Why # 1

 These past few days I have been thinking about what happened and now I realize how fragile the law is.

On the surface it is understandable but it really isn't.  I had no idea that lawyers could say things with the intent to deflect from the real issues, poisoning the well, and it is tolerated.  For example, they had my brother swear an affidavit that would be interpreted that I hated him and I did not want him to get his inheritance, as I was delaying the process by filing an application to ask the court to revoke the Grant as it was void as due process was absent.  The P1/P2 were not served on all the parties. The unfortunate point is that the affidavit along with a similar affidavit by the administrator is the only reason I can think why the Justice, for want of a better word, was mean to me.  He dismissed my application and because I wasted the court's time I was assessed special costs ($25,000).  Otherwise he could have just said application dismissed as I (the justice) agree with the lawyer for the administrator that service was done according to the rules. 

When I read the affidavits, I just thought the lawyers must be stupid, how did I know that it was a legal strategy to keep an unqualified administrator in office?  And for that, the administrator's lawyer billed the Estate $83,000, mostly to defend this application.  Why didn't my sister, a conflicted administrator, just withdraw and an independent administrator who had no conflicts be appointed.  What the fuck is going on.  

I will tell you how stupid this is.  I am 80 years old and my brother is 79 years old.  My brother is financially secure, I live in a basement teardown.  I need the inheritance more than he needs it.  This is true of the other beneficiaries as well.  Of course the judge would not admit he was poisoned but why then would he assess special costs against me.  It was a simple application at the most it could have been $5,000.  

Note:

I did some research on special costs.  And yes the court can award special costs where a party's motive or conduct has wasted the court's time.  Special costs are not assessed unless the lawyers asks for them.  Most lawyers do not ask for them, because it will cause reputational damage to them be it justified or not. I live in the City and Kamloops is a distance away, no chance of my big mouth being heard. I had no idea what the assessed costs would be. Special costs are calculated (different tiers) based on the work done. It is not a fine. Candace sent me her bill for $25,000, NINE months later. Now I have another litigation I have to worry about. I have to take Candace to court to tax her $25,000 cost assessment.  Now another judge will decide if everything Candace did was necessary and reasonable and the cost assessment can be reduced. I am now questioning every single humiliation I perceived and now I can see it was deliberate.  What is happening to me is the underbelly of the court system we live under. I saw a procedural error, I tried to fix it, I get tossed under the bus.  A chilling effect on others who need the courts to clarify a process. 

  

The Dark Web and Fiduciary Law

 I keep thinking about why a black and white law, fiduciary law, is like the dark web, both are hard to understand and access.  No one really understands fiduciary law as it is a law for the dead but it is enacted  as it is for the living. Fiduciary law protects estates from possible exploitation by the living as the dead cannot advocate. When I said the administrator should withdraw, I was told I produced no evidence. Fiduciary law does not say I had to provide evidence, the administrator had to prove she was qualified. Under fiduciary law, the burden of proof is reversed.  This also goes to the expenses in a passing of accounts.  The administrator has to prove each expense was reasonable and necessary, it is not up to a beneficiary. The administrator, cannot be the same person, the person who spends the money and approves the expense. These basic fundamentals were entirely absent from the probate.  

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.