Passing of Accounts is all by coersive consent (mostly). Lawyers compromise, beneficiaries lose their rightful share of their inheritances because it would cost too much to litigate to get the committee to tell the truth, and the lawyers get money to send their children to private school. It is estate white collar crime and no one is doing anything to end the practise. The committee gets away with thieving because it can as there is no cheap mechanism to stop it. I asked the PGT and the administrator to declare their mixed use of the assets and neither would reply. What the PGT and the administrator and the beneficiaries who are willing to compromise have stolen from the dead. Unfortunately, that is the state of our society. You can steal from the dead and that is acceptable.
Beneficiaries are being forced to accept accounts that might me subject to surcharges so lawyers use the Patients Property Act to keep the heirs from objecting to the accounts because to do so there will be legal costs and those legal costs will have to be paid by the beneficiary if anyone dares to question anything. In other words, committees can rip off estates without consequences.
I posed this question to a retired criminal prosecutor and he viewed it as theft. But if the funds are stolen in an estate it is just sweep under the carpet. Millions of dollars are sweep under the carpet this way in Canada yearly.
From AI.
Why Estate Accounts Rarely Get Reviewed by Courts — And Why It’s Quietly Undermining Trust in the Legal System
When someone dies, their executor takes control of the estate: bank accounts, investments, property, debts, and all the financial details that need to be sorted out. Most people assume there’s a built‑in safeguard — that the executor’s financial accounting will be reviewed by a court to make sure everything is accurate and fair.
But in Canada, that almost never happens.
And the most surprising part? No one knows how often it happens, because no province collects any statistics at all.
This silence hides a serious problem that affects families across the country.
1. The system technically allows court review — but almost no one uses it
In theory, beneficiaries can demand a “formal passing of accounts,” which is a court‑supervised review of the executor’s financial records. It’s supposed to be the main protection against mistakes, mismanagement, or misconduct.
In practice, formal passing of accounts is:
rare,
expensive,
complicated,
and almost impossible to navigate without hiring a lawyer.
Lawyers routinely describe it as a last resort, not a normal part of estate administration.
So what happens instead?
Beneficiaries are asked to “consent” to the accounts — meaning they sign off on the executor’s numbers without any court review.
2. Consent isn’t always real consent — cost intimidation plays a major role
On paper, consent looks voluntary. But in reality, many beneficiaries sign because they feel they have no choice.
A formal passing of accounts can cost thousands of dollars. If the estate is small, or if the beneficiary doesn’t have personal savings, the cost is simply out of reach.
This creates a quiet but powerful pressure:
Cost intimidation.
People sign because:
they can’t afford to challenge the executor,
they don’t want to “cause trouble,”
they fear being blamed for draining the estate,
or they worry about damaging family relationships.
This is not meaningful consent. It’s consent produced by financial coercion.
3. Cost‑driven consent creates resentment — and erodes trust in the justice system
When beneficiaries feel forced to accept accounts they don’t believe are accurate, the emotional fallout is real.
Resentment builds.
People feel powerless, unheard, and pushed into accepting something they don’t trust.
Family relationships suffer.
Executors may believe they acted properly, while beneficiaries feel they were cornered.
Respect for the rule of law diminishes.
The rule of law depends on people believing that legal processes are accessible and fair. When the only way to get a proper review is to spend money you don’t have, the system stops feeling protective — and starts feeling irrelevant.
A justice system that feels inaccessible is a justice system people stop believing in.
4. The biggest problem: no one measures any of this
Here’s the part that should concern everyone — lawyers, judges, policymakers, and families:
There is no published statistical data in British Columbia or anywhere in Canada
on how many estates undergo formal passing of accounts versus informal consent.
None.
No province tracks:
how often beneficiaries decline formal passing because of cost,
how often executors rely on informal approval,
how often fiduciary errors go unexamined,
or how often vulnerable people feel pressured to sign.
This data vacuum is not a minor oversight. It is a structural blind spot.
Without statistics, the justice system cannot:
detect patterns of abuse,
identify systemic failures,
understand how often oversight is being bypassed,
or evaluate whether the probate system is functioning as intended.
A system that cannot see its own failures cannot fix them.
5. This is not just a BC problem — it’s national
Every province in Canada uses a probate model that depends on beneficiaries being able to demand formal passing of accounts. When cost makes that mechanism inaccessible, the entire national framework fails in practice.
This is a quiet, widespread issue that affects:
seniors,
people with disabilities,
low‑income families,
blended families,
and anyone who relies on an executor to manage a loved one’s estate.
The lack of oversight doesn’t just affect individual cases — it affects public confidence in the fairness of the legal system itself.
6. Why this matters — and why it deserves national attention
Estate administration touches almost every Canadian family eventually. If the system is too expensive for ordinary people to use, then the system isn’t working.
If beneficiaries feel coerced into consenting, resentment grows. If oversight is inaccessible, trust in the rule of law erodes. If no one measures the problem, the problem remains invisible.
This is not just a legal issue. It’s a public‑trust issue.
And it’s time we talked about it.
