1. The Core Problem: Control Without Immediate Oversight
When someone becomes an administrator (or executor), they gain control over:
Estate bank accounts
Property and assets
Payment decisions
Lawyers then often act as the gatekeepers of process, meaning:
They advise what expenses are “allowed”
They prepare accounts
They frame everything as “reasonable”
The key issue:
Money can be spent long before anyone actually checks whether it should have been spent.
2. The Main Ways Estates Get Drained
(A) Legal Fees That Grow Without Resistance
Lawyers bill the estate, not themselves.
Common patterns:
Endless emails, letters, and “strategy discussions”
Internal file reviews billed repeatedly
Multiple lawyers billing on the same file
Charging for preparing their own invoices or cost submissions
What happens:
The estate becomes a blank cheque unless challenged.
(B) “Administrative Expenses” That Are Never Properly Tested
Administrators can pay expenses and later justify them.
Examples:
Caregiver payments (often inflated or retroactive)
“Companion” or support costs with no contract
Living expenses for people benefiting from the estate
Vehicles, housing, utilities benefiting third parties
The problem:
These are often accepted at a high level (“seems reasonable”) instead of proven.
(C) Conflicted Administrators
This is one of the biggest drivers of abuse.
A conflicted administrator may:
Pay themselves (directly or indirectly)
Allow family members to benefit
Avoid documenting arrangements
Resist independent review
And critically:
Their lawyer may not challenge them — because they are the client.
(D) Lack of Documentation (But Still Approved)
Proper fiduciary law requires:
Proof of necessity
Proof of reasonableness
Proof of benefit to the estate
But what often happens instead:
Spreadsheet summaries instead of receipts
No contracts or agreements
No explanation of why expenses were needed
Yet the accounts still get approved.
(E) “Rough Justice” Instead of Strict Accounting
Courts sometimes take a shortcut approach:
“This looks generally fine”
“No one raised detailed objections”
“The outcome would be the same anyway”
This shifts the burden:
From the fiduciary proving their conduct
To the beneficiary proving wrongdoing
Which is backwards under fiduciary law.
(F) Pressure on Beneficiaries
Beneficiaries often face:
High legal costs if they object
Risk of being ordered to pay costs personally
Being labeled “difficult” or “unreasonable”
So many give up.
3. The Structural Loop That Enables It
Here’s how the system can reinforce itself:
Administrator spends estate money
Lawyer records and frames the spending
Accounts are presented in summary form
Beneficiaries lack documents to challenge
Court defers to “reasonableness”
Costs discourage further objections
Result:
The estate is slowly drained without a single clear “illegal act.”
4. What Fiduciary Law Actually Requires (In Theory)
Under fiduciary law (cases like Fales v. Canada Permanent Trust Co.):
A fiduciary must:
Act solely in the interest of the beneficiaries
Avoid conflicts of interest
Keep proper accounts
Be ready to prove every expense
The key principle:
“Show me the proof” — not “trust me, it was reasonable.”
5. Where Things Go Wrong in Practice
In reality:
Courts sometimes apply a civil/adversarial mindset
Lawyers treat it like a negotiation, not strict accountability
Oversight bodies (like the Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia) may defer rather than scrutinize
So instead of:
Strict fiduciary accounting
You get:
Practical compromise and deference
6. The Bottom Line
Estates are typically drained not by obvious fraud, but by:
Accumulated “reasonable” expenses
Lack of strict proof
Conflicts left unaddressed
Legal fees that compound over time
A system that discourages challenge
7. The One Sentence That Captures It
An estate is drained when fiduciary accountability is replaced with “good enough” reasoning and no one forces proof.
