| "HOUSTON V. HOUSTON ET AL." CONTINUED |
CHAOS IN THE BC SUPREME COURT
After Justice Burnyeat had pronounced his judgements in the August 5, 2005 hearing he told Taylor
and my counsel, Glen Sherman, that he wanted the matter to return to court no later than
September 30. (This deadline is mentioned at least five times in the entered order derived from the
August 5 hearing and is in fact a distinct, binding term, Term 14, in the document.) With no new
information to be presented to the court, and with his judgements on Taylor's application clearly
stated, I didn't understand why Burnyeat wanted the hearing to continue for another day, and
perhaps even longer. I began thinking back to the nightmare of my criminal proceedings in North
Vancouver where The Deadbolt kept putting the matter over with my every court appearance as
though not in any rush to see it tidied up and resolved. That process felt to me like a form of
psychological torture and power-flexing on the part of the court and the legal Bar. I feared a similar
tactic could be at play here: A tactic of a perpetual, never-ending hearing that would rapidly become
financially impossible for me to continue funding. My legal budget is already maxed-out as it is. I'm
up to $35,000.00 in the civil matter alone, not including countless hours of work I've done on my
own with letters to lawyers, banks and the receiver manager and with complaints to regulatory
authorities. It's been a full-time job, really. Thirty-five thousand dollars and jack-shit to show for
it. And I'm the only individual actually financing these proceedings with out-of-pocket cash. Then
I'm facing Taylor who is litigating against me without getting paid, at least not as far as I know,
presumably deferring his fees until the matter is settled. That's an overwhelmingly unfair advantage
against me. I have never met a lawyer who was willing to work in the capacity he has, dragging the
matter on for years without recompense. I don't believe he's getting paid, anyway, as I have
instructed my father not to pay any legal bills from any lawyers. (One very important tip for anyone
hiring a lawyer: My experience is they don't give change. Whatever amount of money you pay into
a retainer will probably be entirely withheld by the law firm. When discharged they might provide a
token refund or just as likely send you a bill for more money. The lawyer will find a way to justify
a billing structure that allows him to keep all money paid into 'trust.' Therefore I recommend never
giving the lawyer a large lump sum but instead compensating him on a pay-as-you-go, results based
instalment system.)
Anyway, September came and went with no resumption of the hearing. Then I ran into another
problem. Items were gradually going missing from my rented suite in the Whalley region of Surrey.
A vintage watch disappeared and at the time I dismissed it as probably nicked by a shifty guest I had
allowed into my home. Then in October I reached to the coffee table for my binoculars to identify
the insignia on a passenger plane flying overhead (something I had taken to doing for amusement as
the house I lived in is on the flight path for aircraft landing at Vancouver International) and they
weren't there. Impossible. I had just used the binoculars the previous day, they could only have
been stolen. I looked around my apartment for other obvious items a thief might take and sure
enough my cell phone and my digital camera were gone too. So I went out and purchased a hinge
lock and a padlock for the main entrance and a sliding lock for the door to the laundry room I share
with the upstairs tenant, a tenant who'd stiffed the landlord on the rent and was squatting in the
home illegally. After screwing in the locks I took a drive up the Sunshine Coast to visit my dad for
the weekend, deciding that if I returned to the suite and nothing more had been stolen I would
continue to live there, otherwise I would have to leave.
When I returned on the Monday afternoon the two locks I had installed had been broken and my
home had been ransacked; my television, stereo system, CDs, DVDs, clock radios - all removed
from the suite. Some food had been stolen as well. Interestingly, the only locks that had been
damaged were the two I had installed, the other locks had not been noticeably tampered with.
Someone had access to the suite, possibly key access, and was waiting till I went out and then
would come and go as they pleased, taking whatever they wanted.
I called the police and when the police car showed up and parked in front of the house the squatter
upstairs fled out the back door as though he just got off the hell-elevator, his fright-stricken face
ashen grey like a zombie. Granted, that doesn't prove that he was involved in the theft; he may
have believed the police were there to evict him or arrest or question him on some other matter.
Who knows?
Not wanting to risk a confrontation in the middle of the night with a burglar looking for something
else to steal to take to the pawn shop to hock for cash to buy drugs, I commenced vacating the suite
and began moving my possessions out of there. Still, whenever I showed up at the house the
following day to continue moving contents out I would notice more items had been stolen. Very
brazen thieves.
So, now I'm living with my dad, the petitioner in the BC Supreme Court civil action against me, in
the beach house we co-own in Powell River. When I announced my arrival he immediately fired his
home-care helper, trusting me to take care of all cooking and shopping and other household duties.
On the afternoon of December 8, 2005 I checked my e-mail and opened a note from Sherman
stating that Taylor's postponed hearing was to resume the next morning at ten a.m. The next
morning! Essentially no notice to me. He wrote that the reason for the hearing was simply to settle
the terms of a cross-examination order of my father and nothing more. He asked me to call him to
discuss it. I found a payphone and called him and instructed him to demand that the court honour,
and allow us to enforce, the cross-examination order that Burnyeat had requested of my father (as
well as myself, my sister and my mother) in the November 1, 2002 hearing. In a previous meeting
in Sherman's downtown Vancouver office there seemed to be some confusion about whether the
cross-examination orders existed. In order to clear that up I personally went to the courthouse and
looked through the file and found a transcript of the hearing. Yep, there it was: Orders for the
cross-examinations of all four individuals. I also received a copy of the notes of a court clerk
present at the hearing that showed the applications for cross-examinations had been approved.
There was no denying the orders existed. However, for some reason both my counsel at the time of
the application, Nathan S. Ganapathi, as well as the petitioner's counsel, Robert W. Taylor, had
refused to draw up and enter the orders. And Taylor still refuses to comply with it.
I told Sherman the cross-examination of my father was the trump card that should bring this litigious
harassment to an end. That order is what we need to force a settlement. "Well, you've already got
the cross-examination order," Sherman assured me. He was right, I do have the order.
When I got home Dad was peacefully watching the evening news as he does every night before
dinner.
"Dad, guess what?" I asked him.
"What?"
"I received an e-mail from my lawyer today. He tells me you're suing me in the morning in BC
Supreme Court. At ten a.m. Do you know about that?"
He shook his head and said, "No." He knew nothing about it. Then he shrugged and together we
watched the news.
Since I moved in with my father on October 22, 2005 he has not taken a phone call or received a
letter from the Vancouver lawyers who are supposedly representing him.
At about 4:30 the next afternoon I took a call from Sherman on my father's phone briefing me on
the outcome of the hearing. I was told that the bulk of what Taylor requested was approved and
I'm to pay the petitioner's costs. According to the order, the cash to be diverted in the general
direction of Taylor amounted to about $600,000.00. Oh, and Justice Burnyeat refused to honour
the court order allowing for the cross-examination of my disabled father on his affidavits. Shocking
but at the same time not shocking at all. I can't deny that I have misguided hope at the outset of
these hearings that the system will begin functioning justly. That hope is always dashed. The
resistance put up by these Vancouver lawyers is amazing. The rule when dealing with this lot:
Expect the worse.
Although I had not seen a notice of motion from PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., they showed up at
Taylor's hearing to make an application against me as well. I was not informed of this application
and I was given no opportunity to defend myself against it through filing a statement of defense.
PwC, represented by the Vancouver law firm Poulsen & Company, requested a gag order that
prohibits my direct communication with either PwC or their counsel; I am not to "contact" the
receiver manager or its counsel other than through counsel of my own. I would have objected to
this application on the grounds that it is unwarranted; I am indeed duly represented by a lawyer.
You don't need to go to court for something frivolous like that. And I do have a legal right to
represent myself if I so wish as well, do I not? Poulsen & Company applied to the court for the
civil equivalent of the Criminal Code Section 810 - a no-contact order where injury or damage is
feared, the difference here is that I wouldn't have to report to a probation officer. The Criminal
Code 810 lasts for a duration of one year and has specific terms and restrictions. However, the
no-contact order PwC and Poulsen & Company requested of the judge had no terms whatsoever
and no time limit. Why does PwC and Poulsen & Company, whom I've never communicated with,
need a no-contact order against me? What is the allegation necessitating it? We don't know. Does
the no-contact order extend until the receiver manager is discharged or until appealed? If not
appealed is it then a lifetime no-contact order? We don't know. With no specific terms I have no
way of knowing when I have made "contact" with PwC or their counsel and thus breached the
order. A huge encroachment on my personal liberty and freedom and I'm not invited to the hearing
to oppose it. This reminds me very much of the criminal fiasco in North Van where the Crown and
the judge were absolutely adamant that I retain a lawyer and not be self-represented - these lawyers
really seem to hate hearing what I have to say. The blunt truth hurts, doesn't it?
Poulsen & Company also requested an order from the judge approving PwC's fees. If given a
chance, some questions I would have asked would include: Why was one of the companies billed
for advertising as documented in one of the reports to the court? What is the purpose of a
technician in PwC's fee structure? And why, after three years, does PwC suddenly need to have a
judge approve their fees?
Both of PwC's requests were granted by Burnyeat. Not only did PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. get
a restraining order on me, PwC also got the same no-contact condition on my mentally infirm father
as well. Without a proper hearing. The order approving PwC's fees doesn't put any dollar figure on
the amount to be paid to PwC, it's essentially a blank cheque for PwC to remunerate themselves
whatever amount they choose.
As I say, always expect the worst from the Vancuba bunch (Vancuba as in embargo the dump.) On
November 14, 2005 BMO Nesbitt Burns completely liquidated the assets of one of the companies
named in the suit, Powell River Investments Ltd., and mailed a cheque for the proceeds to
PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. The cheque was for $787,169.07 Canadian. Not an insignificant
amount of money to have suddenly disappear. According to the brokerage statement, the capital left
BMO Nesbitt Burns not as Powell River Investments Ltd. money, but instead as PwC cash. This
transaction is an unimaginable breach of the order appointing PwC as receiver manager. According
to the order PwC demanded to do the job and was a party to drawing up, any sale of any security
or asset in receivership can only occur by a separate order of the court. This term in the order
serves as a safety-buffer to prevent mistakes and acts of fraud from occurring, and to generally
protect and maintain the integrity of the assets. There has been no judgement rendered by the court
to allow the sale of all our stocks in the Powell River Investments Ltd. account.
So, as far as I can tell, in excess of three quarters of a million dollars has been quietly removed from
the table in this dispute and sits in PwC's bank account and no credible legal system exists in British
Columbia to confront what appears to be PwC's outright commission of contempt and fraud. PwC
and Poulsen & Company's unexplained no-contact order against me appears to have been a
half-hearted attempt to intimidate me and obstruct me from dealing with this misappropriation of
funds when I found out about it. And in another startling move by PwC and Poulsen & Company,
in March 2006 I received a notice of motion informing me they were returning to court to secure an
order that liquidated a real estate holding of another company in receivership. PwC seems to have
suddenly gone crazy with this liquidation spree, not realizing that the lawsuit the companies are
named in has not yet been litigated and probably never will be.
On the morning of May 23, 2006 my father was put on a plane bound for Vancouver. The next
day he underwent surgery at St. Paul's Hospital in downtown Vancouver, a block or two away from
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. (According to their website, St. Paul's is a faith-based,
Catholic hospital. My family is not Catholic.) Having lived with him and having watched him for
seven months, I could see that my dad was not that sick, he was still very much alive and kicking,
still in possession of his trademark shitty attitude. He had a few more years left in him; maybe three
or five, I suspected probably another twenty. I was kept completely in the dark with respect to his
medical affairs. I didn't even take him to the local airport for the flight; he was picked up by a taxi
that had been arranged by my sister long distance from her home in North Vancouver. He was very
much alive when he went out the door. Nine days later, on June 2, 2006, he died while recovering
from the operation -- supposedly of a sudden heart attack (this is what I was told by my mother
who is my only source of information when it comes to my sister. She also told me that my father's
surgery was for a stomach aneurysm). They just can't do anything right in that city. I'm told my
sister had just visited him when he suddenly became fatally ill.
With all the fraud and corruption I've unearthed, mostly originating from downtown Vancouver's
core; and especially considering my recent discovery of PwC's pocketing of more than three
quarters of a mil back in November, my dad's sudden death strikes me as very, very creepy. He
dies, not on the operating table, but while in recovery, over a week after the surgery, in a ghetto
hospital in fraud central at the exact same time I commence reporting PwC's embezzlement to the
authorities? The timing is all wrong. People don't go to the hospital and just die, except maybe if
admitted to emergency if they've been in a car accident. A car accident would have been easier to
take. It doesn't sit well with me and, to be frank, it feels like a hit. A last cold hit on my old man.
I'm not saying it was a hit, but that's what it feels like.
My father suffered an almost fatal stroke in 1996. Miraculously he managed to recover somewhat.
But instead of allowing a family some dignity in the final days of a patriarch's life, he was propped
up like a lifeless rag doll by this province's woeful legal system and used mercilessly by ruthless
lawyers to harass his son. It's painful for me to realize that I helped to nurture my father with his
recovery from the stroke so he could be recuperated and healthy enough, barely enough, to sue me.
A credible petitioner was deemed unnecessary in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to keep an
action rolling like a runaway train for over five years and counting; the litigation and trial of an actual
lawsuit was deemed unnecessary in the Supreme Court to see an action continue without a
resolution or settlement for years and years. And it has now been revealed that a living petitioner is
not required to make an application to the court in the province of BC.
On June 1, 2006 Robert W. Taylor gave notice to Sherman he was going back to court on behalf of
his client in six days time. (I don't consider six days reasonable notice of a hearing.) On June 2
Robert W. Taylor's client died. He was advised of this fact by my sister on June 5. Simple logic
tells me that as of the precise, exact, pinpoint instant of his death, any further litigation done in my
dad's name, if it is to continue, will be administered by his estate and the counsel for his estate. I
have maintained that these judge-pumping lawyers on their courtroom fishing expeditions were not
receiving direction from my disabled father, it was either coming from my sister or they were acting
unilaterally. And surely there is no dispute as to whether a lawyer can receive instruction from a
corpse? Unless you believe in the supernatural, it's not possible. And even if you do believe in the
paranormal, it's not admissible in court. However, on June 6, four days after his heart attack,
Robert W. Taylor made an application to the court before Justice Burnyeat on behalf of his
deceased client.
On behalf of a dead man!
This June 6 hearing must have been quite a spectacle. Taylor wasn't representing a client and, even
though Sherman was present, I wasn't represented. Sherman informed the court at the outset of the
hearing he had withdrawn as my counsel. However, even though he wasn't representing me he did
sign off on an order that consisted of settled terms of the order derived from the December 9, 2005
hearing. The order Sherman signed off on also awarded a massive cash payout to my sister of
about $440,000.00. Very nice winnings for someone who's not represented (or even a party) in the
dispute.
There were no clients represented in this hearing, only lawyers and a judge. My father was
deceased, I was unrepresented, yet an extensive hearing was held. How is it that Taylor managed to
have a hearing held in BC Supreme Court to settle a court order on behalf of a client who is
deceased? To whom was Taylor going to deliver the results of his application? To my sister it
appears. (I've found stubs of bank drafts totalling over $38,000.00 drawn on the Edgemont Village,
North Vancouver branch of Bank of Montreal paid out to Taylor Veinotte Sullivan. My sister lives
in Edgemont Village.)
Taylor also tabled a surprise ace card from his hand on behalf of my opposition in this longstanding
dispute. In 1996, prior to my father's stroke and serious health problems, he had a last will and
testament drawn up, on his own and without my knowledge, that named me as the executor of his
estate. In the hearing on behalf of a dead petitioner, Robert W. Taylor informed my lawyer that in
2002 a new will was drawn up naming my estranged sister as the executrix and sole beneficiary of
his estate.
There was no service for my father.
In addition to PwC's 2005 theft of $787,169.07 from the Powell River Investments Ltd. accounts
held at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., the following unlawful transactions, taking place in 2003, have
been uncovered: Assets totalling $159,660.30 were illegally liquidated in the accounts and PwC has
received payments (cheques made out directly to PricewaterhouseCoopers) from BMO Nesbitt
Burns amounting to $159,813.42. No court orders have been obtained by either PwC or BMO to
justify this tampering of the securities in the brokerage accounts. The transactions are completely
illegal.
After Justice Burnyeat had pronounced his judgements in the August 5, 2005 hearing he told Taylor
and my counsel, Glen Sherman, that he wanted the matter to return to court no later than
September 30. (This deadline is mentioned at least five times in the entered order derived from the
August 5 hearing and is in fact a distinct, binding term, Term 14, in the document.) With no new
information to be presented to the court, and with his judgements on Taylor's application clearly
stated, I didn't understand why Burnyeat wanted the hearing to continue for another day, and
perhaps even longer. I began thinking back to the nightmare of my criminal proceedings in North
Vancouver where The Deadbolt kept putting the matter over with my every court appearance as
though not in any rush to see it tidied up and resolved. That process felt to me like a form of
psychological torture and power-flexing on the part of the court and the legal Bar. I feared a similar
tactic could be at play here: A tactic of a perpetual, never-ending hearing that would rapidly become
financially impossible for me to continue funding. My legal budget is already maxed-out as it is. I'm
up to $35,000.00 in the civil matter alone, not including countless hours of work I've done on my
own with letters to lawyers, banks and the receiver manager and with complaints to regulatory
authorities. It's been a full-time job, really. Thirty-five thousand dollars and jack-shit to show for
it. And I'm the only individual actually financing these proceedings with out-of-pocket cash. Then
I'm facing Taylor who is litigating against me without getting paid, at least not as far as I know,
presumably deferring his fees until the matter is settled. That's an overwhelmingly unfair advantage
against me. I have never met a lawyer who was willing to work in the capacity he has, dragging the
matter on for years without recompense. I don't believe he's getting paid, anyway, as I have
instructed my father not to pay any legal bills from any lawyers. (One very important tip for anyone
hiring a lawyer: My experience is they don't give change. Whatever amount of money you pay into
a retainer will probably be entirely withheld by the law firm. When discharged they might provide a
token refund or just as likely send you a bill for more money. The lawyer will find a way to justify
a billing structure that allows him to keep all money paid into 'trust.' Therefore I recommend never
giving the lawyer a large lump sum but instead compensating him on a pay-as-you-go, results based
instalment system.)
Anyway, September came and went with no resumption of the hearing. Then I ran into another
problem. Items were gradually going missing from my rented suite in the Whalley region of Surrey.
A vintage watch disappeared and at the time I dismissed it as probably nicked by a shifty guest I had
allowed into my home. Then in October I reached to the coffee table for my binoculars to identify
the insignia on a passenger plane flying overhead (something I had taken to doing for amusement as
the house I lived in is on the flight path for aircraft landing at Vancouver International) and they
weren't there. Impossible. I had just used the binoculars the previous day, they could only have
been stolen. I looked around my apartment for other obvious items a thief might take and sure
enough my cell phone and my digital camera were gone too. So I went out and purchased a hinge
lock and a padlock for the main entrance and a sliding lock for the door to the laundry room I share
with the upstairs tenant, a tenant who'd stiffed the landlord on the rent and was squatting in the
home illegally. After screwing in the locks I took a drive up the Sunshine Coast to visit my dad for
the weekend, deciding that if I returned to the suite and nothing more had been stolen I would
continue to live there, otherwise I would have to leave.
When I returned on the Monday afternoon the two locks I had installed had been broken and my
home had been ransacked; my television, stereo system, CDs, DVDs, clock radios - all removed
from the suite. Some food had been stolen as well. Interestingly, the only locks that had been
damaged were the two I had installed, the other locks had not been noticeably tampered with.
Someone had access to the suite, possibly key access, and was waiting till I went out and then
would come and go as they pleased, taking whatever they wanted.
I called the police and when the police car showed up and parked in front of the house the squatter
upstairs fled out the back door as though he just got off the hell-elevator, his fright-stricken face
ashen grey like a zombie. Granted, that doesn't prove that he was involved in the theft; he may
have believed the police were there to evict him or arrest or question him on some other matter.
Who knows?
Not wanting to risk a confrontation in the middle of the night with a burglar looking for something
else to steal to take to the pawn shop to hock for cash to buy drugs, I commenced vacating the suite
and began moving my possessions out of there. Still, whenever I showed up at the house the
following day to continue moving contents out I would notice more items had been stolen. Very
brazen thieves.
So, now I'm living with my dad, the petitioner in the BC Supreme Court civil action against me, in
the beach house we co-own in Powell River. When I announced my arrival he immediately fired his
home-care helper, trusting me to take care of all cooking and shopping and other household duties.
On the afternoon of December 8, 2005 I checked my e-mail and opened a note from Sherman
stating that Taylor's postponed hearing was to resume the next morning at ten a.m. The next
morning! Essentially no notice to me. He wrote that the reason for the hearing was simply to settle
the terms of a cross-examination order of my father and nothing more. He asked me to call him to
discuss it. I found a payphone and called him and instructed him to demand that the court honour,
and allow us to enforce, the cross-examination order that Burnyeat had requested of my father (as
well as myself, my sister and my mother) in the November 1, 2002 hearing. In a previous meeting
in Sherman's downtown Vancouver office there seemed to be some confusion about whether the
cross-examination orders existed. In order to clear that up I personally went to the courthouse and
looked through the file and found a transcript of the hearing. Yep, there it was: Orders for the
cross-examinations of all four individuals. I also received a copy of the notes of a court clerk
present at the hearing that showed the applications for cross-examinations had been approved.
There was no denying the orders existed. However, for some reason both my counsel at the time of
the application, Nathan S. Ganapathi, as well as the petitioner's counsel, Robert W. Taylor, had
refused to draw up and enter the orders. And Taylor still refuses to comply with it.
I told Sherman the cross-examination of my father was the trump card that should bring this litigious
harassment to an end. That order is what we need to force a settlement. "Well, you've already got
the cross-examination order," Sherman assured me. He was right, I do have the order.
When I got home Dad was peacefully watching the evening news as he does every night before
dinner.
"Dad, guess what?" I asked him.
"What?"
"I received an e-mail from my lawyer today. He tells me you're suing me in the morning in BC
Supreme Court. At ten a.m. Do you know about that?"
He shook his head and said, "No." He knew nothing about it. Then he shrugged and together we
watched the news.
Since I moved in with my father on October 22, 2005 he has not taken a phone call or received a
letter from the Vancouver lawyers who are supposedly representing him.
At about 4:30 the next afternoon I took a call from Sherman on my father's phone briefing me on
the outcome of the hearing. I was told that the bulk of what Taylor requested was approved and
I'm to pay the petitioner's costs. According to the order, the cash to be diverted in the general
direction of Taylor amounted to about $600,000.00. Oh, and Justice Burnyeat refused to honour
the court order allowing for the cross-examination of my disabled father on his affidavits. Shocking
but at the same time not shocking at all. I can't deny that I have misguided hope at the outset of
these hearings that the system will begin functioning justly. That hope is always dashed. The
resistance put up by these Vancouver lawyers is amazing. The rule when dealing with this lot:
Expect the worse.
Although I had not seen a notice of motion from PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc., they showed up at
Taylor's hearing to make an application against me as well. I was not informed of this application
and I was given no opportunity to defend myself against it through filing a statement of defense.
PwC, represented by the Vancouver law firm Poulsen & Company, requested a gag order that
prohibits my direct communication with either PwC or their counsel; I am not to "contact" the
receiver manager or its counsel other than through counsel of my own. I would have objected to
this application on the grounds that it is unwarranted; I am indeed duly represented by a lawyer.
You don't need to go to court for something frivolous like that. And I do have a legal right to
represent myself if I so wish as well, do I not? Poulsen & Company applied to the court for the
civil equivalent of the Criminal Code Section 810 - a no-contact order where injury or damage is
feared, the difference here is that I wouldn't have to report to a probation officer. The Criminal
Code 810 lasts for a duration of one year and has specific terms and restrictions. However, the
no-contact order PwC and Poulsen & Company requested of the judge had no terms whatsoever
and no time limit. Why does PwC and Poulsen & Company, whom I've never communicated with,
need a no-contact order against me? What is the allegation necessitating it? We don't know. Does
the no-contact order extend until the receiver manager is discharged or until appealed? If not
appealed is it then a lifetime no-contact order? We don't know. With no specific terms I have no
way of knowing when I have made "contact" with PwC or their counsel and thus breached the
order. A huge encroachment on my personal liberty and freedom and I'm not invited to the hearing
to oppose it. This reminds me very much of the criminal fiasco in North Van where the Crown and
the judge were absolutely adamant that I retain a lawyer and not be self-represented - these lawyers
really seem to hate hearing what I have to say. The blunt truth hurts, doesn't it?
Poulsen & Company also requested an order from the judge approving PwC's fees. If given a
chance, some questions I would have asked would include: Why was one of the companies billed
for advertising as documented in one of the reports to the court? What is the purpose of a
technician in PwC's fee structure? And why, after three years, does PwC suddenly need to have a
judge approve their fees?
Both of PwC's requests were granted by Burnyeat. Not only did PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. get
a restraining order on me, PwC also got the same no-contact condition on my mentally infirm father
as well. Without a proper hearing. The order approving PwC's fees doesn't put any dollar figure on
the amount to be paid to PwC, it's essentially a blank cheque for PwC to remunerate themselves
whatever amount they choose.
As I say, always expect the worst from the Vancuba bunch (Vancuba as in embargo the dump.) On
November 14, 2005 BMO Nesbitt Burns completely liquidated the assets of one of the companies
named in the suit, Powell River Investments Ltd., and mailed a cheque for the proceeds to
PricewaterhouseCoopers Inc. The cheque was for $787,169.07 Canadian. Not an insignificant
amount of money to have suddenly disappear. According to the brokerage statement, the capital left
BMO Nesbitt Burns not as Powell River Investments Ltd. money, but instead as PwC cash. This
transaction is an unimaginable breach of the order appointing PwC as receiver manager. According
to the order PwC demanded to do the job and was a party to drawing up, any sale of any security
or asset in receivership can only occur by a separate order of the court. This term in the order
serves as a safety-buffer to prevent mistakes and acts of fraud from occurring, and to generally
protect and maintain the integrity of the assets. There has been no judgement rendered by the court
to allow the sale of all our stocks in the Powell River Investments Ltd. account.
So, as far as I can tell, in excess of three quarters of a million dollars has been quietly removed from
the table in this dispute and sits in PwC's bank account and no credible legal system exists in British
Columbia to confront what appears to be PwC's outright commission of contempt and fraud. PwC
and Poulsen & Company's unexplained no-contact order against me appears to have been a
half-hearted attempt to intimidate me and obstruct me from dealing with this misappropriation of
funds when I found out about it. And in another startling move by PwC and Poulsen & Company,
in March 2006 I received a notice of motion informing me they were returning to court to secure an
order that liquidated a real estate holding of another company in receivership. PwC seems to have
suddenly gone crazy with this liquidation spree, not realizing that the lawsuit the companies are
named in has not yet been litigated and probably never will be.
On the morning of May 23, 2006 my father was put on a plane bound for Vancouver. The next
day he underwent surgery at St. Paul's Hospital in downtown Vancouver, a block or two away from
the Supreme Court of British Columbia. (According to their website, St. Paul's is a faith-based,
Catholic hospital. My family is not Catholic.) Having lived with him and having watched him for
seven months, I could see that my dad was not that sick, he was still very much alive and kicking,
still in possession of his trademark shitty attitude. He had a few more years left in him; maybe three
or five, I suspected probably another twenty. I was kept completely in the dark with respect to his
medical affairs. I didn't even take him to the local airport for the flight; he was picked up by a taxi
that had been arranged by my sister long distance from her home in North Vancouver. He was very
much alive when he went out the door. Nine days later, on June 2, 2006, he died while recovering
from the operation -- supposedly of a sudden heart attack (this is what I was told by my mother
who is my only source of information when it comes to my sister. She also told me that my father's
surgery was for a stomach aneurysm). They just can't do anything right in that city. I'm told my
sister had just visited him when he suddenly became fatally ill.
With all the fraud and corruption I've unearthed, mostly originating from downtown Vancouver's
core; and especially considering my recent discovery of PwC's pocketing of more than three
quarters of a mil back in November, my dad's sudden death strikes me as very, very creepy. He
dies, not on the operating table, but while in recovery, over a week after the surgery, in a ghetto
hospital in fraud central at the exact same time I commence reporting PwC's embezzlement to the
authorities? The timing is all wrong. People don't go to the hospital and just die, except maybe if
admitted to emergency if they've been in a car accident. A car accident would have been easier to
take. It doesn't sit well with me and, to be frank, it feels like a hit. A last cold hit on my old man.
I'm not saying it was a hit, but that's what it feels like.
My father suffered an almost fatal stroke in 1996. Miraculously he managed to recover somewhat.
But instead of allowing a family some dignity in the final days of a patriarch's life, he was propped
up like a lifeless rag doll by this province's woeful legal system and used mercilessly by ruthless
lawyers to harass his son. It's painful for me to realize that I helped to nurture my father with his
recovery from the stroke so he could be recuperated and healthy enough, barely enough, to sue me.
A credible petitioner was deemed unnecessary in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to keep an
action rolling like a runaway train for over five years and counting; the litigation and trial of an actual
lawsuit was deemed unnecessary in the Supreme Court to see an action continue without a
resolution or settlement for years and years. And it has now been revealed that a living petitioner is
not required to make an application to the court in the province of BC.
On June 1, 2006 Robert W. Taylor gave notice to Sherman he was going back to court on behalf of
his client in six days time. (I don't consider six days reasonable notice of a hearing.) On June 2
Robert W. Taylor's client died. He was advised of this fact by my sister on June 5. Simple logic
tells me that as of the precise, exact, pinpoint instant of his death, any further litigation done in my
dad's name, if it is to continue, will be administered by his estate and the counsel for his estate. I
have maintained that these judge-pumping lawyers on their courtroom fishing expeditions were not
receiving direction from my disabled father, it was either coming from my sister or they were acting
unilaterally. And surely there is no dispute as to whether a lawyer can receive instruction from a
corpse? Unless you believe in the supernatural, it's not possible. And even if you do believe in the
paranormal, it's not admissible in court. However, on June 6, four days after his heart attack,
Robert W. Taylor made an application to the court before Justice Burnyeat on behalf of his
deceased client.
On behalf of a dead man!
This June 6 hearing must have been quite a spectacle. Taylor wasn't representing a client and, even
though Sherman was present, I wasn't represented. Sherman informed the court at the outset of the
hearing he had withdrawn as my counsel. However, even though he wasn't representing me he did
sign off on an order that consisted of settled terms of the order derived from the December 9, 2005
hearing. The order Sherman signed off on also awarded a massive cash payout to my sister of
about $440,000.00. Very nice winnings for someone who's not represented (or even a party) in the
dispute.
There were no clients represented in this hearing, only lawyers and a judge. My father was
deceased, I was unrepresented, yet an extensive hearing was held. How is it that Taylor managed to
have a hearing held in BC Supreme Court to settle a court order on behalf of a client who is
deceased? To whom was Taylor going to deliver the results of his application? To my sister it
appears. (I've found stubs of bank drafts totalling over $38,000.00 drawn on the Edgemont Village,
North Vancouver branch of Bank of Montreal paid out to Taylor Veinotte Sullivan. My sister lives
in Edgemont Village.)
Taylor also tabled a surprise ace card from his hand on behalf of my opposition in this longstanding
dispute. In 1996, prior to my father's stroke and serious health problems, he had a last will and
testament drawn up, on his own and without my knowledge, that named me as the executor of his
estate. In the hearing on behalf of a dead petitioner, Robert W. Taylor informed my lawyer that in
2002 a new will was drawn up naming my estranged sister as the executrix and sole beneficiary of
his estate.
There was no service for my father.
In addition to PwC's 2005 theft of $787,169.07 from the Powell River Investments Ltd. accounts
held at BMO Nesbitt Burns Inc., the following unlawful transactions, taking place in 2003, have
been uncovered: Assets totalling $159,660.30 were illegally liquidated in the accounts and PwC has
received payments (cheques made out directly to PricewaterhouseCoopers) from BMO Nesbitt
Burns amounting to $159,813.42. No court orders have been obtained by either PwC or BMO to
justify this tampering of the securities in the brokerage accounts. The transactions are completely
illegal.
13 / 45