading.
31. The respondents’ positions require me to
identify the precise alleged errors below, prepare page references, respond to
the respondents’ arguments, organize authorities, and avoid rearguing matters
outside the appeal issues. The Respondent PGT said that the case was complex.
32. The Registrar’s letter states that submissions
must remain narrowly focused on the errors I allege were made below.
33. That requirement increases, rather than
reduces, the need for careful preparation because I must narrow the issues
accurately and present them efficiently.
34. Without sufficient time, I am concerned that I
will not be able to prepare focused oral submissions or adequately assist the
Court.
Prejudice and
Fairness
35. I believe the balance of prejudice favours a
later hearing date.
36. A later hearing date would cause limited
prejudice to the respondents.
37. The beneficiaries all have received substantial
interim distributions ($200,000 each), the administrator’s legal account
($83,000) has been paid, and the Public Guardian and Trustee’s remaining
interest appears to be administrative finality and closing its file.
38. I recognize that administrative finality is
important.
39. However, administrative finality should not
outweigh my need for a meaningful opportunity (procedural fairness) to prepare
for a complex appeal concerning the proper application of the PPA to pass
accounts after death."
40. If the June 24, 2026 hearing date remains in
place, I risk having the appeal heard without adequate preparation.
41.
The prejudice to me is huge. I am
currently consumed 24/7 by this appeal, experiencing severe stress, night
sweats, and sleep disruption, either I sleep too much or I can’t sleep. My dyslexia symptoms have worsened
significantly under this stress. While I want this appeal to end, it must end
with a fair judicial determination based on adequate preparation time, not with
prejudice to my ability to present the appeal properly."
42. I want the appeal to be heard fairly and
properly. I am asking for meaningful time to prepare, not to avoid the hearing.
43. I ask that the Registrar’s May 11, 2026
direction setting the appeal for June 24, 2026 be varied.
44. I ask that the appeal hearing be reset to a
later date after the summer sitting period, or to such later date as the Court
considers fair and appropriate.
45. I believe the requested adjournment would
cause only limited prejudice to the respondents. At the same time, it would protect my
meaningful opportunity to prepare and ensure the fairness, and appearance of
fairness, of the appeal hearing.
AFFIRMED before
me at the City of Vancouver,
in the Province of British Columbia, this 19th
day of May 2026.
|
|
|
