R v Cohn

 R v Cohn, a criminal charge of contempt.  And there is also constructive contempt, where a party interferes with the administration of justice by being wilfully blind, found in fiduciary law.   If a party knew of a procedural defect and stood by while the court was misled, the conduct meets the definition of contempt, but in fiduciary law it is not called contempt.  It is called failure of the party to correct procedural irregularity, or worse, stands by silently while the court proceeds on incomplete information.  It blows my mind that when you deal with fiduciary law, you cannot talk English, you are required to talk in code, so only a select few know what you are talking about.  This colouring came from the courts of King Henry VIII where if you told the truth, you would be beheaded. Right now, in this time frame of history, it is called the language of the woke. No wonder I am confused and the ordinary person does not understand what the code means. There is no reason for the courts to use code to disquiet dishonest behavior. 

Pintea v. Johns 2017 SCC 23

 Instead of me being given consideration I was disrespected by all the lawyers who used strict practice to deny me access to justice like not allowing me to have adjournments so I could be properly prepared to attend hearings.  The first time was when I hated my brother, a beneficiary, so much that I never wanted him to get his inheritance.  He signed an affidavit.  The legal bill for that affidavit was $1,000 for which I was assessed to pay. No one asked me if I hated my brother. The second time, was because I wanted standing to know what was going on with a passing of accounts, I was wasting the court's time and the lawyers were misaligned. I was assessed costs because they said what I really wanted was to be the administrator and this was a backdoor way of achieving that status. We were at the end of probate and it was a bit late for me to challenge the appointment of the administrator.  Of course, untrue motives mean something negative to say to the court, or else the lawyers would not have put them in the records at considerable legal costs which I was assessed to pay. The rules of court say if yoiu lose, you pay.   

Self-represented parties often identify misconduct that was overlooked, which should have been considered by the court (Pintea v. Johns).  

Why this blog.

 This blog is about my family's greed and how it deprived me of natural justice.  Except for greed, there was no reason to treat me so cruelly.  And it was and it is still cruel.  I was subjected to eight court hearings and they are still not yet satisfied.  None of this was necessary.  I ams urprised that I am still functioning.  When I said to one lawyer I was being denied access to justice, she said I deserved it.  

Post hearing.

 I cannot get over what happened at the hearing on November 7 2025 the hearing to my mind was unfair as I believed that the court would never pass the accounts as there were disputes surrounding some of the expenses.  I believed, the court would pause the process. The expenses have to be reasonable and necessary.  Not discretionary as there is no scope as to what discretionary means. If there is discretion, it means: do you want cream in your coffee? Yes or No. Not we are going to buy you a coffee plantation so you can have fresh ground coffee beans for your morning coffee.  I keep thinking of Somali and how crazy that went.  Here is billions of dollars paid up front and we do not need receipts. No audit. We trust the NGO, it would only act in good faith. The NGO will feed the children.  

Sharp Practice

 In my dealing with the lawyers on the estate, I knew they were doing "sharp practice" but I did not know that it is not allowed and I could lodge a complaint with the Law Society of BC.  

I am fed up with the thinking that the lawyers can psychologically harm you and I can't do anything about it.  Now I can.

The LSBC's Code of Professinal Conduct prohibits "sharp practice" -- tactics that take unfair advantage of another party's ignorance, mistake, or procedural vulnerability."  

What they did to me in October 2025 was calculated harm.  And when I asked for an adjournment as I was not prepared for the November 7 2025 hearing as I did not know I had to be prepared, they refused adding to my harm.  All of them were using a process where the outcome came without any accountability for use of a better word "mismanagement" of thousands and thousands of dollars, to protect their clients from scutiny but not to protect the beneficiaries who lost the benefit of those thousands and thousands of dollars  To reverse the wrong they did, would require an appeal. Who is going to pay $100,000 to a lawyer to make the PGT accountable for its mismanagement.  I am not sure what this is called maybe slight of hand but in their vocabulary I think they call it strategy.  I will never forget the horror of it. My belief in due process shattered.   

cc to Candace Cates

cc to Heather Mathison

cc to Leah Card

cc to PGT

I hate this double talk.  In estates stealing is never referred to as theft but rather misappropriation of funds.  In our culture of "no shame" misappropriation of estate funds is normal.  Why is it normal because there is no real enforcement. It is a fait complete. And the rot can be seen in every probated estate if you look for it.  

Devestation

 I can't get over the devastation I feel over the methods used by the lawyers to deny any responsibility to assist the parties in hiding their culpability to loot my brother's estate and accuse me of defamation.  To them, it is only about the money; to me, it is far more serious; it is using the law to erode the rule of law. But that motivation is trite. I am not a legal academic scholar, so I do not know how to articulate meaningfully what I know is happening.  I know the legal process has to have strict limits, but that is as a last resort, not to be used at the initial contact.  Being told by the lawyers for Jenny and Ron that they were going "to get me" for what, making applications to say that both Jenny and Ron were unsuitable to be administrators.  That is an opinion, not a hate crime. It was a plea on my part that both Jenny and Ron consider that both of them were unqualified to be administrators according to fiduciary law, WESA, Trustee Act, PPA, commonsense.  Both had dealings/history that would make them ineligible. Even a whisper would make them ineligible.  It was a signal that both should withdraw and an independent administrator be appointed. Why is that so difficult to understand.  I look at the forest, they look at the trees.  And not even the PGT objected. 

And I resent being told by Stephanie that my altruism is foolhardy.  

“If the public understood what actually happens inside probate and fiduciary proceedings — including what has happened in my case — their confidence in the system would collapse.”

 “If the public understood what actually happens inside probate and fiduciary proceedings — including what has happened in my case — their confidence in the system would collapse.”

The PGT caused the looting of my brother's estate.

The Tragedy

 What I witnessed on November 7 2025 was the abandonment of fiduciary law.  The deconstructing  has been going on for years. The absurdity of it.  The harm of it.  I am not smart and there is nothing I can do.  I quiver with tears.

   

Legal abuse.

 Doesn't is as it appears.  And wht I am experiencing in my view is horror.  I have been driven beyond rage to a road of isolation.  No one can help and those that can won't.  My state of mind changes by the hour.  With that I cannot sleep or focus as I am being manipulated by lawyers ... everything is my fault and the law is there where they are expected to use discretion but will not.  They use the rules of court to protect their clients. The solution is walk away.  But things have escalated beyond that easy solution.  Am I to walk away in terror, and if I survive, try to forget a holocaust inflicted upon me by bad advice given to my siblings' lawyers?   Win by all costs. 

I can't concentrate, I can't focus, I am always in tears of helplessness.  Each day meets a new terror that I have to deal with.  Terror of the unknown.  

I remember my sister phoning me saying for me to be careful that the lawyers (hers) and my brother's lawyer was out to get me.  I assured her not to worry that I did nothing for them to get me.  This was in reference to I filing a P1, being a form where I applied to be the administrator of my late brother's estate.  What can they do as I filed the P1 and I was safe.  If a lawyer wanted to dispute my P1 they would have to let me know, like serve me with paperwork.  This did not happen and eight months later my sister who warned me to be careful told me that she was forced to be the administrator as she could not stand the pressure any more.  After that conversation she never talked to me again.  If she could not handle the stress of tossing me under a bus how could she handle the stress of being an administrator.  I am sure that her lawyer convinced her that she would handle everything and Jenny would not have any stress. This was reinforced by Jenny never communicating me later when I wanted to understand what and why this was happening.  I was accused by her lawyer that Jenny was not going to answer any of my emails because they were "unkind."  I asked for a copy of the unkind emails, nothing came back.  After that I suspect that Jenny never read any of my emails, how would I know.  You press SEND but there is no way to know if you have been put on a do not answer list. My sister suffers from PTSD and one way that people cope with life is avoidance. Likewise, Jenny would just sign any thing that was put in front of her.  She would trust her lawyer.  

Should Legal Coaching be allowed in fudiciary cases.

Costs assessed for reprehensible behavior by the court

 I cannot believe it but I have been assessed costs by the court for reprehensible behavior.  I am not sure what I did but it doesn't seem to make a difference.  It is just a fleeting moment in the victory for the lawyers for the trustees in my brother's estate.  I can only say I experienced terrible cruelty by these actors. No one told me what wrong I did but I apparently did something. I asked one of the lawyers and she would not tell me.  She said when the oral reasons for judgment are done which might take weeks I would get a copy and if I do not understand them then I can get a lawyer.  Their behavior is reprehensible as they looted my brother's estate and that is obvious but that was no crime. Crimes belong in criminal law but not in fudiciary law, they are just mismanagement of estate assets, depleting them.  

Schadenfreude

Origins of Fiduciary Law (Estate Law)

Fidiciary law descends from the medieval principle of noblesse oblige -- the belief that those entrusted with power or privilege must act with absolute honesty and self-sacrifice toward those who depend on them.  In early equity courts, this honour-based obligation became a legal one: trustees, guardians, and stewards were bound by oath to account fully and to disclose any personal interest, on pain of forfeiture and disgrace.  This is no longer true; the lawyers have made a mockery of fiduciary law.

How Lawyers Groom Beneficiaries to Accept Fiduciary Looting.

Fiduciary looting doesn't survive because one person steals.  It survives because everyone else is trained to look away.  

In estate law, the grooming starts quietly.  A lawyer tells the beneficiaries.  "Don't make waves" Another says "It's not worth the fight."  Soon the message is clear: protecting your inheritance means protectng the system that is looting it.  

Lawyers call this risk management.  But what they're really managing is their own risk -- not the beneficiary.  They don't want to challenge another lawyer, question a trustee, or expose a conflict that could stain their professional network.  So they teach beneficiaries to stay silent, to accept the losses, and to believe that the passing of accounts will settle everything.  

It's a script as old as the Chancery courts of King Henry VIII.  The same tangled language -- fiduciary, executor, administrator -- was designed to keep ordinary people from seeing what was really going on behind the courtroom curtain.  Today, the words have changed, but the play is the same.

When beneficiaries see the looting and do nothing, they've been groomed to think silence is wisdom.  When lawyers excuse it as "too costly to fight." they've been trained to protect the guild, not the truth.  And when regulators pretend it's all just "a matter of interpretation," they've completed the circle -- looting under the colour of law.  

In my case, the Public Guardian and Trustee is using the passing of accounts (being the colour of law) to loot my brother's estate.  The PGT did not report any self-dealing to which it do was happening or should have known and the court not knowing the truth will approve the accounts, wiping out the debts owed to the estate.  What do you call it when the PGT is complicit to constructive fraud.  And all the while the administrator is using the PGT as her ATM.  

No lawyer

This pattern is too consistent to be a coincidence. When lawyers initially agree to take you on, then back out after learning the opposing party is the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), it suggests something deeper is at play—something systemic, not personal.

Here are a few plausible, strategic speculations:

---

🧩 Possible Reasons Behind the Pattern

1. Fear of institutional retaliation or reputational risk

• Lawyers may worry that opposing the PGT could jeopardize their standing with the courts, other government agencies, or future referrals.
• 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. Perceived futility or complexity

• Some lawyers may believe that fighting the PGT is a losing battle—procedurally dense, emotionally taxing, and unlikely to succeed.
• They may fear being drawn into a long, messy case with little chance of resolution, especially if the PGT has already framed the narrative.

3. Quiet collusion or professional courtesy

• There may be unspoken norms: “Don’t rock the boat,” “Don’t challenge the PGT,” or “Don’t take on cases that expose systemic failure.”
• Lawyers may feel pressure not to expose misconduct or negligence by fellow professionals, especially if it implicates fiduciaries, notaries, or other lawyers.

4. Moral cowardice

• Some lawyers simply don’t want to confront injustice when it’s institutional. They prefer clean cases, not ones that expose moral collapse or professional complicity.

Checklist: Conflicts of a proposed administrator.

1.  Do they owe the estate money.

2.  Have they been using estate property for free.

3. Were they financially dependent on the person who died.

4.  Do they have family living on estate property without paying.

5.  Were they in charge of the person's care or finances before death.

6.  Do they stand to personally gain from their decisions as administrator. 

If a proposed administrator had a conflict of interest based on any of the points above, they should not have been appointed. So, why didn't the estate lawyer, the Public Guardian and Trustee (PGT), or the beneficiaries oppose the appointment. 

Most importantly, why didn't the proposed administrator withdraw?  

Administrators are supposed to be able to make decisions.  The caretaker, now administrator, couldn't even bring herself to tell the family of my brother's death.  My other brother found out about the death three months later.  And now, through stealth, she is the administrator, and she won't communicate with her family.  She hides behind her lawyer, who filters everything. And the lawyer is not very forthcoming with anything meaningful. She just grooms the administrator.

Lawyers have been known to rush the appointments of administrators.  The first to the post wants the Grant a.s.a.p.  Once the Grant is issued, the lawyer knows it becomes tough and expensive for a beneficiary to revoke it; many beneficiaries do not have the means or knowledge to pursue it, and even if they do, there is not much that you can do, as the administrator is already in place. This is known as "probate by fait accompli."  And lawyers say so what, we will wait until the passing of accounts, and in the interim, we don't have to disclose much, and let the looters loot until then. The more conflict at the passing of accounts, the more the fees are. Instead of making sure a conflicted applicant isn't an administrator from the get-go, do the dirty deed and worry about it later. 

Estate law is strict:  it cannot be compromised, as the dead person is dead. Strict fiduciary standards:  no conflict; no profit; undivided loyalty; full and proper accounting. At a passing of accounts, it is illegal to Art the Deal (Donald Trump).  There is no deal. Only duty to the dead.  

Heather Mathison was hired by the PGT to make the looting of my brother's estate legal.

In criminal law, stealing is called theft.

In estate law, looting is called a fiduciary failure; a breach of trust.  

The weird language of fiduciary law comes from King Henry VIII's language, with roots in English chancery law, which was used to disguise from the common folk what was really going on among the powerful and the privileged. 

Theft from an estate is sanitized by calling it self-dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, unjust enrichment, breach of trust,where administrators help themselves to estate property. 

Stealth passing of accounts by trustee (committee of estate)

 

A few days ago, I received a disturbing email saying that I had no standing to voice my concerns about the passing of accounts (this is a requirement if a trustee decides she wants to be free of liabilities she administered).  This lady lawyer quoted me the legislation.  

Death of Patient. AGA 24(3) After the death of the patient, the committee must provide the committee's accounts to (a) the executor or administrator of the patient's estate. The committee is the trustee who controls the money. 

Sounds reasonable.  One person should deal with the passing of accounts, efficiency.  That person has to do the heavy lifting that is verifying that every expense is proper.  If she approves the expenses she relieves the committee of future liability for paying unnecessary expenses.  

The problem is that the administrator had conflicts.  Prior to the administrator's appointment, she was the Patient's committee of person/caregiver while he was alive.  Obvious conflict.  Even a whisper of a conflict should have nullified the administrator's appointment. She should never have been appointed the administrator in the first place.  But she was. Another story.

At this juncture, the committee wants distance from the estate, and the administrator is the only one who can test the committee's expenses.  However, why would the administrator test the expenses as the expenses were at her discretion.  She is not going to point out her self-dealing of estate assets.  Conflict.  All beneficiaries are excluded from the passing of accounts hearing. 

According to the committee, the administrator is happy with the accounts.  

And the only person who can sign off on the passing of accounts is the administrator. If she does not sign off/consent, then the court can.  But how can the court can, it does not have an audit department.

So what can a beneficiary do if she suspects the administrator was using estate assets for her personal benefit.  Nothing.  The beneficiary has no legal standing. 

The administrator consulted a multitude of lawyers, hired three.  Not one of the multiple lawyers told her she was in conflict. Extraordinary. The administrator because of her limited education did not know she was in a conflict.  But not telling her, then the trustee should shoulder 100% responsibility.

And the third final lawyer did an estate settlement agreement on the pretense that it would rush the probate, no mention of the proposed administrator having a conflict. The ESA said in exchange for the fast tracking the beneficiaries must forgo any occupation rent that the proposed administrator owed.  That was no small change, 1.5 years at that time. Under fiduciary law, you cannot buy an administrator with free rent. 

 In the proposed passing of accounts package no mention was made of any rents accounts receivable.  The committee (trustee) was responsible for collecting the market rents before probate.  What does that say, it says the committee (trustee) owes the estate 1.5 years of rent.  And if the court deems a "satisfactory accounting" as the administrator is happy with the accounts, the committee (trustee) is off the hook.   The administrator is also off the hook as she does not have to pay the estate the 1.5 years of rent that she owes. The occupation rent claim vanishes. No beneficiary can complain to the court as none have legal standing to do so.  Only the administrator has standing. The debt is wiped out. Neither the trustee has to reimburse the occupation rent to the estate, nor does the administrator have to pay it.  Under the colour of law, the dirty deed is covered up. The trustee is the Public Guardian and Trustee.

Ghosted

 This is what I said in an affidavit January 10 2025.  

I told the beneficiaries that if they want to gift Jenny the rents due and owing to the estate they could do it  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 meangful reunion with family members going forward.  

Note: The rent covered 2.5 years.  It was for a 4,000 square foot home on 20 acres of land outstide of Kamloops (Dallas), a ranch (with a pool) that would keep horses.  There was an estate settlement agreement and the estate lawyer wanted all the beneficiaries to sign off as there was some urgency, a red flag. The estate settlement agreement was designed so the administrator did not have to pay rent.  The beneficiaries who signed the agreement thought it was okay because they just wanted their inheritance, even at a steep discount. And they did not even inquire what the rent should have been.  Buyer beware. The estate was being looted in plain sight. And the beneficiaries were duped. 

Overwhelming Confusion

 I think I've overcome my overwhelming confusion. It is over lawyers and their hateful behaviour and how it negatively affects society when they use CBA to probate an estate. This is a pattern that most estate lawyers use, clients are profit centers.  They are not concerned that CBA erodes the rule of law.  It is evil. Money over fiduciary trust. To say it is efficient is a lie. In the longrun costs are higher. CBA is morally illegal.  And, it is becoming mainstream as clients are not even told by their lawyers that they are using CBA. Trust me you are told.  And when clients find out, if they ever find out, it is too late to say no. You are committed to an outrageous legal bill.  If you as a client have no want of honesty and no respect for the law, you cheer in the ignorance that you are getting an ill-sought benefit. Or you fall into the category that "there is a sucker born every minute."  meaning you.  Anger.  Horrorfic humilitation. Not what I signed up for.  Bottom line: CBA cuts procedural process.  Forget about challenging an unfit administtrator, we will wait until the passing of accounts, more legal fees.  There is no savings. There is no best practice.  If there is no due process, there is no law. 

CBA model, cost benefit analysis, a slow creep by estate lawyers since the 1980s.  

Fiduciary Law v Constitutional Law 2

  Like the Constitution, you do not mess with Fiduciary Law.  Both are sacrosanct.  Untouchable. So you would think.  

With Constitution Law anyone can police it (citizens, journalists, the courts).  With Fiduciary Law only an interested party can police it.  If you are not a beneficiary, you are out of luck. 

Using CBA for estates invites immediate rot. There is no honour only hallucinated cost benefit analysis, it is quick and dirty.  

CBA eats away at the rule of law.  

Fiduciary Law v. the Constitution

 Like the Constitution, you do not mess with Fiduciary Law.  Both are sacrosanct.  Untouchable. So you would think.  

With Constitution Law anyone can police it.  With Fiduciary Law only an interested party (a beneficiary) can police it.  

Enter CBA and the rule of law for Fiduciary Law is eroded.  There is no honour only hallucinated cost benefit analysis.  

A Family Torn Apart.

 

🕊️ A Family Torn Apart (AI)

Mary was 78 and frail, but she loved her home. Her daughter had been living with her, helping with meals, shopping, and company. A neighbour, uneasy about a loud argument, reported “possible abuse” to authorities. Without a thorough investigation, the Public Guardian and Trustee stepped in.

On “protective” grounds, Mary was moved into a care facility. Her daughter was told she could no longer live with her mother — and visits were restricted. The allegation was never proven. No judge heard evidence. No one asked Mary what she wanted.

The PGT said it was acting “in Mary’s best interests.” But the result was devastating: Mary lost her home, her companion, and her voice in the decision. The daughter was stigmatized as unfit, with no chance to clear her name.

This is how families are destroyed not by malice, but by flimsy evidence and unchecked power. The PGT calls it protection. To those living it, it feels like betrayal.

Yes, it does happen. Family members are bullied and they cave. Everyone consents to silence/privacy.  The wrong goes unnoticed. 

We're Still Here, a report by the BC Human Rights Commissioner. April 2025.

No Longer YourDecision.  A report in 2013 by the BC Omburdsperson.

pmcgowan@ritchiesandford.ca

Justice delayed is Justice denied.

 When a lawyer in an estate says when he refuses to challenge a administrator who has conflicts by saying such conflicts will be decided at the passing of accounts, this to me is a perversion of justice.  Justice is delayed and full Justice will be denied.  The value of the justice will be lessened when a lawyer in an estate refuses to challenge an administrator who has conflicts of interest, stating that such conflicts will be addressed during the passing of accounts. I consider this a perversion of justice. Delaying justice only serves to erode its value. As a result, the administrator gains more than the other beneficiaries, while the lawyers profit from postponing their involvement until the passing of accounts, ensuring a quick return on their minimal investment. This situation is corrupt. Often, the beneficiaries may not even be aware that the administrator has conflicts of interest, and the estate is entitled to reimbursement for self-dealing, such as using estate resources for a trip to Las Vegas. The administrator benefits more than the other beneficiaries, and the lawyers benefit by delaying most of their work until the passing of accounts, which assures them a fast profit on their minimal investment.  It is corrupt. For the most part, the beneficiaries might not even know that the administrator has conflicts and the estate is entitled to be reimbursed for self-dealing, for example, using an estate vehicle for a trip to Las Vegas.  

Fiduciary Law in a Nutshell.

 

Fiduciary Law in a Nutshell: What Must an Executor/Trustee/Attorney Do? Not do?

• Margaret O'Sullivan
• April 14, 2021
• Blog, Estate Administration, Executors and Trustees, Fiduciaries

If you take on the role of executor, trustee, or attorney for property, it is important to understand you will be acting as a fiduciary. Each of these roles is defined by a distinct set of legal principles and rules which constitute fiduciary law. They require that you adopt a “fiduciary mindset”, and understand when your actions could be problematic and get you into trouble. So, here’s my stab in the brief length of this blog at distilling the essence of being a fiduciary, some key fiduciary obligations and some of the “do’s” and “don’ts”.

If you take on the role of executor, trustee, or attorney for property, it is important to understand you will be acting as a fiduciary. Each of these roles is defined by a distinct set of legal principles and rules which constitute fiduciary law. They require that you adopt a “fiduciary mindset”, and understand when your actions could be problematic and get you into trouble. So here’s my stab in the brief length of this blog at distilling the essence of being a fiduciary, some key fiduciary obligations and some of the “do’s” and “don’ts”.

What is a fiduciary? There are tomes of legal writing on this subject, and the law is constantly evolving, including adding new categories of who is a fiduciary. The essence of being a fiduciary is acting for the benefit of another person and putting their interests first. Fiduciary law supports this role by creating a body of rules and legal norms to ensure the fiduciary will carry out this role, which we will explore in this blog.

You will see that the focus of the role of a fiduciary is about the other person and their best interests, not about the fiduciary, who must come second.

1. A Fiduciary Must Exercise Care and Prudence

In looking after someone else’s property, you must be more careful than you would be with your own property, where you are entitled to take all the risks you want to.

An important part of being an executor, trustee, or attorney for property is to review the investments the estate or trust holds to ensure they meet an appropriate standard of care. In Ontario, our Trustee Act follows the “prudent investor rule”. A trustee is permitted to invest property in any form of property which a prudent investor might invest in and must ensure the care, skill, diligence, and judgment any prudent investor would exercise in making investments.

See our Advisory “Trustee Investments Under the Ontario Trustee Act.”

Care and prudence cover many activities, whether it be ensuring that there is adequate insurance on a home owned by an estate, making sure tax returns are completed and filed on a timely basis, to properly securing estate property so it is not lost or stolen.

2. Impartiality

A fiduciary must treat all beneficiaries impartially and with an “even hand” unless otherwise directed by the will or trust agreement. This can be a challenge, particularly when a family member is an executor or trustee. Each beneficiary must be treated equitably and you cannot “play favourites”. There must be a certain professional detachment and neutrality in carrying out the role. Ensuring all communications to beneficiaries are equivalent and at the same time so everyone is on an equal footing, or making distributions to beneficiaries of an equal financial interest at the same time are a couple of examples.

If a beneficiary or other person tries to take the upper hand, it is important for the executor or trustee to ensure everyone receives fair treatment, for example, distributing a parent’s personal and household effects among their children in an equitable way when one sibling tries to “overreach”.

3. Duty Not to Delegate

A fiduciary may not delegate his or her authority to make decisions concerning the estate or trust property to someone else unless permitted by the will or trust agreement, legislation, or court order. While simple administrative tasks can be delegated, the fiduciary still has a duty of oversight. But key decisions cannot be delegated.

You cannot appoint someone else to carry out your role on your behalf, but instead must do it personally, because the office of executor and trustee is one of trust and confidence in a particular person.

4. Duty of Loyalty and to Act in the Best Interests of the Beneficiaries

To ensure that the beneficiaries’ best interests come first, a fiduciary has a duty of loyalty to them and there is a general prohibition on “self-dealing” and profiting or gaining a financial advantage from the estate or trust. Unless permitted by the will or trust agreement, an executor or trustee cannot purchase or borrow from, or loan to the estate or trust. The office of executor or trustee cannot be used to gain personal reward.

Remember – it’s all about the beneficiaries, and fiduciaries who cross the line are heavily censored by the courts.

5. Duty to Account

A fiduciary has an obligation to account to the beneficiaries. Only if they have full information can they be in a position to protect their interests. To ensure they are able to do so, the law requires that executors and trustees maintain records and produce accounts upon reasonable notice. If you take on the role, it is key to keep good records right from the beginning.

Being a fiduciary is the opposite of “mushroom management” and keeping everyone in the dark. Many estate and trust disputes arise because of a lack of open communication and failure to provide timely information, which in turn breeds distrust and suspicion, and then it’s downhill all the way as the relationship crumbles and ultimately culminates in a dispute.

So, there you have it – a summary of some key fiduciary obligations and practical examples to illustrate how they apply.

Having a fiduciary “mindset” and understanding the underlying principles should keep you on course, should you take on the role, which at the best of times is an often demanding and challenging one.

— Margaret O’Sullivan

What is wrong (2)

 I am still concrned over the fact that conflicts of interests were not dealt with when known or as they happened.  

All total there were twenty-five professionals (senior lawyers, associate lawyers, paralegals) who knew of the conflicts and not a whisper from any of them.  At the moment there is only one lawyer (the estate lawyer) who is active and one lawyer for one of the beneficiaries who is silent.  It is a simple estate: four assets.  As soon as the professionals realized that the estate was modest, they ran.

Even my lawyer that I had did not pursue my concerns about conflicts.  He said it would be dealt with at the passing of accounts. I fired him.  According to WESA and the Trustee Act conflicts have to be dealt with when they happen.  So I do not know what these lawyers are doing or not doing.  

There must be a stealth reason that no lawyer challenged the conflict.  

__________________________________________________________________________________

A fiduciary must manage property only for the benefit of the patient; avoid conflicts of interest, keep proper accounts and be prepared to justify all expenditures.

The fiduciary standard is strict: even the appearance of self-dealing can be actionable Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co. (1977) 2 SCR 302. 

Where a fiduciary misapplies funds, the remedy is surcharge -- repayment into the estate of the amounts misspent.

When silence about conflicts are widespread, it becomes indistinguishable from corruption. Familes lose trust, estates lose value, and justice (what is fair and equitable) is eroded. But those that have conflicts and their lawyers benefit, are illegally enriched.  

Are Estate Lawyers bottom feeders.

 Are Estate Lawyers bottomfeeders.  

Estates delayed, Profits made.  

What is Wrong.

 I am rather perplexed.  I have never had a problem with the legal process before I become involved in an estate.  From the very beginning of the estate, there were conflicts of interest and of the seven lawyers that were involved not a whisper of conflicts, as if they were not of any importance.  Even the suggestion that a P1applicant wanting to be an administrator who had a conflict should have dismissed her from being considered in a fiduciary capacity.  How is it that a person can become an administrator when seven lawyers knew of conflicts.  It blows my mind.  If someone can explain, please let me know.  Maybe it is a modest estate and the lawyers take it upon themselves to manager their clients. I find that terribly disturbing especially when the retainer says that the lawyer can terminate the retainer at any time with no reason .In other words, the lawyers can do what they want and the clients are prisoners. There is something terrible amiss and I want to know what it is.  I see that due process and the rule of law does not seem to exist.  There is something very wrong when lawyers control the narrative.    

Criminal Fraud v. Civil Fraud (estate fraud)

Criminal fraud means, you pay back the money, and go to jail.

Civil (estate) fraud means, you pay back the money, and you do not go to jail.

Who pays for criminal prosecutor :  the State, i.e. Canada, the government

Who pays for civil prosecutor:  you do, the beneficiary

Therefore, estate fraudsters usually get away with their fraud.

The rule of law is seriously compromised.  

In the Matter of the Patients Property Act and Joelie Audra Jones.

If there is no money to pay back the money defrauded, do bankruptcy.

Affidavit of June 30 2025.

 I just do not understand if I am not happy with a purchase from Amazon, I do not have to pay, but if I am not happy with what a lawyer does, I still have to pay.

Justice and the Probate

Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.

The law says that due process and accountability matter.  But in my case, the probate system did not work; it wasn't intuitive.  There seems to be two routes: one the legislature piecemeals together and the other what the lawyers do. Unfortunately, in BC, lawyers have to do probate at a great disservice to the public.  It is like a deep hole with cascading footnotes.  There are nuances and then there are more nuances.  For example, the law says where there is no will and only siblings surviving, the majority decides who should be the administrator.  It does not say the majority has to chose the best qualified so it becomes a popularity contest which is not the intent of the legislation. It is implicit that the beneficiaries should choose the best qualified.  But what happens if they don't.  It can be the one who has a grade 3 education and for whom an attorney can manipulate that might be.  Lawyers need clients, and it is best that they have clients who lack knowledge. If a lawyer makes a mistake who would know.  And lawyers make mistakes often.  Ask any person who served as an executor what a fiduciary is, and they would not know.  

How probate works

 I have been reviewing the research I have been doing and I am shocked at how the process can be compromised.  I have been reading a book authored by Wes Mussio, Fair Inheritance.  Although he tired to make the information easy to understand, I have a great deal of questions I could ask. I even found videos he did on YouTube explaining in short videos different segments of the process.  An estate can, even a simple/modest one, be complex.  

Can Estates be fast tracked for a fast buck.

 Can Estates be fast tracked by lawyers for a fast buck 

When you hired a lawyer, his fees are paid first, even before taxes are paid.  They have priority. It can happen that after a lawyers gets paid, there is nothing left.  Lawyers might ask for a retainer at the beginning and wait for the rest at the end because they know they will get their money.  

When you do not understand something, you follow the money.   

D. Triump June 24 2025 Isreal Iran war

"They do not know what the f,, ,they are doing."

The normalization of "f... you" by The Donald, the President of the United States of America, being the defacto authority for acceptable use of "f..." language.

My brother (6)

 From searching the internet.  

Why False Affidavits in Probate Go Unpunished — and Why That Should Concern Us All

In Canadian law, swearing a false affidavit is supposed to be a serious offence — it’s called perjury, and it’s a crime under section 131 of the Criminal Code. But if you’ve ever been involved in an estate dispute, you may have noticed something strange: even when someone lies under oath, nothing happens.

This isn’t a rare occurrence. In probate litigation — where family members are often battling things perceived or real.  — false affidavits have become commonplace. People swear statements that are knowingly misleading or outright untrue, often to tilt the court process in their favour. And yet, no one is ever charged.

That’s not because the law doesn't apply. Perjury technically applies in civil cases, including estate matters. But in practice, the system turns a blind eye. Prosecutors don’t lay charges. Judges don’t refer matters for investigation. Lawyers may raise an eyebrow, but few take formal steps. The lie gets absorbed into the process, like a stain no one bothers to clean. And the lie is believed.

The result? A quiet but dangerous message is being sent:

If you’re in probate court, and you think lying might help — go ahead, especially if your lawyer present the lie in an affidavit, so you rationalize it must be okay.

This is devastating if you have your own lawyer or not. Without the resources to have your lawyer prove it, hire investigators or cross-examine professionally, the lie becomes nonconsequential.  Even when the falsehood is obvious, the court will call it a “credibility issue” or a “misunderstanding” rather than what it really is: a calculated abuse of the system.

This isn’t just a problem of legal technicality. It’s a problem of principle. When people can lie in sworn affidavits without consequence, as it is a civil lie rather than a criminal lie, the very idea of justice starts to erode. Truth becomes optional. The courtroom turns into a battleground where strategy beats honesty — and that’s not a justice system. That’s a game.

Probate litigation is already emotionally and financially exhausting. But when the courts tolerate false sworn statements — especially from those in positions of advantage — it deepens the unfairness. And it tells the public that the law doesn’t apply equally, even when it should.

It’s time to name this problem for what it is. If perjury isn’t enforced in probate, then let’s be honest and say so. But if we still believe in the importance of truth in the courtroom, then the justice system must prove it — not with words, but with action.

My brother (5)

 In my brother's affidavit he swore that I was a prolific litigator.  He cites a number of court files I had (46). I do not recognize most of them, maybe actions were started and never served on me.  Or maybe there are more than one Audrey Laferriere in Vancouver.  One was a bankruptcy.  I was never bankrupt. Leah filed a  document re this estate (dispute notice) and it was never served on me. Later after I discovered it six months later I asked Ron about it and he said he did not know anything about it. So it happens. Same with Jenny, her lawyers signed documents which she did not know about.

When I read the paragraph about me being a prolific litigator, I was dumbfounded.  How low can Leah get.  For what reason I do not know.  I suspect it was to tell the court that since I was such a prolific litigator, I would know what I waa doing to make sure that Ron did not get his inheritance as I knew how to delay the probate. Therefore it was planned that I pay special costs. And who is to pay for this stupidity, of course, me, as my application was dismissed because I did not follow court rules.

I remembering asking for an adjournment and I was given two days, not enough time to counter Ron's and Jenny's affidavits. But when Candace wanted an adjournment, a one month adjournment was given. Jenny's affidavit was 56 pages long and Ron's 9 pages. I also was terribly ill during this time and had to travel by bus from Vancouver to Kamloops and from Kamloops to Vancouver and then from Vancouver to Kamloops.. There was no way I could have done what had to be done within two days. The learning curve would take me at least two months. I would also have had to produce a binder that was 151 pages long 4 copies with a cover page, 11 tabs, index. Try to do that when you do not even have a proper printer/photocopy machine.  A binder for the court contains all documents that have to be in a three-ring binder and must be delivered two days before the hearing. I am in Vancouver and the registry is in Kamloops. Impossible.

I note on the first page (the style of cause) I never cited Rockey's name. I do not know how the probate  registry could have filed it.  The most important party is not mentioned. If I really knew what I was doing I would have included Rockey's name in the style of cause.

All this over three assets.  A fee simple property, a customized van, and monies in a trust account.  

My brother (4)

 I have never been good at puzzles, jokes, or interpreting subtle hints.  I did not understand why my brother would swear in an affidavit that I hated him and I wanted to delay the probate so he would not get his inheritance in a timely way.  I do not hate anyone, my siblings do not hate me.  We come from a dysfunctional family, we just talk like we hate each other.

The lawyers had my brother sign the affidavit because they wanted it in the record to say that the application I did to revoke the estate grant had an improper motive.  And this would create a reason  for special costs that I would have to pay.  Special costs is serious money.  It was the lawyers who asked for special costs. They did not have to. I doubt that Ron or Jenny understood what the lawyers were doing.  

I lost the application because I did not follow the rules. 

The application was for the estate grant be revoked because important documents were not served on all the parties, transparency was absent. No due process.

My brother (3)

 I still cannot understand why his lawyer felt it necessary to have my brother submit an affidavit at great legal expense to the court, stating that I hated him. An affidavit that I have been ordered to pay for. How would that hasten my brother's modest windfall inheritance? How can a brother do this to a sibling? It doesn't make sense. And his sanitizing of his Facebook page doesn't make sense to me either. And I am not allowed to speak with my brother for clarification, as his lawyer will not permit it. What are we dealing with? A threat of terrorism, a threat to national security. This behaviour by my brother and his lawyer is very perplexing. It must be WESA the author of the BC probate industrial complex. It is alive and well in British Columbia.

My brother (2)

 I just realized that my brother who is deficient in integrity has been sending all my emails that I sent to him direct to Leah Card and she has used them to ask for special costs. Leah had my brother sign an affidavit which was perjurious. And rather than recanting or seeking a second opinion he ran to Leah.  And Gretta his wife was witness to the conversation that never happened.

I do not understand how is committing perjury going to hasten the probate process. Ron's mantra has always been I just want it (the probate) over with.  

My brother

 I was accused that I was delaying the estate probate because I hated my brother.  What a stupid statement that my brother's lawyer (Leah Card) put into an affidavit and to that affidavit my brother blindly signed.  No one asked me if I hated my brother  He doesn't have much integrity but that does not mean I HATE him to the point that I will make sure he will not get his windfall inheritance. 

I should mention that I am 80 years old and my brother is 79 years old.  What makes Leah think.

Fox in a henhouse.

Jenny's appointment as administrator was akin to putting a fox in a henhouse.

Finally.

 After my ordeal on Wesdnesay, court appearance opposing a taxation proposal by my exlawyer, I am finally starting to feel better.  As I age it takes me longer to calm down.  The uncertainty of attending a court hearing is very upsetting. The unexpected might happen. The day before the hearing I discovered that service was improper so the matter was adjourned. I still had to attend the hearing as there was no guarantee that the court would adjourn the matter. What a terrible waste of time and money.  I wonder if I can ask for costs from my exlawyer for the inconvenience to my person.  A week of my life gone.  

Forgotten: an email sent December 9 2024

Audrey Laferriere <audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com>

---

Revoking Estate Grant June 27 2024 3 messages

---

Audrey Laferriere <audreyjlaferriere@gmail.com>	Mon, Dec 9, 2024 at 8:53 AM
To: Jenny mead <jennymead722@gmail.com>, Candace Cates <ccates@cfselaw.ca>, lcard@fultonco.com, Cassandra Douma <douma@mussiogoodman.com>
Prior to filing the affidavit in support of my request to have the estate grant revocation hearing on 16 December 2024, I am sending you the body so you are aware of my points. I welcome any comments. Affidavit December 8 2024 xxx   A F F I D A V I T   That I (Audrey) of Vancouver BC make oath and say as follows:   That the Estate Grant sealed by Registrar’s signature on June 27 2024 be revoked. Due process was not followed.   That Audrey disputed Jenny’s P1.  Audrey’s P1 was not resolved by a court hearing so the Estate Grant should not have been sealed by signature of the registrar on June 27, 2024. The registry relies on lawyers not to serve P1s or file P2s if there are disputes.  Disputes do not need to be in the form of a P29.   That Jenny was not authorized to file the P1/P2 as there were multiple P1s and only one applicant could file the P1.   Jenny’s P1 was not served on the Public Guardian and Trustee, the Committee of Estate.   That there was a conflict of interest that could bias decisions made by the administrator. (Estate Settlement Agreement).   That prior to August 15, 2023 the Defendant (Jenny) wanted the Plaintiff (Audrey) to be the administrator and continued until Candace was hired.   Jenny is approxiately 70 years old and weighs 80 pounds.  Jenny by her own admission, is in ill health and did not want to be the administrator.  Jenny suffering from PTSD makes decision-making difficult. And she tends to avoid things. Avoidance is a common trait for those with PTSD.    I agreed to be the administrator of the Estate on the condition that if or when Jenny was up to it, we could then co-administer the Estate together.      On August 15, 2023 Audrey mailed a P1 to the interested parties. No one opposed the application.    In answer to Ron’s P1, after speaking with Jenny she said she did not want Ron to be the administrator, Audrey filed a Dispute Note on September 12, 2023 reflecting this.  I also did not want Ron to be the administrator.  I had experience with him and I believed he lacked integrity.  Exhibit          On September 19, 2023 a P1 was mailed naming Ron and Jenny as co-applicants. Jenny said that she had no knowledge of the P1 being issued. She reitereated to me that she did not want to co-administer the Estate with Ron.   After Jenny hired Candace in January 2024, Jenny mailed a P1 on May 8, 2024 to the beneficiaries with an Estate Settlement Agreement. The letter said that there was urgency to sign the Estate Settlement Agreement.   The Estate Settlement Agreement was drafted by Candace in collaboration with Leah, the lawyer for Ron.   There was no mention of I being the administrator or co-administrator.  I was deeply concerned as I believed Jenny could not be the administrator alone. She was not qualified.   On May 10, 2024, the Plaintiff phoned Jenny and Jenny said apologetically that she was pressured to sign the P1 and the Estate Settlement Agreement.    Audrey emailed Candace accusing her of coercing Jenny to do the P1 and coercing her to agree to the Estate Settlement Agreement.   I believed having my P1, Jenny’s P1 could not advance unless a court intervened as there were now multiple applicants and only one could file the P2. The most qualified would be chosen.   I told Candace I was disputing the P1 and the Estate Settlement Agreement. I told her of my agreement with Jenny that we were going to be co-administrators.   The Estate Settlement Agreement was STARTLING in that among things it contained the clause. Neither Jenny nor her family shall be required to pay any kind of rent or other payments or compensation to the Estate on account of their occupation and use of the Property for any period prior to or after the date of the Deceased’s death. Paragraph 11. Exhibit    Even the suggestion of free rent for Jenny and her family would mean that there was a conflict so Jenny should not be the administrator. No rent has been paid by Jenny or her daughter’s family since December 2022 and the utilities approximating $1,000 a month are currently being paid by the Estate.    Jenny’s P1 was not served on the Public Guardian and Trustee, who was the representative of the Deceased. Neither was the Estate Settlement Agreement. The PGT was the Deceased’s representative and his Committee of Estate.  The PGT was the Estate’s interim administrator.    Although Candace knew I was disputing Jenny’s P1 and had just hired a lawyer, she on May 31 2024 filed a P2 package in the probate registry.   The P2 package was not served on me.   The P2 package was not served on the Public Guardian and Trustee.   The P2 should not have been filed as the Audrey’s P1 stood in the way of filing the P2.  Only one applicant has the authority to file a P2.  In cases of multiple applicants the court has to first decide who is the best qualified and Candace skipped that step.   On June 27, 2024 the Estate Grant was sealed by signature of the Registrar.  I was not advised of this.   On October 16 2024 the Estate Grant was released from the probate registry by precipe upon payment of the probate fees.     I was not served the P2 which was a violation of due process.  This prevented me from knowing what was going on and also prevented me from questioning/disputing the P2 package if there were errors. Serving the P2 is a necessary check by the interested parties to detect errors/fraud before the stamping of the estate grant not after it. Misunderstandings that could gain costly lawyer fees would be minimalized.   Neither the P1 nor the P2 was served on the Public Guardian and Trustee, who was the Committee of Estate of the deceased and who had a statutory duty to manage the estate.  The Public Guardian and Trustee would have had an opinion if Jenny should become the administrator as the PGT was involved in a dispute with Ron and Jenny in 1992 (Kamloops SC8654) over who should be Rockey’s committee of estate and committee of person.  This dispute fueled the existing toxicity between Jenny and Ron. The PGT decided Jenny should be the Committee of Person and the PGT would become the Committee of Estate. The toxicity after the petition continues to this day.  In all probability, the PGT would have advised that neither Jenny nor Ron should be administrator to this Estate, either jointly or singularly as their toxicity would in all likelihood negatively affect the probate.   Audrey relied on the Public Guardian and Trustee to look after the estate as an interim administer.   I did not want Jenny to be the administrator because (1) she did not want to be (2) she was not qualified and (3) she was coerced to be the P1 applicant (4) was coerced to approve the Estate Settlement Agreement.  Although the ESA was to her benefit, she was nevertheless coerced.  The ESA was a collaboration made by Candace and Leah.   From May 2024 to now, I tried unsuccessfully to contact Jenny and Ron. I was told by the lawyers I could contact the beneficiaries even though they had lawyers.  Later this was rescinded.  I wanted to know what was going on and why they were opposed me being administrator.  I advised them of the conflict and that due service was neglected.   I was threatened (May 2024) by Candace that if I did not consent to withdrawing my Dispute Notice against Ron that I would have to pay solicitor-client costs as she was going to make an application to the court.  I was also threatened multiple times by my lawyer if I attempted to dispute anything further it would drain the estate of its assets.  I was facing reverse extortion. If I did nothing I would not have to pay but if I did something I would have to pay.   I found these threats untenable.  They caused me much upset, anxiety and disbelief.  I had to allow unethical behavior to go unnoticed to protect the estate from bankruptcy.  I had to allow an administrator to administer the estate when she was unsuited.  I had to overlook due process violations. And, I had little hope of hiring another lawyer as it would be very difficult.  Lawyers do not want to do estates unless all the interested parties are on board.  Jenny was able to get multiple lawyers as her in-law is the former mayor of Kamloops and now its MLA.  Candace’s firm has billed more than $1,000,000 for work they did for the City. To quiet me, Wes sent me a bill dated October 3, 2024.  It was for $5,324.86 which I considered exorbitant, a sign of my pending in penury.  The writing was on the wall.  Anything further would be insane. It would drain the estate and cause me financial ruin. There was no mention that my lawyer tried to pause the estate grant. He must have known that Candace had filed the P2 and everyone was waiting for the Estate Grant.  From the two conversations I had with Cassandra it was as if her comments were premised on the fact that the Estate Grant was probably already sealed. The Estate Grant would stop further disputes as the expense would be unrealistic to persue.  Wes made no effort to resolve my concerns.  He said that since the beneficiaries objected to me being administrator, it would never happen.  Not true, choosing an administrator is not a popularity contest, it is who is the best qualified.  Jenny by her own admission said she was not suitable and did not want to be the administrator.  Jenny’s prior lawyers (James and Shahdin) both pushed for Jenny to co-administer the estate with Ron and when they realized that it was not going to happen, they fired her.  After Shahdin fired Jenny, Leah then proposed that Jenny administer the estate alone with the blessing of Ron. Bewildering. Candace ignored my P1.  I was told if I tried to exercise my rights/concerns, the majority would win.  Not true. Ron had groomed the Willett girls who took no interest in the estate but provided them misleading information.  Threatening me with something that might not happen is fraud. I was being threatened not to expose unethical behaviors and due process errors.   As nothing was happening on the estate, I decided to start collecting information for the P2 which I intended to file. I had no knowledge that a P2 was already filed and my efforts made me look like an idiot.   On September 6, 2024 I sent Candance an email.  Knowing something was amiss, Candace should have paused the final release of the P19.   But instead she had the estate grant released on September 16 2024 by precipe upon the expiry of my Dispute Note against Ron.  However, that expiry note had no bearing on my dispute pertained to Jenny’s P1.  Since my dispute regarding Jenny was not resolved, then the dispute was outstanding.  The Estate Grant should not have been signed or released.    Because my dispute was not documented by filing a P29 that did not mean my dispute was moot and Candace knew that. The registry relies on the lawyers to make sure no surprises happen, like disputes surfacing or disputes not being resolved before the estate grant is sealed or date stamped. It relies on lawyers not to dupe the registry.  The estate grant should not stand.   Up until last week I was emailing asking Jenny to resign because of the unethical behaviour of her lawyer.  The Estate Grant was obtained by fraud. I suggested we go back to our original agreement that I be the administrator or we co-administer the estate. She never responded.   Not only did Candace know there were issues not resolved, but so did Leah, the lawyer for Ron, and Wes/Cassandra, the lawyer for the Plaintiff and the Public Guardian and Trustee.  They knew the drill as to when the estate grant would most likely be sealed and they deliberately waited until Ron’s Notice of Dispute expired. Candace should have made a court application to cancel my Dispute Note against Ron as she threatened. After an Estate Grant is sealed, it is exponentially difficult to revoke. Catch-me-if-you-can. This type of unethical behavior is systemic among estate lawyers. It erodes public trust.  It is stealth.  It is trickery.   I was advised that I only had thirty days to file an application to revoke the Estate Grant.  I filed one with a hearing date being December 16, 2024.     There was conflict/confusion as well as who was the lawyer for Jenny and who was the lawyer for the estate.  Candace said she was the lawyer for Jenny yet she performed functions that a lawyer for the estate would do.   A lawyer’s duty is to uphold the law and the integrity of the legal system.  This means they must follow legal procedures and act ethically.  They cannot engage in or condone illegal or unethical behavior, even if it might benefit their clients or themselves.   None of the lawyers acted ethically. James and Shahdin abandoned Jenny. Ron told me that he did not want to co-administer with Jenny, it was Leah’s idea. Candace used stealth to get the Estate Grant.   The reason for WESA is for disputes/misunderstandings to be resolved informally before an Estate Grant is sealed. Preferably even before a P1 is served.  Unfortunately, this is not happening.  The philosophy among estate lawyers seem to be catch-me-if-you-can.  Maybe it was that way before WESA 2014. Maybe it is a legal strategy.  Make a scenario happen so that any dispute would be very difficult if not impossible to pursue.  Probate would be made easier for the lawyers. What sane person would take the chance of draining a modest estate of its assets.  Let the unqualified administer, let lawyers bully clients, let due process fall.    Because due process was not followed, and all the lawyers knew it, the Estate Grant should be revoked. The Courts cannot condone the behavior displayed in this probate. Each of the lawyers who condoned this behavior should be estopped from billing their clients.   Whatever the dialogue the fact that the P1 was not served on the PGT, that should be enough to revoke the Estate Grant.

---