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.”