PRO SE PMA Forum - By using our website and services, you confirm your understanding of and agreement to our Terms of Service.

The law is built upon a delicate architecture of trust. Not the trust of one person for another, though that matters, but the trust of the Court for the 'Officers' who appear before it. When a lawyer stands before a Judge, the Judge operates under a foundational assumption: that this Officer of the Court is acting honestly, fairly, and within the bounds of the law. This is not a courtesy. It is a statutory obligation - the 'Duty of Candour' - enshrined in the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia, binding every lawyer who holds themselves out as a Minister of Justice. Or so we thought.

The Duty of Candour is the legal system's immune system. It protects the Court from infection by falsehood. It is the mechanism that allows a judge to proceed efficiently, to rely on submissions, to make rulings without independently investigating every factual assertion. Without it, the system would collapse under its own weight, reduced to a grinding halt of suspicion and endless verification. The law would become unworkable, and justice would become essentially unattainable.

But what happens when that immune system is deliberately exploited? What happens when a lawyer, knowing the Court will trust their word, uses that assumption as a weapon? What happens when the very obligation designed to ensure fairness becomes the vehicle for its opposite - a cloak for fraud?

This chapter explores precisely such a case. It examines how the Black Estate and its lawyers filed a Petition that was, from its inception, built on a foundation of falsehoods. It dissects how they then leveraged the Court's reliance on the Duty of Candour, to simply skip past the fundamental questions of law - questions that, if honestly considered, would have ended their claim before it began. And it documents how the June 19, 2024 hearing became a performance of misdirection, where a newly minted lawyer, three weeks out from being called to the Bar, told a story so compellingly false that the Court was led to believe the Black Estate had proven ownership when, in truth, it had proven nothing at all.

Legal Maxim: "Fraus est celare fraudem" – translation - “It is fraud to conceal fraud.”

This is not a story of negligence. It is a story of deliberate deception - a 'Fraud Upon the Court' itself. The evidence is in the transcripts, in the emails, in the altered Court Order, and in the pattern of conduct that continued long after the hearing concluded. As we shall see, the deception was not a one-time error. It was a sustained campaign. A fact pattern that remains consistent through out this multi-year story. It was the theme.

Understanding human motivation is a central challenge in both daily life and the legal system. Because people cannot peer directly into another person's mind, society must find reliable ways to understand what someone truly intends to do. Throughout history, legal scholars, philosophers, and everyday communities have come to the same conclusion: the most accurate window into a person's mind is their physical behavior. This concept is perfectly captured by the ancient Latin legal maxim, “acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta”, which translates to overt acts make known latent thoughts. In the realm of law, this principle serves as a foundational pillar for determining accountability. It establishes that courts must look at what a person actually does rather than what they later claim they were thinking. This approach creates a practical bridge between the invisible world of human thought and the visible world of human consequence.

In a legal setting, proving intent is often the most critical part of a case. Whether dealing with a criminal offense or a breach of contract, the outcome frequently hinges on what the person intended at the exact moment of the act. Since a defendant can easily claim after the fact that they had innocent intentions, judges and juries cannot rely solely on a person's words. Instead, the law relies on objective evidence. If an individual buys a specialized tool, travels to a specific location at midnight, and bypasses a security system, their actions speak clearly. The legal system assumes that reasonable people intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions. Therefore, the overt steps a person takes provide the necessary evidence to reveal their hidden motives. Without this practical legal principle, it would be almost impossible to hold individuals accountable, as anyone could avoid liability simply by denying their true intent.

This legal doctrine does not exist in isolation; it mirrors the common sense rules that govern regular human relationships. In everyday life, the same idea is expressed through the famous English proverb “that actions speak louder than words”. This phrase reflects a universal human truth that people have understood for centuries. Words are easy to produce, and they can be used to mislead, flatter, or create a false impression. Behavior, on the other hand, requires effort, sacrifice, and real world engagement. When someone makes a promise but consistently acts in a way that contradicts that promise, observers naturally trust the behavior over the spoken words. Society relies on this standard to build trust, choose leaders, and form deep personal connections, recognizing that a person's true character is revealed over time through consistent conduct.

The idea that external actions reveal internal truths has deep philosophical roots that stretch back to antiquity. One of the most famous cultural origins of this concept is found in the biblical passage from the Gospel of Matthew, which states “that by their fruits ye shall know them”. This metaphor of a fruit tree perfectly illustrates the point. People cannot determine the quality of a tree merely by looking at its leaves or listening to the wind rustle through its branches; they must look at the fruit it actually produces. If a tree produces good fruit, it is recognized as a good tree. Philosophers have long used this spiritual wisdom to explain secular human nature. The concept suggests that human beings are defined not by their unexpressed potential or their private thoughts, but by the tangible outcomes they create in the world around them.

In the realm of modern philosophy, thinkers like Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel took this concept even further by analyzing how the human will interacts with reality. Hegel argued that an individual's internal thoughts and desires remain abstract and incomplete until they are brought into the physical world through action. In his view, a person's true will is not something that exists purely inside their head; rather, the will manifests itself completely only when it alters the physical environment. For example, a person cannot truly be called generous simply because they feel a vague sense of sympathy for others. They become generous only when they physically give their time or resources to help someone. Through this lens, actions are not just signs of an internal state; they are the actual realization of that state, turning silent thoughts into concrete reality.

When we combine the legal, proverbial, and philosophical views, we see a unified standard for evaluating human life. The legal system adopts this standard out of pure necessity. If the law allowed subjective claims of innocence to override clear physical evidence, the justice system would collapse into chaos. By enforcing the rule that outward acts reveal inner secrets, the law aligns itself with reality. This standard protects the innocent and ensures that wrongdoers cannot hide behind empty denials. It demands that individuals take responsibility for the physical footprints they leave in the world, ensuring that justice is based on observable facts rather than unverifiable mental states.

Ultimately, the legal principle of intent shows us that our internal and external worlds are deeply connected. The Latin maxim reminds us that our secret thoughts eventually force their way into the light through the things we choose to do. Whether viewed through the lens of courtroom evidence, everyday proverbs, biblical wisdom, or complex philosophy, the message remains exactly the same. We are defined by what we do. While words can provide context and thoughts can provide inspiration, it is our physical behavior that truly establishes our intent. By judging intent through actions, the law honors a timeless truth that helps maintain order, fairness, and accountability across all areas of human society. Or so we thought.

On April 15, 2024, a document was filed with the Supreme Court of British Columbia that would set in motion a legal nightmare. The document was called a 'Petition', which is a Special legal document that sets into motion, a mini trial. This Petition, was filed by Chuck Norwin, a lawyer at the firm Agrolegal, on behalf of the Intestate Estate of Buck Black (the "Black Estate"). The Petition sought an order for the sale of the subject property under the Partition of Property Act, RSBC 1996, c 347 (the "PPA"), vacant possession, and a forced eviction of the occupants.

Astonishingly, they followed through on their threat, contained in the threatening extortionate demand letter. Despite being told what the truth actually was. How is this possible? What was going on here? We would soon find out.

The Petition bore Norwin's signature. It was his filing. His name. His professional responsibility. The Petition made several assertions, all presented to the Court as established facts, and all false.

First, the Petition claimed that Buck Black was a 50% beneficial owner of the Property. Second, it claimed that Buck Black had purchased the Property from Mark Striker. Third, it claimed that Buck Black had provided valuable consideration (paid) for the Property. Fourth, it claimed that the Black Estate was entitled to invoke the PPA to force a sale of the Property.

Legal Maxim: "Actore incumbit onus probandi" - translation - “The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff.”

Each of these assertions was unsupported by any documentary evidence. There was no contract of purchase and sale. There were no receipts. There was no chain of custody. There were no eyewitnesses to any transaction between Buck Black and Mark Striker involving the sale of the Property. The Petition was, in substance, a work of legal fiction.

Yet Norwin filed it anyway.

Another odd fact, is that in an Estate situation, such as this, if is someone was filling a claim to enforce an obligation, they would do so within 2 years of someone dying. Buck Black died April 7, 2022. To all reasonable observers, the 2 year, clock starts at that moment. The Administrator of the Intestate Estate must wind down all outstanding debts, obligations or performance contract withing that time, to not be bared by Statute. That way there would be no potential assertion that the claim is bared by the Limitations Act.

We went over this concept is Chapter 4. That relevant 2 year limitation date would be April 7, 2024. The Petition was filed, April 15, 2024. They went over the 2 year time limit by a week. This is significant because the Administrator and their lawyer, apparently thought the clock started the moment the Administrator was informed about the Trust situation on April 14, 2024, where Buck Black was simply holding Bare Legal Title only, as Trustee. This fact is evidence that contradicts the Administrators false claims, that she always thought Buck Black had purchased the property, and was planning on leaving it to her. The date of April 15, 2024 reveals the truth. Know them by their deeds.

Legal Maxim: "Qui facit per alium facit per se" - translation - “He who acts through another acts himself.”

This maxim speaks to responsibility. One would think, that, Norwin cannot escape accountability by claiming he was merely acting on his client's instructions. He was the lawyer. He was the Officer of the Court. He owed independent obligations that no client's instructions can override. Rule 5.1-1 of the Code of Professional Conduct for British Columbia states: "When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must represent the client resolutely and honourably within the limits of the law, while treating the tribunal with candour, fairness, courtesy, and respect."

The "limits of the law" are not elastic. They do not stretch to accommodate a claim founded on nothing more than a client's desire. Norwin owed a duty to his client, yes. But he owed a higher duty to the Court: the duty to not mislead, to not present false evidence, to not make claims he knew or ought to have known were unsupported by any reasonable basis.

The importance of this duty cannot be overstated. In Pecore v. Pecore, 2007 SCC 17, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed, that the presumption of resulting trust applies to gratuitous transfers. When property is transferred without consideration (payment), the law presumes that the transferee (the holder/receiver) holds the property in trust for the transferor (the giver). The burden of proof lies on the transferee (the receiver) to demonstrate that a gift was intended. The Estate has to prove their claim, it is that simple.

This principle is directly on point. Buck Black's name was added to the Title in 2014, without any valuable consideration (payment). He did not pay for the Property. The presumption of resulting trust applies. The burden of proof lay with the Black Estate to prove that a gift was intended or that a bona fide purchase was made. They had no such evidence. None.

Legal Maxim: "Nemo dat quod non habet" - translation - “No one can give what they do not have.”

Norwin failed to accurately disclose this binding authority. He actually reversed the onus of proof, arguing that Mark Striker and Sam Bailey had to prove the Trust existed. This is not merely an error. It is a violation of Rule 5.1-2(i) of the Code of Professional Conduct, which states: "When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not deliberately refrain from informing a tribunal of any binding authority that the lawyer considers to be directly on point and that has not been mentioned by another party."

The Petition was not merely weak. It was fundamentally defective. It should never have been filed. And the fact that Norwin filed it anyway, with his signature, brings the 'Administration of Justice' into disrepute, because of his actions, the actions of an Officer of that Court.

The Supreme Court Civil Rules, Rule 9-5(1)(d), empowers the Court to strike pleadings that constitute an abuse of process. A Petition filed without evidence, based on false claims, is precisely that - an Abuse of Process.

One of the most revealing aspects of the Black Petition was what it omitted: the name of Mark Striker, the sole beneficial owner of the Property and the star witness to the Trust arrangement. If Buck Black bought the property, he would have had to buy it from Mark Striker, the Court could have simply asked Mark, under oath, did you sell or gift the property?

For the only living witness, to that alleged, essentially two party contract, to be blatantly omitted as a party, from the style of cause (the header of all Court documents listing the parties to that law suit) it revealing. Naming a potentially effected party, is actually a requirement under the Rules of Court, the Land Titles Act and the Partition of Property Act, yet it was strategically and blatantly ignored.

Norwin named only Sam Bailey as a Respondent in the Petition. He did not name Mark Striker. This was not an oversight. It was a deliberate tactical choice.

It cannot be overstated here, that the reason is obvious. Mark Striker was the person who could testify, under oath, to the true nature of the arrangement. He could explain that Buck Black never purchased the Property, never paid for it, and was only added to the Title as a Trustee to facilitate the mortgage refinancing. Without Mark Striker in the proceeding, the Black Estate could present its narrative without direct contradiction. This was a deceptive strategy.

Legal Maxim: "Suppressio veri, suggestio falsi" - translation - “Suppression of truth is suggestion of falsehood.”

This maxim captures the essence of the Estate's strategy. By omitting Mark Striker from the Petition, they suppressed the truth. By claiming that Buck Black was the owner of the Property, they suggested a falsehood. The Petition was a document built on deception. Layer by layer.

The law expects lawyers to act honourably. Rule 2.1-2(a) of the Code of Professional Conduct requires a lawyer's conduct to be "characterized by candour and fairness." It is not fair, nor is it candid, to deliberately omit the key witness from a proceeding in order to prevent them from testifying.

Legal Maxim: "Nemo debet esse judex in propria causa" - translation - “No one should be a judge in their own cause.”

While this maxim speaks to judicial impartiality, its spirit applies here. The Black Estate cannot be the sole arbiter of its own claim. It cannot present its version of events while systematically excluding the witnesses who would contradict it. That is not advocacy. That is manipulation.

The Supreme Court Civil Rules require full disclosure in petition proceedings. Rule 6-1 governs the addition of parties. If a party ought to have been named but was not, the Court has the power to add them. The fact that Mark Striker was not named initially - and only added later, in the actual first hearing of the Petition, by the Court's own Order - demonstrates that the Petition was procedurally defective from the start.

Before filing the Petition, Norwin sent a demand letter to Sam Bailey. The letter, dated September 7, 2023, demanded $850,000 on behalf of the Black Estate. It threatened that if payment was not made, the Estate would file a Petition seeking a forced sale of the Property, vacant possession, and eviction.

The letter was not merely a demand. It was a threat. It was an attempt to intimidate Mark Striker and Sam Bailey into paying a sum they did not owe, for a claim that had no legal merit. To put it plainly, the letter was an extortionate bluff.

Legal Maxim: "In terrorem" - translation - “As a warning or threat.”

This maxim describes the effect of the letter. It was designed to create fear - the fear of losing one's home, the fear of being dragged through the Courts, the fear of an uncertain and expensive legal battle. It was a classic example of sharp practice: using the threat of litigation to extract a settlement, even when the underlying claim has no merit.

The use of $850,000 as the demanded sum is noteworthy. It is just below the $1,000,000 threshold at which criminal fraud could be invoked under s. 380(1.1) of the Criminal Code, which provides for a minimum sentence of two years imprisonment where the value of the fraud exceeds one million dollars. This is not a coincidence. It is a deliberate choice - a careful calibration designed to maximize pressure and potential gains, while simultaneously minimizing legal risk. This will not be the only time, they made monetary demands, just under the same threshold.

The demand letter also represented a failure of the lawyer's professional obligations. Rule 3.2-2 of the Code of Professional Conduct imposes a Duty of Candour on lawyers. A lawyer must be honest with the Court, with opposing parties, and with their own clients. They must not make claims that they know, or ought to know, are false. They must not threaten litigation without a reasonable basis.

Norwin had no reasonable basis. He had no evidence that Buck Black owned the Property. He had no evidence that a contract of sale existed. He had no evidence that consideration had been paid. Yet he sent the letter anyway.

The Duty of Candour is a cornerstone of the legal profession. It is enshrined in Rule 2.1-2(c) of the Code of Professional Conduct: "A lawyer should not attempt to deceive a Court or tribunal by offering false evidence or by misstating facts or law."

It is also enshrined in Rule 5.1-2(e): "When acting as an advocate, a lawyer must not knowingly attempt to deceive a tribunal or influence the course of justice by offering false evidence, misstating facts or law, presenting or relying upon a false or deceptive affidavit, suppressing what ought to be disclosed or otherwise assisting in any fraud, crime or illegal conduct."

And it is reinforced by Rule 5.1-2(i), which prohibits a lawyer from deliberately refraining from informing a tribunal of any binding authority that the lawyer considers to be directly on point.

Legal Maxim: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - translation - “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”

The Duty of Candour is absolute. It admits of no exceptions. A lawyer may not mislead the Court, even if their client instructs them to do so. A lawyer may not suppress authority, even if it undermines their client's position. A lawyer may not make representations they know to be false, even if they believe the Court will not discover the truth.

In Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, 2018 SCC 27, the Supreme Court of Canada confirmed that while a lawyer must fearlessly advocate for their client, that advocacy is entirely constrained by the Duty to Act with absolute integrity, honesty, and Candour before the tribunal.

The Court stated: "A rigid definition of when incivility amounts to professional misconduct in the courtroom is neither attainable nor desirable. Rather, determining whether a lawyer's behaviour warrants a finding of professional misconduct must remain a context-specific inquiry that is flexible enough to assess behaviour arising from the diverse array of situations in which lawyers find themselves."

However, the Court also made clear that there are limits. Allegations that are made in bad faith or without a reasonable basis amount to professional misconduct. A lawyer cannot cross the line from zealous advocacy into misrepresentation.

The Court further stated: "Allegations that are either made in bad faith or without a reasonable basis amount to professional misconduct."

This is precisely what occurred in this case. The allegations made by Norwin and Rowley were made without a reasonable basis. They must have been made in bad faith. And they were definitely made with the intention of misleading the Court. No other conclusion may be found.

The Petition was scheduled for hearing on June 19, 2024, before the Court. Sam Bailey appeared self-represented. He had been unable to retain counsel on short notice. This was not a level playing field. One side had newly minted Counsel. The other did not. This is a classic example of legal party asymmetry.

Appearing for the Black Estate was Jenifer Rowley. She had been called to the Bar approximately three weeks earlier. She had just taken over the file from Norwin. She was the new lawyer on the file, but she was not new to the deception. She had inherited it.

Jenifer Rowley. could have refused to forward the deception, she could have corrected the record, she could have chosen to act honorably, but no, she continued with the momentum of fraud, deception and manipulation. Two lawyers now failed to honor their Duty of Candour. If one was a simple mistake, two proves the intent. How may we conclude otherwise?

The Legal Principle of Intent is informative: “Acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta” - When it comes to human behavior, the law generally relies on outward actions to determine hidden intent. The Latin maxim “acta exteriora indicant interiora secreta” translates to "Overt acts make known latent thoughts". In law, Courts assume that a person's true intentions are proven by what they actually do, rather than what they merely claim.
Next the Common Proverb: “Actions Speak Louder Than Words” - In everyday law and philosophy, the principle "know them by their actions" traces its roots to the famous English proverb actions speak louder than words. The core sentiment is that a person's real character, intentions, and commitments are proven by their visible behavior rather than their spoken promises.
Next The Philosophical Origin: "By Their Fruits" - This concept is famously rooted in the Biblical phrase: "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:16). Philosophers (such as Hegel) have historically used this concept to argue that a person's true will, is manifested only through what they physically bring into the world, not just what they think or say they will do.
In the Supreme Court of B.C., the Petition procedure is essentially an mini-trial, where all the evidence is provided to the Court, by written Affidavit, not by live under oath testimony. All the relevant facts, and exhibits proving a claim, is provided by Affidavit, sworn out to be true, before hand. This establishes the facts. The law is applied, or overlaid to those facts, to persuade the Court to come to a decision on the merits. The legal definition of Merit is, the actual legal or factual substance of a case, based on the evidence and law, rather than on a technicality or procedural gamesmanship.

Legal Maxim: "Respondeat superior" - translation - “Let the master answer.”

The hearing began with the Court accepting - at Rowley's urging - that the Black Estate was a 50% owner of the Property. This is on the record, in the live Court recording that is publicly available. We ordered a written transcript for that hearing. At page 3, lines 42-45 of the Transcript, The Justice stated: "essentially what the question here today will be, are there good reasons not to sell the property in light of the fact that an owner of half of it wants that to happen?"

Legal Maxim: "Semper necessitas probandi incumbit ei qui agit" - translation - “The necessity of proof always lies with the person who lays charges.”

This maxim was the first casualty of the hearing. The Court had skipped past the required two-part test under the Partition of Property Act: first, proving the Estate was indeed an owner; second, proving 50% or more ownership. This is a prerequisite, not a optional consideration. It is the law.

The Court was led to believe that the Black Estate, had already proven these things. It had not. No evidence had been adduced to prove the bare faced claim. No eyewitnesses had provided affidavit evidence proving the bald assertion claims. No documents had been produced, by Affidavit that proved any of the claims, let alone one of them. The Estate had simply asserted its claim, and the Court, relying on the Duty of Candour, had accepted it. The Fraud Upon the Court was that simple. It was fiendishly effective.

But the Duty of Candour is not a shield for falsehood. It is an obligation to be honest. Rowley was not honest.

At pages 4-5 of the Transcript, Rowley made multiple false representations:

a) "Mr. Black purchased the property for consideration" (p. 4, line. 28-31). This was false. Buck Black had made no such purchase.

b) "Mr. Black paid a sum of $170,000 to Mr. Striker" (p. 4, line. 43-44). This was false. Buck Black had lent money to Mark Striker. The first loan was only $100,000. It was a loan, not a purchase payment. That loan was as partially repaid and now legally unenforceable.

c) "Mr. Black provided a down payment of $143,000" (p. 5, line. 8-10). This was false. The money was a loan. $40,000 of this second loan, is was paid back, within days of the loan. The remainder of that second loan was as partially repaid and now legally unenforceable.

d) "Over the course of the years, Mr. Black provided multiple payments to cover any arrears and taxes, utilities and mortgage payments" (p. 5, line. 14-16). This was false. Sam Bailey paid every mortgage payment, every tax payment, every utility payment. No money passed from Buck Black, into that account to pay any obligations. None. This was another example of 'Stolen Valor'.

e) "At the time of his death, Mr. Black had paid approximately $323,744 towards the property" (p. 5, line. 18-21). This was false. Buck Black had paid nothing towards the property. Zero.

Each of these statements was knowingly false. Sam Bailey was present at the hearing. He had made every payment into the joint account. He knew that Buck Black had never contributed a cent, to the property.

Legal Maxim: "Fraus est celare fraudem" - translation - “It is fraud to conceal fraud.”

This Maxim, represents one of the foundational ethical and legal pillars of jurisprudence. At its core, this maxim dictates that active concealment, silence, or the deliberate hiding of a fraudulent act is just as legally culpable as the initial act of deception itself. In the eyes of the law, a person who discovers a fraud and chooses to bury it, rather than expose it or remain neutral, becomes a participant in the wrongdoing. The maxim establishes that justice cannot tolerate the protection of deceit, and it places an affirmative duty on individuals and institutions under certain circumstances to ensure that fraud is not perpetuated through silence.

To fully understand the weight of this principle, one must look at how the law defines fraud. Fraud generally involves a material misrepresentation of fact made with the intent to deceive, which another party relies upon to their detriment. While the initial misrepresentation is an active wrong, the act of concealing that misrepresentation creates a continuous chain of deception. If a party knows that a fraud has occurred and intentionally hides the truth to protect themselves or another, they are extending the life of the lie. The law views this concealment not as passive bystander behavior, but as an active step to ensure the fraud succeeds. Therefore, the concealer absorbs the legal liability of the original fraudster.

This maxim manifests prominently in modern corporate and financial law. For instance, if a company executive discovers that financial statements have been falsified to mislead investors, keeping that discovery quiet constitutes a separate and distinct fraudulent act. Under securities regulations and corporate governance laws, failing to disclose known fraud is treated with severe gravity. Regulatory bodies and courts look at the act of covering up the truth as a deliberate attempt to obstruct justice and harm innocent stakeholders. The maxim serves as a warning to professionals, such as accountants, lawyers, and corporate officers, that turning a blind eye or assisting in a cover-up strips away any defense of innocence.

Furthermore, "Fraus est celare fraudem" plays a vital role in contract law and the doctrine of laches or statutes of limitations. Typically, a victim of fraud has a limited timeframe to file a lawsuit after the wrong occurs. However, if the wrongdoer actively conceals the fraud, the maxim dictates that the clock for the statute of limitations is paused. Courts will not allow a fraudster to escape liability simply because they were successful at hiding their crime until the legal deadline passed. The act of concealment effectively extends the victim's right to seek justice, ensuring that fraudsters cannot benefit from their own ongoing deception.

Ultimately, the maxim reinforces the idea that the law values transparency and integrity above technicalities. It bridges the gap between morality and legality by declaring that silence in the face of known deception is a choice to validate that deception. By equating the concealment of fraud with the commission of fraud, the legal system creates a powerful deterrent against collusion and cover-ups. It reminds everyone that the integrity of legal and commercial transactions relies not just on avoiding direct lies, but on refusing to act as a shield for the lies of others. Deception cannot find safe harbor under the law, and those who attempt to hide it will find themselves facing the exact same judgment as the original wrongdoer.

Rowley's false representations were not mere mistakes. They were deliberate. She was advancing a narrative she knew to be false, and she was doing so while the Court's assumption of the Duty of Candour protected her from scrutiny.

At page 18 of the Transcript, the Justice asked Rowley whether there was an agreement of purchase and sale. She replied: "No. Not that we have copies of." (p. 18, line. 1-3).

This was deceptive. Rowley suggested there might be an agreement somewhere, when no such agreement ever existed. She was not correcting the Court's mistaken assumption. She was perpetuating it.

At pages 19-20 of the Transcript, Rowley invoked the Statute of Frauds (now found in s. 54 of the Law and Equity Act, RSBC 1979, c 224) to argue that Mark Striker and Sam Bailey's Trust agreement was unenforceable because it was not in writing. She failed to disclose that the Estate's own claim of purchase also required a written contract - which the Estate did not produce. This is the paradox of the Estate's position: they claimed a purchase without a contract, while simultaneously arguing that a Trust without a contract was invalid. Their dishonesty was blatant.

In general, under British Columbia's Law and Equity Act, specifically Section 59, certain types of contracts must be in writing and signed by the party you are trying to hold liable to be legally enforceable. This is BC's modern equivalent of the traditional Statute of Frauds. If these requirements are not met, the contract is generally not binding.

When referencing the old Statute of Frauds requirement for a binding contract, generally it was dictated that certain types of agreements are legally unenforceable unless they meet two strict criteria:

(1) They must be in writing: The essential terms of the agreement (such as the parties involved, the subject matter, and the price) must be clearly documented.

(2) They must be signed: The document must be signed by the party against whom enforcement is sought (the person you are trying to hold to the contract).

The new rule, like the old rule, applies primarily to contracts involving land, such as the sale of real estate, long-term leases, or mortgages. It also applies to guarantees, where one person promises to pay the debt of another if that person defaults. For these specific agreements to stand up in Court, the law requires a written document that clearly outlines the essential terms of the deal. Crucially, this document must bear the signature of the person against whom you are trying to enforce the contract. If you try to sue someone to force them to sell their property based on a purely verbal agreement, the Court will typically rule that the contract is not binding because it lacks that necessary signature and written proof.

However, the law does include exceptions to prevent people from using this rule to unfairly back out of legitimate agreements. Courts may still enforce an unsigned or verbal contract if there is strong evidence of what is called part performance. This happens when the person seeking to enforce the contract has already taken clear, significant actions based on the agreement, and it would be unfair to let the other party walk away. For example, if a buyer pays a deposit, takes possession of a property, and starts making major renovations with the seller's knowledge, a Court might rule the contract is binding even without a signed written document.

As a general principle for land transactions and guarantees in British Columbia, a contract is generally not binding unless it is in writing and signed by the person you are holding it against. While the Court can make exceptions for fairness when parties have already acted on a verbal deal, having a signed written agreement remains the baseline requirement for legal enforceability.

Legal Maxim: "Quod est inconveniens, aut contra rationem, non permissum est in lege" - translation - “What is inconvenient or contrary to reason is not permitted in law.”

In our case, the Black Estate would have to produce a written contract, for either (1) a sale of the property or (2) a gift of the property. That contract must have the essential terms of the agreement (such as the parties involved, the subject matter, how much of the property and the specific price paid), these terms, must be clearly documented. The Contract must be signed, by the party against whom enforcement is sought which would be Mark Striker. The Estate had neither fictitious contract, because it never happened.

The Court's reliance on the Duty of Candour, is what allowed the deception to succeed. A Judge hearing a Petition operates under time constraints and procedural limitations. They cannot investigate every factual assertion. They must rely on the lawyers who appear before them to be honest.

The Supreme Court of Canada has emphasized the importance of this trust. In Groia v. Law Society of Upper Canada, the Court stated that lawyers have a duty to act with "absolute integrity, honesty, and candour before the tribunal."

When Rowley made her submissions, Justice Morley was entitled to believe them. He was entitled to assume that an Officer of the Court would not knowingly misrepresent the facts, would not conceal binding authority, would not advance a claim without a reasonable basis. That assumption was betrayed. Fraud upon the Court occurred. We will suffer for it.

Legal Maxim: "Ubi jus, ibi remedium" - translation - “Where there is a right, there must be a remedy.”

But what happens when the right is to a fair hearing, and the remedy is undermined by the very officers sworn to uphold it? This is the crux of the injustice. The Court was misled, and Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, self-represented, overmatched and outplayed, were left to bear the terrible consequences.

The consequences were severe. What followed was the the impugned Order of July 15, 2024, which authorized the listing of the Property for Sale. The Property was quickly listed at below-market value, in violation of that very Court Order. Showings occurred. Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, suffered lost wages, emotional distress, and the looming threat of eviction from their home.

The Partition of Property Act, s. 6, requires that a party must have a 50% or greater beneficial interest to compel a sale. The Black Estate had no such interest. They had no evidence of any interest. Yet the Court was led to believe they did.

Legal Maxim: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum" - translation - “Let justice be done, though the heavens fall.”

The Duty of Candour is not a technicality. It is not a piece of professional etiquette. It is the foundation upon which the entire system rests. When it is violated, the system becomes a weapon rather than a shield. And those who violate it must be held accountable.

In Nazmdeh v. Spraggs, 2010 BCCA 131, the British Columbia Court of Appeal confirmed that the Court has inherent jurisdiction to hold lawyers liable for damages arising from their misconduct, unfortunately it blows back on their client. When a lawyer steps outside their legitimate role and engages in intentional torts, sharp practice, and Fraud Upon the Court, the veil of advocate's immunity is pierced, unfortunately we would learn, sadly, that the system shields lawyers from being personally responsible.

In the case of Briggs v Drylined Homes Ltd [2023] EWHC 382 (KB), the Deputy High Court Judge, Dexter Dias KC, distilled what he called the "thirteen axioms of fact-finding." These axioms provide a framework for how a Court should approach the determination of facts. They are relevant here because they illustrate how far the June 19, 2024 hearing departed from proper judicial process.

The axioms include:

1. The burden of proof rests exclusively on the person making the claim (she or he who asserts must prove).

2. Each determination is governed by the conventional civil standard of a balance of probabilities.

3. The Court must survey the "wide canvas" of the evidence.

4. Evidence must not be evaluated "in separate compartments."

5. The Court must decide whether the fact to be proved happened or not. Fence-sitting is not permitted.

6. The law invokes a binary system of truth values: the fact either happened or it did not.

7. There are important and recognised limits on the reliability of human memory.

8. The Court "takes account of any inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred as part of the natural process of reasoning."

9. Contemporary documents are "always of the utmost importance."

10. The judge can use findings or provisional findings affecting the credibility of a witness on
one issue in respect of another.

11. However, the Court must be vigilant to avoid the fallacy that adverse credibility conclusions on one issue are determinative of another.

12. Decisions should not be based "solely" on demeanour.

13. Demeanour, fairly assessed in context, retains a place in the overall evaluation of credibility.

Applying these axioms to the June 19, 2024 hearing reveals profound failures:

Axiom 1: The burden of proof rested on the Black Estate. They failed to adduce any evidence. The burden was not shifted to Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, but it was treated as if it had been.

Axiom 2: The balance of probabilities test was never applied to the Black Estate's claim of ownership because the claim was never properly scrutinized.

Axiom 3: The Court did not survey the "wide canvas" of the evidence. It relied on a single, narrow set of submissions from the Black Estate.

Axiom 4: The evidence was evaluated in separate compartments, with the Black Estate's ownership assertion accepted without considering the contradictory evidence of the Trust arrangement.

Axiom 9: Contemporary documents were not considered. The Estate produced no contract, no receipts, no bank records. The documents that existed - bank records showing Sam Bailey's payments - were never reviewed.

Legal Maxim: "Quod non est in actis, non est in mundo" – translation - “What is not in the records is not in the world.”

The fact-finding on June 19, 2024, fell far short of what one would expect. It was, in substance, a process of accepting assertions without verification. And the reason it proceeded in this manner is because Rowley leveraged the Court's assumption of the Duty of Candour to skip past the very questions that should have been decisive.

To give context here, and to illustrate the point, if both the Black Estate and Sam Bailey had been self represented, the Court would never have decided the way it did. The 13 Axioms of fact finding could have been applied and the truth discovered. That did not happen, because the false claims of the Black Estate were laundered through the hand and mouths of lawyers, through the distorting lens of assumed Duty of Candour, to give the appearance of credibility when there was none. Do you see it?

Equity has a response to such conduct. It is called the "clean hands doctrine." It provides that a party who seeks an equitable remedy from the Court must come to Court with clean hands, failing which the Court can refuse to grant the requested equitable remedy.

Legal Maxim: "He who comes to equity must come with clean hands."

The Black Estate did not come to Court with clean hands. They came with:

a) Misrepresentations to the Court that Buck Black purchased the Property;

b) Misrepresentations that valuable consideration was paid;

c) Misrepresentations that funds passing through the joint mortgage account belonged to Buck Black, though he never paid a cent;

d) Tactical omission of the actual beneficial owner (Mark Striker) in the initial litigation;

e) A knowingly altered Draft Order;

f) Failure to comply with multiple Court-ordered accounting requirements.

Legal Maxim: "Qui tacet consentire videtur" - translation - “He who is silent is taken to consent.”

The Black Estate remained silent on the true nature of the arrangement. They remained silent on the debt that was repudiated. They remained silent on the evidence that contradicted their claim.

In McGeer v. Green and Westminster Mortgage Corp. Ltd., 1960 CanLII 345 (BC SC), the Court reviewed the concepts of equity, judicial discretion, and unclean hands. The Court stated: "In seeking equity, a person... must show that he 'does equity'. There must be good faith and freedom from malice or spite or vexatious intent or conduct on his part. He must 'come with clean hands' as that term has come to be understood in equity."

The Court addressed partition applications specifically, establishing that a Judge's discretion to partition or sell jointly-owned property is governed by equitable principles. Relief can be refused if an applicant acts oppressively, causes undue hardship, or possesses "unclean hands".The Court's review of these concepts outlines several key principles:

(1) Equitable Nature of the Remedy: The right to seek partition or sale is not strictly absolute. Because the remedy originates in equity, the court can withhold the order to ensure fairness and prevent injustice.

(2) Judicial Discretion: Judges wield the discretion to delay or deny the sale of property. They must balance the interests of all parties and can consider external factors, such as the severe impacts of displacement.

(3) Doctrine of Clean Hands: This fundamental equitable maxim dictates that "he who comes into equity must come with clean hands".

In McGeer, the Court cemented that an applicant’s own inequitable, vexatious, or improper conduct tied to the property or dispute can bar them from receiving equitable relief.

The Black Estate demonstrated none of the positive qualities - many of the bad qualities. They did not act in good faith. They acted with malice and vexatious intent. By any fair measure, they did not come with clean hands.

The Petition and the hearing were not isolated incidents. They were part of a larger consistent pattern of conduct - a deliberate strategy of maximum pressure, designed to force a settlement or achieve a favourable outcome through deception and intimidation.

Legal Maxim: "Abusus non tollit usum" - translation - “Abuse does not take away use.”

This legal maxim means that just because something can be, or has been, abused or misused, it does not mean it should be banned or that its legitimate use is invalid. In other words, the misuse of a right, tool, or law by one person does not destroy its lawful value for everyone else. Essentially, the principle warns against overreacting to bad behavior by destroying the useful thing that was misbehaved with.

But when abuse is the pattern, the Court must intervene. The doctrine of Abuse of Process allows the Courts to dismiss actions in circumstances where the Court process is used for improper purposes. It is a flexible doctrine unencumbered by specific requirements. It is directed to prevent actions that violate such principles as judicial economy, consistency, finality and the integrity of the administration of justice.

In Toronto (City) v. Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 79, 2003 SCC 63, the Supreme Court of Canada stated: "Judges have an inherent and residual discretion to prevent an abuse of the court's process. This concept of abuse of process was described at common law as proceedings 'unfair to the point that they are contrary to the interest of justice' ... and as 'oppressive treatment'."

The pattern of conduct in this case includes:

1. Misrepresentation of authority: Vicky Black claimed to be the Administrator of the Estate 10 months before she had been appointed, creating the false impression that she had legal authority to make demands.

2. Extortionate demand: Chuck Norwin sent a letter demanding $850,000, based on false claims of ownership and falsely threatening the use of the Partition of Property Act.

3. Omission of key parties: The Petition named only Sam Bailey as a respondent, omitting Mark Striker, the star witness, to prevent the potential opportunity of him testifying.

4. Misrepresentation of ownership: The Petition falsely claimed that Buck Black had purchased the Property, that a contract of sale existed, and that consideration had been paid.

5. Reversal of the onus of proof: The Estate's lawyers sought to shift the burden of proof, requiring Mark Striker and Sam Bailey to prove their ownership, rather than requiring the Estate to prove its claim.

6. Threat of eviction: The Estate's lawyers threatened vacant possession, creating the fear of losing one's home - a fear that was used to pressure the opposing parties into settlement.

7. Failure to provide evidence: The Estate's lawyers filed the Petition without any evidence - no contract, no receipts, no eyewitnesses - relying instead on mere assertions and the assumption of the Court.

8. Alteration of the Court Order: Rowley drafted an Order that did not reflect the Court's oral rulings, adding terms and removing others to benefit her client.

Legal Maxim: "Fraus omnia corrumpit" - translation - “Fraud corrupts everything.”

The Petition of April 15, 2024, was a document built on falsehoods. It was filed by a lawyer who knew, or ought to have known, that the claims it contained were unsupported by any evidence. It omitted the key witness. It reversed the burden of proof. It invoked the Duty of Candour as a shield for deception.

The hearing of June 19, 2024, was where those falsehoods were presented to the Court. A newly minted lawyer made representations she knew to be false. She concealed binding authority. She argued that a Trust without a contract was invalid while simultaneously and paradoxically, claiming that a purchase without a contract was somehow valid. She led the Court to skip past the two-part test under the Partition of Property Act - the very test that would have exposed the weakness of her client's claim.

Legal Maxim: "Qui tacet consentire videtur" - translation - “He who is silent is taken to consent.”

The Court remained silent on the question of the Estate's ownership. It accepted the assertions at face value. And Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, self-represented and overmatched, were left to bear the terrible consequences.

The Duty of Candour is not a mere rule of professional conduct. It is a fundamental principle of the justice system. It is the mechanism that allows Courts to function efficiently. It is the assumption that underpins every judge's decision. When lawyers violate it, they do not merely breach their ethical obligations. They undermine the integrity of the Courts themselves. The consequence is, that they bring the 'Administration of Justice' into disrepute. They undermine the public's faith in the justice system itself.

Legal Maxim: "Fraus omnia corrumpit" - translation - “Fraud corrupts everything.”

The Black Estate's Petition, filed without evidence and based on false claims, corrupted the proceedings from the start. The June 19, 2024 hearing, where those false claims were presented to the Court under the guise of Candour, perpetuated that corruption.

In the chapters that follow, we will see how this deception continued. We will examine how the impugned Order, drafted by Rowley, expanded the Court's actual oral rulings to benefit her client and disenfranchise Mark Striker and Sam Bailey. We will examine how the Black Estate listed the Property for sale at below-market value, included Mark Striker and Sam Bailey's personal property in the listing, and threatened contempt proceedings against the Mark Striker and Sam Bailey. And we will examine how Mark Striker and Sam Bailey, were forced to defend themselves against an onslaught of falsehoods, sought to hold the lawyers accountable for their misconduct.

Legal Maxim: "Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem causa" - translation - “No one should be twice vexed for the same cause.”

Mark Striker and Sam Bailey have been vexed repeatedly – by the extortionate letter, by the Petition, by the hearing, by the impugned Order, by the showings, by the threats. They have been forced to defend their home against a claim that should never have been brought. And they have been forced to do so while the lawyers who brought the claim continue to practice, shielded by the very system they abused.

Legal Maxim: "Justitia nemini neganda est" – translation - “Justice is to be denied to no one.”

Justice must not only be done. It must be seen to be done. And when it is not seen to be done, when the process itself is corrupted by deception, the Court must act. This concept means that it is not enough for a Court or legal system to reach the correct and fair result in secret; the process itself must be visibly fair and open to the public so that everyone can see no cheating, bias, or corruption took place.

The phrase comes from a famous 1923 English Court case (Rex v. Sussex Justices). In that case, a clerk who had a conflict of interest went into the private room with the judges while they were deciding a verdict. Even though the judges proved that the clerk did not actually influence their final decision, the higher Court threw out the ruling anyway.

The Court decided that because it looked like something improper could have happened, public trust was damaged. In short, the rule exists because:

a) Public Trust: People need to trust the legal system. If trials happen behind closed doors or involve conflicted people, the public will suspect the worst - even if the decision was legally correct.

b) Transparency: Open Courts and clear rules allow the public to verify that the law is being applied equally to everyone.

If justice is done in the dark, people won't believe it's justice.

In our case, the Court should correct the wrong. The Court must, its own self interest, and to preserve the dignity of the Court, prevent itself from being used as a tool of injustice.

This is the duty of the Court. And this is the hope of the self-represented litigant. In the next chapter, we will examine how the impugned Order was drafted and how the deception continued after the hearing concluded.

If you would like to support us, we can really use it, please follow this link:
https://fundrazr.com/e2kop8?ref=ab_7hBZ ... hBZzeG046q