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:

1. Administrator spends estate money

2. Lawyer records and frames the spending

3. Accounts are presented in summary form

4. Beneficiaries lack documents to challenge

5. Court defers to “reasonableness”

6. 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.

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. 

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.