Passing of Accounts is done by coersive consent.

 

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.

Money, money, money

 I was going over the estate file.  There it was screaming at me.  Jenny, in 2022, purchased a van with a customized electric wheelchair lift.  With taxes and everything it was $100,000.  Why was that necessary when my brother was mobile.  But then it is easier for a caregiver to restrain him in a wheelchair than to deal with someone who is stubborn.  Chain him into a wheelchair and off you go. I understand that.

But what I do not understand is why the PGT allowed this $100,000 asset to depreciate over 2.5 years to $40,000.  The PGT should have arranged to sell the van immediately upon death of my brother.  When I researched in 2023 the van and the wheelchair lift, I was told that a customized van does not depreciate.  They are in high demand, so how was it being sold for $40,000 to someone in Alberta.  

The point is that asset should have been sold in 2022 by the PGT as she was the person in charge of the estate, therefore the PGT owes the estate $60,000 for not selling the van in a timely matter with the estate incurring a $60,000 loss. The question also is who was using the van after my brother died.  I can't ask my sister because her lawyer won't let her talk to me. Apparently her adult daughter was using it in 2025 as she had it tuned up prior to its sale.  It really does not matter who used what or when, the PGT owes the estate $60,000.

Then we got Candace the lawyer for my sister, the administrator of the estate.  Why didn't Candace go after the $60,000. It was a recoverable debt to the estate. It was her job to get the money from the PGT. And it was also Candace's job to make sure that the PGT collected the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the Estate plus interest.  How many other transactions were also not documented.  

In fact Candace told my sister to take no issue to the debt (see passing of accounts application).  In other words the Estate gifted the PGT $60,000. Remember the money belongs to the beneficiaries. And Candace and Heather are best besties.  They both agreed that beneficiaries have no rights.  

I did a court application asking for standing to participate in the PGT's passing of accounts application and the lawyers opposed it and the Court agreed. They with their half truths convinced the judge at the hearing that I had no rights.   The litigators said that the PPA, the Patients Property Act,  had jurisdiction.  Not true.  After death the property has to be passed by probate which guarantees beneficiaries rights to question all transaction pre and post death of the Person and expect reimbursement of monies to the estate if an expense was not reasonable, necessary or for the direct benefit of the Person. 

The Court made a mistake. There is no such thing as the administrator should get additional compensation because of her "kindness of living on the property ... no doubt she enjoyed living on the rural property and had some benefit from it."   That means to me any caregiver can drain an estate because she is kind.  It is there in black and white Reasons November 7 2025.  And then the court goes on to say that beneficiaries are not entitled to test the expenses because it might be a long drawn-out process. Well, then what is the point of the passing of the accounts.  To me the court is saying its role is to "rubber stamp" 597 pages of transactions without independent scrutiny.  

The Estate is owned by four beneficiaries, and Candace cannot gift anything on behalf of the administrator or anyone else.  And Heather cannot produce a lawful application without disclosing debts owed by the PGT to the Estate. But she did.  The PGT produced a spreadsheet with $8 million of transactions saying to the Court trust me.

This Estate reminds of a shell game.  No one knows or sees where the 'pea' lands.   

Definition from the internet. A police state usually depends on a combination of concentrated state power, weak independent oversight, limited ability to challenge officials, surveillance or intimidation, and secrecy about how decisions are made. When only authorities know the evidence, criteria, internal communications, or reasons for action, it becomes much harder for ordinary people to test whether power is being exercised lawfully. Mirrors the PGT.  Coersive consent.  PGT overreach. 

Half Truths or Narrative Enrichment

 I am extremely upset over the fact that the courts allow half truths in proceedings.  It is nauseating.  When a judge asks a lawyer what is the "silver bullet" to understand a statute, the lawyer in this case Heather shows him the statute that says that the accounts have to be delivered to the administrator.  She just neglects to show him the part that says if the administrator is in conflict then the accounts have to be delivered to the beneficiaries.  Half truths are permitted to my nauseatation.  I always believed that such juvenile behavior did not belong in the courts.  

Another illustration I asked Candace about the occupation rent that the administrator owes to the estate and she said that will not be discussed until the final disposition.  I have been asking her for this for over a year.  My research has been that such disclosure should have been made even before Jenny became the administrator.  But Candace just ignores the law.  Why because she can.  If a lawyer waits to the last minute, the beneficiaries are fed up and they will just agree to any compromise that is unjust just to get the probate over with.  In this case we are talking about 2.5 years of occupation rent at a market rate of $5,000 a month.  The rent covers a rural property with a 4,000 square foot home fully air conditioned in Kamloops, with a swimming pool, and 20 acres of property sloping gently down to a creek.  The property was purchased from monies from the estate so that the administrator had a place to board her four horses for free. This was one of the half truths  (omissions) Heather/Candace did not tell the Justice on November 7.  A passing of accounts has to tell exactly how money was spent (who was being enriched). Such evidence was totally absent at the hearing and also in the 597 pages of transactions submitted to the court. This was fucking outrageous.  I do not have time to go into detail but I will when I have additional time. There is something terribly wrong with our judicial system that allows this.  No wonder it is so expensive when the lawyers spend hours extracting how to present their half-lies.  They are not called lies, they are called omissions.  What I do not understand is why my sister is allowing her lawyer to do it.  And I also want to know why the PGT is allowing its lawyer to do it as well.  That is not a fair playing field.  It is a waste of time and such omisisons do influence court decisions.  I did not know this but judges are not expected to know the law; it is legal for them to defer to the truth of the lawyers for the interpretation of laws. No independent analysis.  And the lawyers rely on this ignorance and they exploit it.  

An example of a half truth.  The swimming pool.  It was purchased for my brother for therapy.  But Jenny decided she needed a fenced area for her "animals" so she had the estate spent $4,000 to have it filled in and have 2,000 square feet fenced in so her animals had a place to play.  And she had more than one animal. The house was like a zoo. 

The narrative enrichment was when Candace/Heather were going on and on about Jenny deserving additional compensation.  Compensation to drain the estate for her own use or maybe the animals were only for the benefit of my brother.  Take that to the fiduciary court.

Now I see what the problem is.  It is Dana Kingsbury, who is the PGT.  She is a dictator.  She does not even have a board of directors to account to.  Horror upon horror.  You can compare her office as that of a police state.  No wonder lawyers are afraid of her.  I have been also been told by others who were badly treated by the PGT to also be afraid. I just checked on the internet; it does not take a rocket scientist to know that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. What has happened is administrative law has overtaken commonsense. 

A paragraph from my affidavit of January 10 2025.

36. I told the beneficiaries that if they wanted to gift Jenny the rents due and owing they could 

do it independently 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 meaningful 

reunion with family members going forward.

A Billion Dollar Blind Spot

 Why I am doing this.

Canada's fiduciary landscape is vast:

- public guardians manage the property of tens of thousands of adults without receipts

- private attorneys and committees oversee the finances of aging parents and incapacited relations

- trustees administrer esates worth billions annually.

If 1% of fiduciary managed assets leak through unnecessay fees, undocumented disbursements, or administrative overreach, the annual loss could reach hundreds of millions of dollars per year.

And my experience has been that lawyers direct administrators to fully take advantage of their positions enforcing the justification that they are entitled. The entitled part comes from admistrators enriching themselves by self dealing.  

Fiduciary systems operate behind closed doors, with limited transparecny, inconsistent oversight, and procedural shortcuts that would be untinkable in any other financial sector.  Money drifts away through fees, administrative decisions, undocumented expenditures, and structural blind sports.  

Hidden Anarchy: Bad behavior becomes acceptable

 An essay.

An Ancient Problem: When Harm Is Allowed to Repeat Itself

There is nothing new about this problem. It is as old as human society.

Human beings have always struggled with what happens when power is exercised without accountability. When wrongdoing is ignored, hidden, excused, or treated with indifference, the danger is that it becomes easier for the same kind of wrongdoing to happen again.

We see this throughout human history. Abuse can remain hidden for years because people are silent, because those affected are afraid to speak, or because institutions find it easier not to look too closely. Silence does not necessarily cause the original wrong, but it can create the conditions in which wrongdoing continues.

The same principle applies to money and fiduciary power.

If a person entrusted with another person’s property learns that questionable spending will not be seriously examined, the lesson is not that the law is strong. The lesson is that nobody is watching.

And other people watching the system may learn the same lesson.

That is how standards deteriorate. One shortcut becomes accepted practice. Accepted practice becomes tradition. Tradition eventually becomes something nobody thinks to question.

The law may still be written in the books, but human behaviour has moved around it. Fiduciary trust has drifted to catch me if you can and if you do catch me what are you going to do about it. Appealing is an oxymoron. And those that do wrong and scarcastically tell you to appeal know you never will so bad behavior is sweeped under the carpet or flouted. These options are insidious and insulting.  

This is why accountability matters. It is not simply about punishing somebody after something has gone wrong. Accountability tells everyone else where the boundary is.

Without that boundary, society risks entering a cycle in which harm produces more harm, silence protects the wrongdoing, and indifference allows it to become normal.

That is the ancient danger behind what is hidden anarchy:

Wrongdoing does not have to be openly permitted. It only has to become something nobody is willing or able to stop. And it can repeat over and over so its appears to be normal.  

  

A Second System of Law

 The paradox I am involved.  Committees can apportion funds for their own use and the cost to force them to account is too expensive. I was just talking to a woman and the same thing happened to her mother's estate. The committee drained the estate. So I am not an outlier.  The most insideous of this behavior is most beneficiaries do not even know they were fleeced.  

From an essay off the internet.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation: A second system of law

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

When Justice Becomes a Business Calculation

There is an uncomfortable question that the legal profession needs to confront.

Lawyers did not merely enter a justice system created by somebody else. Lawyers have played a central role in drafting legislation, designing court procedures, interpreting those procedures, and determining how the system operates.

Yet the same profession largely delivers access to that system through a private business model.

That creates a conflict.

A law firm must consider cost, time, profitability, staffing, and risk. Those are understandable concerns for any business. But justice is not an ordinary product.

When the cost-benefit calculation of providing legal services determines whether a legal right can realistically be enforced, the economics of the legal profession begin to shape the meaning of the law itself.

A fiduciary duty may exist on paper. A beneficiary may have the right to demand an accounting. A vulnerable person's property may supposedly be protected.

But what happens when enforcing those rights costs tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars?

The law has not technically disappeared.

It has simply been priced beyond the reach of the person it was supposed to protect.

That is the paradox.

The legal profession speaks of access to justice while operating a system in which access is frequently sold by the hour.

There is nothing improper about lawyers earning a living. The problem begins when the business model becomes so dominant that economically inconvenient legal problems are effectively abandoned.

Then cost-benefit accounting quietly becomes a second system of law.

The written law asks: What are this person's rights?

The economic system asks: Is it worth enough money to enforce them?

When the second question consistently defeats the first, the rule of law begins to lose its meaning for the ordinary person.

Losing its meaning for the ordincary person, is losing respect for the law, losing respect for the law means stealth anarchy.

I love the word "stealth." It means corruption under the radar.  Corruption does not have to mean criminal, it also means civil corruption: doing something you should not do.  

  

 

Why.

 This whole scenario is over the PGT allowing my sister who was my brother's caregiver while he was alive the ability to use my brother's money as a ATM.  

Initially Jenny was the committee of estate to my brother estate but was removed by the PGT for questionable expenses so the PGT became the committee of estate but Jenny continued as my brother's caregiver with an open cheque book as long as expenses were for the direct care of my brother.  Direct does not mean that she could mix use a $100,000 transport van.  Under strict fiduciary law apportionment of assets are not allowed. And the PGT allowed invoices to pass without proper vetting or no invoices at all.  Jenny was a good person so she would never do anything untoward to the estate.  

BCCA Oral Reassons June 24 2026 CA51193

 These Reaons do not dispute the fact that the PGT cannot pass its accounts using the PPA Patient's Property Act to pass the PGT's accounts.  The accounts have to be passed under Probate laws, after the Patient is dead. The Reasons agreed with what Justice Crerar decided in November 7 2025 wherein the PPA was the correct pathway to pass the PGT's accounts.  But Supreme Rule 25.13 says it is the only mandatgory pathway where accounts of committees can pass.  See 24(2).  The PGT was wrong, Justice Greer was wrong. The BCCA was wrong. And nothing in the Reasons speculated otherwise.   

The PGT wanted its accounts hidden within the PPA so it (the PGT) would be void of any liability for it allowing unfiduciary accounts to be paid.  Since there were 597 pages of items/expenses X 10 items a page, that is 5970 accounts that had to be scrutined but not one was. It is statisically impossible for all the items to pass inspection. They were summarized in a computer transaction spreadsheet only for the eyes of the administrator.  The administrator took no position and later she declined her authority to test the accounts.  Exactly what the PGT wanted.  Now all the PGT had to do was rush an application for summarily approval to a supreme court judge who would rubber stamp the 5976 entries. Such approvals are routine when the PGT is the committee as Courts defer to government actors. The PGT had finality, an Order that no one could touch. 

All the parties are free from surcharges except the beneficiaries who pay for the errors as their inheritences have to eat the losses.

   

the Sickos

 On Monday I attended at the courthouse to do some research and I walked the hall on the third floor and looked in on all the courtrooms.  I was looking for security presence.  There was none.  I asked a security guard why weren't there guards in any of the courtrooms.  He said they only attend if they are requested by counsel. 

Three times on three different hearings there were security guards when I had to attend a hearing. 

I am fed up with Heather Matheson and Candace Cates. They are sickos.  Considering how unprofessionally I have been treated by them, they did it deliberately as it would say to the judges indirectly that there are big problems as these woke lawyers were fearful for their person.  I do not know how else to describe their behavior except as SICKO.

I can understand Candace doing that because she is from the sticks. But the other one works for the Public Guardian and Trustee ... but then maybe that is how the PGT gets parties to consent to what the PGT wants using such intimination to get consent for relocating vulnerable seniors who do not want to be relocated.   

to launder or not to launder

 I was told not to say that the PGT used the Patient's Property Act to administratively laundry its accounts.  The correct wording is the PGT used a "closed accounting route" to pass its accounts.

It is about as dumb as saying that a shoplifter is not a thief but rather an "opportunist."

Lawyers follow the law rather than think the law.

 I had a short nap and upon waking, this was in my head:  lawyers follow the law, they do not think the law.  That is what they do they do not think the law, they do not think how it should be, they just follow what the past said.  It is like they are on autopilot.  It has been done like that for years or decades, and that is the law.  But following the law, is only one part of the law, it has to be tempered with what the intent of the law is. For example, I was perplexed when I found out the form P2 was not served on me or any interested party containing the materials for the appointment of my sister to be the administrator of my brother's estate.  A form P1 was served on the beneficiaries, but it was only a Notice saying my sister was wanting to be the applicant.  At that time I really did not understand what was going on but it seemed to be that she jumped the line. And she did.  What happened her lawyer filed the P2 without serving it on any of the beneficiaries, those that should know what is going on, and my sister became the administrator.  The only problem with that was that she was heavily conflicted and she was totally uneducated to know what is expected of an administrator. Her conflict was that she owed at that time 1.5 years of rent to the estate, so she was a debtor to the estate. Now, she still owes 2.5 years of rent. How her lawyer got around this conflict was to send an estate settlement agreement to all the beneficiaries in the hope that the beneficiaaries would be stupid enough to sign an ESA that had no market value of the rent in it. That did not work and then her  lawyer said it would be discussed at the passing of accounts.  With "cost intimidation" hanging over the beneficiaries. Jenny will claim that she was the caretaker of the property and to go to court to have the court say it is nonsense would cost more legal fees, the beneficiaries would just sign off to make sure that they get what is their "sure" inheritance: the money that is in the bank.  So she gets a windfall of 2.5 free rent plus her share of the estate.  That doesn't seem fair to the rest of the beneficiaries.  And it is not fair, and it is not legal under estate law. In addition to her share of the inheritence, free rent for 2.5 years, she also gets 5% remuneration for being the administrator. Jenny's prime goal was to communicate with the beneficiaries and as far as I can tell, she never communicated with anyone because she never communicated with me.  Candace was running the estate.  And Candace is making sure her fee includes every single paperclip she used. One of the disbursements she included in her invoice of October was $800 for photocopies.  What photocopies, everything is done paperlessly.  Maybe it was for legal research, researching what. Doing research is not necessary as that is her job to know how best to administer an esate.  It is a simple estate, one piece of property, one vehicle, and a monies in a trust account.  

The problem is when an unqualifed administrator gets the Grant to be administrator, it is extremely difficult to have that person removed unless that person resigns.  But that is not going to happen when the lawyer for the adminisrator is looking at the long road, the continuous fee for creating a situation that should not have happened in the first place.  Candace should have told Jenny that since there is a whisper of conflict that Jenny should resign.  And an independent person who has no conflicts be appointed. Lawyers are not supposed to create litigation but she did.  

Invoice from Candace October 22 2025 $ 83,370.37

 I am reviewing some of the items and how they are "groomed" so the other beneficiaries know why the invoice is so egregious.

 During October 2025 it was a very stressful time.  I was facing three court applications, one very, very, very heavy on how to respond to 597 pages of accounts. 

 During that time I received an email from Candace advising that she will oppose further delay and will seek costs against me if matters are adjourned, and that I sais all the lawyers involved are slimy.  Yes and every single time all my requests for adjournments were denied.  It is near impossible to meet court deadlines if you are a self-litigant. And why I am a self-litigant is because the lawyers I approach call the other lawyers under confidentiality before they accept my case because they belong to the favour club of lawyers. They do not want potentially problem clients.  

And the comment.  And that all the lawyers involved are slimy.  I know I did not say that and Candace never attached the email of me saying that.  If I had something to say against the lawyers associated with this "simple" estate it would be worse than SLIMY. 

From invoice: email October 16 2025 $80.00.  Email to Audrey Laferriere advising Estate will oppose further dalay and will seek costs against her if matters are adjourned, and that all the lawyers involved are slimy.      $80 is a week's groceries including toilet paper.  

I am not blaming Candace; I am blaming all the beneficiaries, my blood relatives, who are telling Candace what to do. But we all know that is not true, lawyers tell clients what to do.  Because if you do not do what a lawyer wants, the lawyer quits.  

Heather Matheson and Costs

 On June 3 2026 at a hearing for me asking for an adjournment which her client the Public Guardian and Trustee refused to give me, I noticed when leaving the courtroom a security guard was shielding her as if I was a threat to her body.  Outside the courtroom I asked her why did she need a security guard.  She said that she did not have to talk to me.  Today this situation came up again and her reply in an email was Please know that these kinds of communications will be placed before the court when we make our application for special costs.  She gets a personal body guard at the expense of the Province. The PGT authorized it. What special costs it was a simple applciation for an adjournment.  It did not even require her attendance. But she produced a 100 page affidavit to convince the judge that I should not be granted any adjournment.  At that time I felt that I needed extra time as I was a self representative and needed to prepare properly for oral submissions on June 24. The chamber's judge said that he could not accommodate me as the question of an adjournment was out of his hands.  It rested solely with the registrar of scheduling as per the appeal rules. The point is Heather was a lawyer and she knew that a chamber's judge had no jurisdiction and she could have told me that but NO that wasn't her job. Her job was to incur costs including the kitchen sink to prove she can get special costs so her whole fee to the PGT is covered.  There are different levels of costs when you go to go.  Ordinary costs which are reasonable and then there are special costs which include every paperclip.  Special costs go beyond required costs to include every minute a lawyer deicates to a file.  Special costs are supposed to be for outrageous conduct like not telling the truth to a judge, producing fraudulent documents. The PGT push for special costs so they do not want to pay their lawyers for doing what is not absolutely necessary. And invariably the person fearing additional costs just pays.  It is called litigation strategy. June 3 wasn't the first time a sheriff was in the courtroom, it was the third time. Sheriffs do not attend civil hearings unless requested. Their presence is a subtle intimidation tactic and a credibility‑shaping signal to a judge. It is a sick game lawyers play. The first time was in 2024 when my sister phoned to warn me that Rule and Leah Card were out to get me and for me to be careful.  What is wrong with these sicko lawyers. 

Bernie Madoff: The Man Who Stole $65 Billion and Made Everyone Thank Him

Rule of Law

 from ourstoprotect.ca

What is the rule of law?

In short, the rule of law means that laws — not individuals — govern Canada. It means nobody is above the law. Laws must be clear, fair, and applied equally by courts that are independent from the government. And the rights and freedoms of Canadians must be protected under those laws.

This principle shapes our everyday lives, from our ability to speak freely, to knowing that our justice system is designed to treat everyone as equals. In places where the rule of law is strong, we find thriving communities, stronger economies, better education, greater peace, and longer life expectancy.

But today, the rule of law is under pressure — around the world and here in Canada. Fewer than half of Canadians trust that our justice system works as intended, and more than two-thirds worry that political interference could begin to shape our courts.

None of us should take the rule of law for granted. Protecting our rights takes education, awareness, and a commitment to fairness from all of us. Together, we can keep Canada’s rule of law strong. It’s ours to protect.

I can't get over the anger

 A friend of mine died,  think it was sudden death, at a social housing project, run by the City of Vancouver. I still cannot get over it.  He died, and because he had no next -of -kin, the City took his body and hid it.  And what did they do with his stuff, trash it. I am fed up with this confidentiality garbage.  The guy is dead, and he is treated as abandoned trash.  What is happening to our society.  As for the City I wrote Ken Sim and he never even emailed me back.  What is wrong with him.  I saw him on video yesterday. He seems to be surrounded with body guards and he looks like he has a drinking problem.  And what is he doing on TV, talking about the vulnerable people he is trying to get prison housing for. Has anyone looked at the City roads and sidewalks lately or even the trees.  They are all in decline.  Pot holes everwhere.  Trees not pruned. Garbage and homeless everywhere.  Let's not vote for Sim again.  

Project Ends

 It has been eight days since my project ended.  It has been very draining for me.  I can't seem to do anything except sleep.  I am being forced to sleep, I cannot stop it.  Maybe in a few days I will feel better.  I just hope that no one phones me to upset me.  I have so much to talk about but I just can't now.  Maybe for the rest of my life I will just  grow flowers. 

PGT goes Ultra Vires

 PGT goes UltraVires

The PGT robbed me of my inheritance

 The PGT robbed me of my inheritance and the court approved their scheme. 

June 3 2026 : Stealth Passing of Accounts by the B C Public Guardian and Trustee: To Serve To Protect. A masterminded shell game.

 I have had with the PGT and Candace Cates (the lawyer for my sister).  From the very beginning when Candace sent me an Estate Settlement Agreement with the expectation that I would sign it, and her subsequent behavior because I did not sign it, these behavior are killing me (cut me) by a thousand cuts.  Anything I had anything to do with Candace and Heather Mathison the lawyer for the PGT, a further cut, a further cut.  I am to the point now I am expended.  

What this is about is that the PGT did not vet expenses that my sister wanted in her capacity as my brother's caregiver (committee of person).  The expenses were not vetted/audited by the PGT properly as to who really benefitted from them.  If the PGT could not prove the expenses then the PGT would be surcharged and the expense (or part of the expense not used by my brother) would have to  reimbursed to the estate by the PGT. The PGT's statement of account covered 597 pages.  

Fast forward to June 3 2026 a hearing was to be scheduled and I was the person who had to schedule it.  It was in Kamloops and the dates available were for September. I have been mentioned to the other lawyers of my difficulties, problems with my computer, stress, health conditions for months.  It did not matter, Candace and Heather went behind my back and had the registrar of scheduling change the venue of the court to Vancouver and advance the date to June 24 for my convenience so a senior did not have to travel by bus to Kamloops.  I objected as I knew the timeline would not give me enough time to prepare.  I was told that I fit into the "box" the registrar had, no exceptions.  That I could appeal his decision by asking a chamber's judge to overrule his decision. I did not realize the registrar's "letter" was a court order.  I thought the letter was just a letter.  Appealing a court order is near impossible,  there has to be some legal issue and a standard of correctiveness which was absent. Heather reminding me to seek counsel is an insult when she knew no lawyer would take me on.  She knew no appellant litigator would take on additional work on short notice.  They are a mini-trial.  They require a great deal of work and for a self-litigant multi hours/days to prepare to ask that a comma be moved.  At the June 3 2026 the chamber's judge said that he could not do anything as he had to defer to the registrar's untested box, criteria used by the registrar.

As we exited the chamber's room, I noticed a court security officer obviously "shielding" Heather. I realized that Heather had asked security to protect her. I hope the PGT is giving Heather extra "danger" pay.  Better yet, the court should bill the PGT for protecting Heather from an 80 year old woman.This is intimidation and cutting humiliation. The real reason was to show the judge that the PGT counsel had to enlist security to handle an adjournment to subtly infer to the justice and others in the courtroom that I was "crazy." When I asked Heather if she did call security, she told me that she would not talk to me. 

Heather wanted a fast closing date to the appeal hearing as she knew I would not be prepared.  A self-rep can't just go in front a panel of three appeal judges, not being prepared or better yet be as I am now emotionally expended that I would just quit. If the appeal does not go forward the PGT keeps its "blessed" reputation of protecting the vulnerables and protecting their estates. If the PGT's case was so great, they would have no reason to cut me with a thousand cuts and pay Heather to do it. Every action of Heather and Candace has been calculating to this end.

Heather sent me an Order yesterday confirming that my application to vary the scheduling direction of the registrar is dismissed and I had to pay the costs of the application, the application package for them opposing the adjournment was 95 pages long.  Do you have any idea how much it would cost to pay a lawyes for that package to adjourning a hearing.  How simple can an adjournment be.  But I was wrong an adjournment is a mini-trial with full tariff costing. .  

The June 24 hearing is for an appeal and no senior appeal lawyer would ever approach such a hearing if he was not prepared.  Arranging dates are done by consent among lawyers projecting months ahead to ensure that they will be prepared by their own estimation but if you are not a lawyer, then you fit in a box to which you cannot escape. To arrange a comfortable date all a lawyer has to say his calendar is full.  Like Candace said that she had a 30 day trial in Kamloops in September/October and it would be most expedient to have the hearing on June 24 2026. It would assist the mandate of the appeal court to a fair and speedy hearing. Nevermind if I would be adequately prepared or not. I know what my limitations and expectations are.  When I asked for Candace for the confirmation of the 30 day trial I received no reply. If she lied to the court, then she should be disbarred.  

A few days before the June 3 hearing, Heather said that if I agreed to a condition which is confidential that they will agree to a date being September 8 2026, a condition that they safely knew from my past behavior I would not agree to. Candace and Heather were in a big rush and now they are going to give me three monts to prepare. At the time of the offer they had already prepared all the documents and within 1.5 hours after I said I would agree to the September 8 2026 hearing deleting the condition, the documents were filed and I was served with stamped copies by courier. Remarkable quick preparation and timing.  Now they can say that Audrey was given three more months to prepare but she refused so now they look like they are accommodating.  That is not possible.  Once a registrar makes a direction counsel cannot change it by consent. It was to overwhelm me and make me crazy. 

Let's not digress from the point that the PGT wants to shield itself from surcharges that it would have to pay for not properly vetting for necessary expenses for my brother's direct care. Think expense accounts not vetted and approved by the same person who spent the money. That is what this is all about.  Stealth passing of accounts. And they accomplished it by poisoning the well. My motive has always been to see that the probate is done properly.  I had no improper motive. My sister never wanted to be the administrator but she told me she was pressured into it.  There was a backroom deal wherein if Jenny would be the administrator, my brother's $18,000 legal fee would be paid by the estate, and Jenny's occupation rent would be waived. Lawyers broker for their legal fees. They do not care who they hurt, it is just windfall money.  And who negotiated this settlement agreement, Leah Card.  The Canadian lawyer of the year, a go-to expert in estates.  And who suffered from this backroom deal, me, Natalie and Stephanie as our inheritances would be reduced. And Jenny and Ron had no idea that they were robbing us. Monies have to come from somewhere to finance the shell game.

Affdavit of Mackenzie Bennett Banks May 29 2026

 In the affidavit Banks (lawyer for PGT) sworn:  June 2 2026 blogged. 

Paragraph 13.  With Respect to Ms. Laferriere's intention to delay this matter.

a.  I attach as Exhibit F ...This affidavit confirms that "Audrey stated that she will fight until there are no monies left in the Estate." Affidavit of Ronald Popove.

b.  I attach as Exhibit G ..thatAudrey has stated that "she wold do anything to delay the administration of the Estate, so that Ronald Popove does not get his inheritance. 

I never said.  They were fabrications.  Why would I want to delay the estate. How sick is the PGT to entertain such lies to be put into affidavits by their lawyer, Heather Mathison.  They are not logical and what was the purpose. 

The slander was part of a package to my Form 4 where I asked that the court adjourn the June 24 2026 hearing, a hearing which Heather went behind my back to arrange when it was my job to arrange as I was the appellant.  Both Heather and Candace work by legal stealth and half truths.  

And me asking for an adjournment necessitated that Heather construct 95 pages of noise.  All she had to say at the June 3 hearing, Jenny, Ron, Stephanie, Natalie and the PGT object.  The reason because they want to close the PGT file asap.  The day after the Grant was issued to my sister the administrator, the passing of the accounts could have been initiated (September 16 2024) but no the PGT waited until October 8 2025 to file its summary application to pass its accounts with a returnable date November 3 2025.  There were 597 pages containing 10 - 12 items each page and the PGT wanted it approved and consented to by November 3. I crashed the party (the court) and for doing so I had costs of $40,000 slapped against me for interferring as I had no standing, only my sister had standing, that is only she could attend and swear the 587 pages of account listings were consented to and approved.  The fact that my sister withdrew on October 28 2025 because there was an apprehension of conflict therefore there was no one who could approve and consent to the accounts and therefore the passing of accounts should never have happened. But it did.  Fast forward I appealed the Order as a beneficiary as I wanted the accounts tested. It is an audit, how was the money spent.  Maybe an audit would only disclosure honesty but I had a right to know.  Preparing for an appeal is very time consuming and labour intensive as the roadblock is the learning curve, learning the process and the legal code used by the appeal process. And considering I can't remember my postal code it has been very tough.  Finally on April 21 the appeal was court ready.  Court ready does not mean that the lawyers are ready as there still is a lot of work to be done which might take 4 - 6 months for a senior appeal lawyer and he will not be rushed as court of appeal decisions are serious decisions, they change law.  But the PGT decided that since the file was court ready I should also be ready.  No consideration that I had another court case scheduled for May 5 which was stressing for me and I was working 24/7 on everything. Since I was the appellant it was me who had to arrange (Form 5) for an appeal hearing date. I consulted with the Appeal Registry as the file was a Kamloops file and I was told that dates were available in September 2026.  That would give me enough time to review all the documents (thousands of pages) learn the learning curve to prepare oral submissions properly and get some sleep.  That did not suit the PGT so Heather went behind my back and arranged with the registry for a June 24 date and moved the hearing from Kamloops to Vancouver saying I was a senior and the bus trip would tire me for court.  The point is what was the rush when it was the PGT along with the administrator that caused the delay in the first place. Think about it 95 pages of mostly emails back and forth presenting a history to the Court of my alleged dilatory behavior.  And the proposed Order of Heather is telling the court that she wants me to pay for the adjournment if it given or not.  I figure 95 pages at $100 a page is $9,500. You can always tell how much an application will cost by counting the pages. Rule of thumb counting all legal fees etc one page = $100.  I have tried unsuccessfully to hire a lawyer.  It is very difficult to find a senior appellant lawyer to do a modest estate.  So I have to put up with  litigation abuse.  I feel like I am being killed with a thousand cuts. Think 95 pages to ask for an adjournment with exhibits telling the court that I owe Mussio my x-lawyer who is not an appellant lawyer $10,000..  Chilling effect.