Mike’s Latest Update

THE BCSC'S PURSUIT OF VICKI AND EARLE PASQUILL: THE SUPREME COURT BATTLE ENDS, BUT WHO REALLY OWNS THE PROPERTY?

October 2026

The Supreme Court of Canada has reportedly declined to hear Vicki Pasquill's appeal, marking another setback in her lengthy legal battle with the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC). But the end of the appeal process does not resolve every question about the ownership of the properties being pursued.

Newly provided documents dating back to 1981 reveal important evidence of Vicki's financial contributions and ownership interests, decades before the events underlying the Freedom Investment Club proceedings. These documents include an original legal closing statement, a handwritten financing schematic, and a detailed written explanation from Earle Pasquill.

Together, they raise a fundamental question:

How much of the property being pursued by the BCSC genuinely belongs to Earle, and how much rightfully belongs to Vicki?

This question deserves serious examination before the Commission obtains any final recovery order affecting her interests.

THE SUPREME COURT SETBACK DOES NOT ESTABLISH OWNERSHIP

The BCSC imposed substantial financial sanctions against Earle Pasquill following the Freedom Investment Club proceedings. Those sanctions included a $15 million administrative penalty and a $21.7 million disgorgement order. Vicki was not personally sanctioned in those proceedings.

Nevertheless, the Commission subsequently pursued property associated with Vicki and Vicker Holdings Ltd. The path of the case since then:

2021: the British Columbia Supreme Court struck most of the Commission's original claims against Vicki and Vicker.
After 2021: the BCSC relied on expanded collection powers enacted in 2020, including provisions with retroactive application.
2025: the British Columbia Court of Appeal permitted the amended claims to proceed.
Now: Vicki and Vicker sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. The reported refusal of leave leaves the Court of Appeal ruling in place.

But allowing claims to proceed is different from deciding who beneficially owns each property or determining the precise scope of recovery. Those questions require examination of the evidence and applicable law.

THE 1981 STATEMENT OF ADJUSTMENTS: DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF JOINT OWNERSHIP

One of the most important documents is the original Statement of Adjustments dated April 30, 1981. The document records the sale of 6038 MacDonald Street in Vancouver. The vendors are expressly identified as:

EARLE DOUGLAS PASQUILL & VICKI IRENE PASQUILL

The purchaser was Vicker Holdings Ltd. The recorded sale price was $400,000. The transaction included the following amounts:

Transaction component	Amount
Sale price	$400,000.00
Assumed mortgage	$33,677.49
Purchase of Vicker Holdings shares	$320,500.00
Balance due to vendors on closing	$46,073.96

The statement also includes adjustments for property taxes. These figures establish the structure of the recorded transaction.

The document matters for several reasons:

Both spouses were identified as vendors.
The transaction occurred in 1981, approximately 27 years before the events underlying the BCSC sanctions.
The transaction included $320,500 in corporate shares, rather than simply a cash payment to Earle.
The document was prepared at the time of the transaction, making the evidence particularly relevant to reconstructing the original ownership history.

The document does not establish the precise allocation of the corporate shares between Earle and Vicki. But the joint vendor designation is important evidence supporting an examination of Vicki's ownership interest.

ORIGINAL DOCUMENT: APRIL 30, 1981

See the statement of adjustments attached at the end of this article.

Document caption: Original April 30, 1981 Statement of Adjustments for the sale of 6038 MacDonald Street, Vancouver, to Vicker Holdings Ltd. Both Earle and Vicki Pasquill are named as vendors. The $400,000 transaction included $320,500 in corporate shares. This historical evidence supports the need to examine Vicki's independent ownership interests.

VICKI'S MONEY HELPED PURCHASE THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY

Earle's written account explains that the MacDonald Street property was originally purchased in 1974 for $73,500, with a $15,000 down payment.

Vicki personally contributed $9,000.
Her uncle advanced another $6,000, a loan that was subsequently forgiven.
Earle acknowledges that the acquisition was Vicki's initiative.
Both spouses were registered on title.

This history is important because the original down payment came from Vicki and her family, decades before the Freedom Investment Club events. The property subsequently became part of the corporate transaction recorded in 1981. Any fair examination of beneficial ownership should account for these original contributions.

THE SECOND PROPERTY ALSO INVOLVED VICKI'S MONEY

In 1978, Earle and Vicki purchased a second property at 192 West 47th Avenue for approximately $79,500. Earle acknowledges that Vicki contributed approximately half the down payment. He also states that both spouses contributed to the mortgage and maintenance expenses.

These contributions form part of the family's historical financial arrangements. The fact that the properties later became associated with Vicker Holdings does not eliminate the need to examine the spouses' original interests.

THE HANDWRITTEN 1981 SCHEMATIC EXPLAINS THE FINANCING

A second important document is the handwritten schematic prepared in 1981. It outlines the financing arrangement used when the Pasquills purchased their new family residence at 4027 West 27th Avenue.

According to Earle, the arrangement was recommended by an accountant. He borrowed $240,000 against the new residence and used the funds to purchase preferred shares in Vicker Holdings. The company then acquired the family's existing properties.

The schematic records the flow of funds, including the $240,000 borrowing, the $320,500 share transaction, and the planned use of the proceeds to purchase the new residence. The stated purpose was to structure the borrowing so interest on the investment could be deducted for income-tax purposes. Earle says the arrangement was reviewed during two Canada Revenue Agency audits.

The handwritten schematic provides contemporaneous evidence of the financing plan.

See the 1981 financing schematic attached at the end of this article.

Document caption: Handwritten 1981 financing schematic outlining the Pasquill family's property transactions and Vicker Holdings share purchases. The document helps explain the financial structure and why registered corporate ownership might differ from the spouses' underlying economic contributions.

The schematic does not independently establish beneficial ownership. But alongside the Statement of Adjustments and Earle's written explanation, the document provides important context for the original transactions.

EARLE'S OWN WORDS SUPPORT VICKI'S CLAIM

Earle acknowledges that he held most of the shares in Vicker Holdings because of the tax-planning structure. But he expressly disputes the suggestion that the company belonged entirely to him. In his written explanation, he states:

“So to say that Vicker was all mine is clearly wrong.”

He further explains that at least half of the $320,500 in shares associated with the MacDonald Street transaction should rightfully have belonged to Vicki.

This acknowledgment is significant. Earle identifies Vicki's contributions and recognizes her claim to a substantial economic interest. His explanation is consistent with the historical evidence showing both spouses as vendors in the 1981 transaction.

The share registers and related corporate records are needed to determine how the shares were legally issued and held. But Earle's admission provides a substantial reason to investigate Vicki's beneficial ownership rather than assuming the company belonged exclusively to him.

THE 1995 TRANSFER IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT

Earle states that in 1995 he transferred half of the West 27th Avenue residence back to Vicki. He describes the transfer as recognizing an ownership interest that rightfully belonged to her. The transfer occurred approximately 13 years before the Freedom Investment Club events.

The historical timing deserves attention. The original acquisition, Vicki's contributions, the financing arrangement and the circumstances of the 1995 transfer should all be considered when determining the parties' respective ownership interests.

The BCSC should not assume that the transfer represented an attempt to avoid later regulatory liabilities without evidence supporting such a conclusion.

WHY THE SCOPE OF RECOVERY MUST BE LIMITED BY LAW AND EVIDENCE

I believe the BCSC should be required to establish precisely which property interests are recoverable under the Securities Act. The Commission's sanctions were imposed against Earle, and Vicki was not personally sanctioned. The existence of a judgment against one spouse does not, by itself, establish that every asset associated with the other spouse belongs to the judgment debtor.

The 1981 documents provide historical evidence of Vicki's participation in the acquisition and transfer of substantial property. Earle's written explanation identifies her financial contributions, and the corporate structure raises additional questions about beneficial ownership. These matters deserve careful consideration.

The BCSC should identify the specific property transfers relied upon, the statutory provisions authorizing recovery, and the evidence connecting each disputed interest to the claims. Vicki should have a full opportunity to establish her independent interests.

The applicable claimable-property provisions might authorize recovery beyond Earle's registered ownership percentage, depending on the facts and statutory requirements. But the Commission should not recover property beyond the scope permitted by law.

EARLE SAYS HIS INTEREST SHOULD BE NO MORE THAN 50%

In recent correspondence, Earle explained that his share of the family property should not exceed 50%. His position is supported by his account of Vicki's historical contributions. But a fair determination should examine each property separately:

MacDonald Street: Vicki's original down payment and a joint sale.
West 47th Avenue: contributions from both spouses.
West 27th Avenue: a financing arrangement and subsequent ownership transfer.
Vicker Holdings: separate questions concerning registered shares and beneficial economic interests.

A fixed 50% allocation should not be assumed without reviewing the evidence. The appropriate ownership percentage might differ from one asset to another. The objective should be to identify and protect the interests legally belonging to Vicki.

THE RETROACTIVE LEGISLATION REMAINS TROUBLING

The BCSC has relied on expanded collection powers introduced in 2020. Those provisions were expressly given retroactive application, and the courts have permitted the Commission to pursue its amended claims. But the fairness concerns remain.

Vicki's original property contributions occurred in the 1970s.
The corporate transactions occurred in 1981.
The subsequent property transfer occurred in 1995.

These events preceded the Freedom Investment Club proceedings. I believe the application of retroactive collection powers to property with such a long history deserves particularly careful scrutiny. The Commission should establish the legal basis for reaching each asset while respecting independently established ownership rights.

FIVE STEPS TO ESTABLISH THE PROPER SCOPE OF RECOVERY

The historical evidence provides a practical basis for challenging any excessive recovery.

Reconstruct the property ownership history.Obtain the original title records, conveyancing documents, mortgage records and transfer documents for each property, beginning with the 1974 MacDonald Street purchase.
Examine the Vicker Holdings share records.Obtain the original share registers, share certificates, corporate resolutions and financial statements. Determine how the $320,500 in shares was allocated and whether the registered ownership reflected the underlying economic arrangements.
Trace Vicki's independent financial contributions.Document her original down payments, mortgage contributions, maintenance expenses and proceeds from subsequent property transactions.
Require the BCSC to identify its legal basis for recovery.For each property or shareholding, identify the transfer relied upon and the specific statutory remedy sought.
Seek judicial recognition of Vicki's protected ownership interests.Present the historical documents, financial records and Earle's admissions so the court determines which interests are independently owned and legally protected.

These steps would provide a factual foundation for determining the proper scope of recovery.

THE SUPREME COURT BATTLE ENDS, BUT THE OWNERSHIP QUESTION DESERVES AN ANSWER

The reported Supreme Court refusal is disappointing for Earle and Vicki. But the newly provided historical evidence deserves public attention:

The April 30, 1981 Statement of Adjustments identifies both spouses as vendors in a $400,000 property transaction.
The handwritten schematic explains the financing structure.
Earle's written account identifies Vicki's original financial contributions.
He expressly acknowledges that Vicker Holdings should not be regarded as entirely his economic property.

These records support a serious examination of Vicki's independent ownership interests. They do not establish the final legal outcome. But they raise questions the BCSC and the courts should address before any final recovery affecting those interests.

GOVERNMENT ENFORCEMENT MUST RESPECT PROPERTY RIGHTS

The BCSC has a legitimate responsibility to enforce lawful sanctions and protect investors. But enforcement must operate within the limits of the law.

Vicki Pasquill was not sanctioned in the original Freedom Investment Club proceeding. Her contributions to the family's property holdings began decades before the events underlying those sanctions. The original 1981 legal documents provide evidence of her involvement in substantial property transactions, and Earle has acknowledged her financial contributions and ownership claims. These facts matter.

The BCSC should pursue only assets and interests legally recoverable under the Securities Act, following a fair examination of Vicki's independent property rights.

The existence of a substantial judgment against Earle should not substitute for evidence concerning Vicki's ownership. The Commission should follow the money, examine the historical records, establish the relevant transfers, identify the property interests legally subject to recovery, and respect ownership rights established by the evidence.

After years of litigation, Earle and Vicki deserve a process based on clear evidence, lawful recovery and fair treatment. The Supreme Court appeal process might have ended. But the fundamental question remains:

How much of the property belongs to Earle, and how much rightfully belongs to Vicki?

The answer should come from the documents, the financial history and the law, not from assumptions arising from their marriage.

ATTACHED DOCUMENTS

Original April 30, 1981 Statement of Adjustments for the sale of 6038 MacDonald Street, Vancouver, naming Earle and Vicki Pasquill as vendors — **Statement of Adjustments, April 30, 1981.** Davis & Co., sale of 6038 MacDonald Street, Vancouver, to Vicker Holdings Ltd. Click to enlarge.

Handwritten 1981 financing schematic of the Pasquill family property transactions and Vicker Holdings share purchases — **Handwritten financing schematic, 1981.** Property transactions and Vicker Holdings share purchases. Click to enlarge.

October 2026

www.mikelathigeestory.com

THE BCSC'S PURSUIT OF VICKI PASQUILL: WHEN DOES GOVERNMENT POWER GO TOO FAR?

September 2026

I recently wrote about what I believe has become an excessive and unfair campaign by the British Columbia Securities Commission against my former business partner, Earle Pasquill.

There is another part of this story that deserves equal attention.

The BCSC has spent years pursuing Earle's wife, Vicki Pasquill, and Vicker Holdings Ltd., a company she controls.

I believe the pursuit of Vicki raises an even broader question about government power.

Vicki was not a respondent in the original BCSC sanctions proceeding against Earle and me.

She was not found responsible for operating the Freedom Investment Club companies.

She was not found to have directed or controlled FIC.

She was not ordered to disgorge $21.7 million.

Yet years later, Vicki and property associated with her became targets of an extraordinary BCSC collection campaign.

And when the BCSC encountered serious legal problems with the case it originally brought against her, the existence of new, retroactive legislation gave the regulator another route to continue.

That history deserves public attention.

THE BCSC WENT AFTER VICKI

The BCSC commenced its collection action in 2018.

It pursued Earle, Vicki and eventually Vicker Holdings.

The Commission sought to reach substantial property and asserted claims including knowing receipt, unjust enrichment, fraudulent conveyance and fraudulent preference.

Those are serious allegations.

But allegations are not findings.

Vicki fought the BCSC in court.

And in 2021, she achieved an important victory.

THE BCSC'S ORIGINAL CASE WAS LARGELY STRUCK

In British Columbia Securities Commission v. Pasquill, 2021 BCSC 1047, the British Columbia Supreme Court struck the substantial majority of the BCSC's claims against Vicki and Vicker.

That fact deserves to be stated plainly.

The BCSC brought the case.

Vicki challenged it.

And most of the claims were struck.

The Court found significant portions of the BCSC's case legally deficient and concluded that claims had been advanced without the necessary statutory authority.

For an ordinary person fighting a government regulator, that should have been a significant moment.

But it was not the end.

Because by then the law had changed.

THE GOVERNMENT HAD CREATED NEW RETROACTIVE COLLECTION POWERS

In 2020, British Columbia amended the Securities Act.

Part 18.1 gave the BCSC substantially expanded collection powers.

Among those powers was a new statutory mechanism allowing the Commission to pursue what the legislation calls "claimable property" transferred to family members and other third parties.

And here is the part I believe the public needs to understand:

Those powers were expressly made retroactive.

Think about what that means in this case.

The events underlying the FIC proceeding occurred in 2008.

The BCSC began its collection action against Vicki and Vicker in 2018.

The Legislature created broader collection powers in 2020.

Those new powers reached backward.

Then, in 2021, most of the BCSC's existing claims against Vicki and Vicker were struck.

But the BCSC was given an opportunity to pursue relief under the newer statutory provisions.

The Commission eventually did exactly that.

It returned to court relying upon powers enacted years after the events and transfers at issue.

That is the point I find so troubling.

TO BE PRECISE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED

I want to be completely accurate about the chronology.

I am not claiming that British Columbia passed Part 18.1 specifically because Vicki defeated the BCSC in 2021. That would be incorrect.

The legislation was enacted in 2020, before the 2021 decision striking most of the BCSC's claims against Vicki and Vicker.

But what happened next is documented.

The BCSC's original case against Vicki and Vicker suffered a major setback.

Most of those claims were struck.

The Commission then had available to it expanded collection powers enacted after its original lawsuit began.

Those powers were expressly retroactive.

The BCSC relied upon them to continue pursuing Vicki and Vicker.

That distinction makes the story more accurate.

It does not make it less troubling.

THE BCSC CAME BACK

In 2023, the BCSC sought permission to amend its case and rely upon Part 18.1.

The British Columbia Supreme Court permitted the amendments.

Vicki and Vicker argued, among other things, that the revised claims should not survive the applicable limitation period.

They appealed.

In Pasquill v. British Columbia (Securities Commission), 2025 BCCA 287, the British Columbia Court of Appeal unanimously allowed the BCSC's amended case to proceed.

The Court determined that the amendments did not amount to a new and distinct cause of action for limitation purposes because the essential factual foundation was already present in the earlier proceeding.

That is the law as determined by the Court.

My concern is different.

My concern is fairness.

THE LAW DID NOT GIVE THE BCSC THESE POWERS WHEN THE UNDERLYING EVENTS OCCURRED

This point should not become buried in legal terminology.

Part 18.1 did not exist in 2008.

It did not exist when the events underlying the FIC case occurred.

It did not exist when the BCSC originally pursued Earle and me.

It did not even exist when the BCSC commenced its collection action against Vicki in 2018.

The Legislature enacted these expanded powers in 2020.

And it expressly gave them retroactive reach.

The BCSC is now relying upon those later-created powers in litigation involving Vicki.

The courts have determined that the legislation permits this.

But legality and fairness are different questions.

Government has the ability to change laws.

A legislature also possesses the constitutional authority, within limits, to give legislation retrospective or retroactive effect.

But when government gives a regulator new collection powers and permits those powers to reach backward into transactions occurring before the legislation existed, the public has every right to scrutinize what follows.

THE PARALLEL WITH EARLE'S RETIREMENT MONEY

There is another reason this troubles me.

Look at what happened with Earle's retirement accounts.

The BCSC attempted to preserve Earle's Life Income Fund accounts.

Earle challenged the BCSC.

In 2021, the British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with Earle and revoked the preservation order.

The Court concluded that pension legislation protected those funds from the BCSC's preservation order.

Once again, Earle had successfully challenged the regulator.

Legislation subsequently changed.

The BCSC returned.

Today it is able to reach mandatory payments coming from those retirement accounts.

Now consider what happened with Vicki.

The BCSC pursued her.

She fought back.

In 2021, most of the BCSC's claims against her and Vicker were struck.

But expanded retroactive collection legislation was now available.

The BCSC returned relying upon those expanded statutory powers.

In both situations, people successfully challenged the reach of the BCSC.

In both situations, the legal framework available to the BCSC expanded.

And in both situations, the regulator continued pursuing the assets.

I find that deeply troubling.

A government agency should not become virtually impossible to defeat because every successful legal challenge is followed by another statutory route allowing the pursuit to continue.

FOLLOW THE MONEY, NOT THE FAMILY

There is another principle I believe matters.

If the BCSC believes Earle transferred recoverable property to Vicki or Vicker, prove it.

Identify the transfer.

Identify the date.

Identify the amount.

Identify the source of the money.

Identify the recipient.

Then connect that specific money to the specific property the Commission seeks to recover.

Property by property.

Transfer by transfer.

Dollar by dollar.

That is how a collection case of this magnitude should be examined.

The fact that Vicki is Earle's wife should not substitute for tracing.

The total value of property owned by Vicki or Vicker should not substitute for tracing.

And the existence of a judgment against Earle should not turn every asset connected to his wife into money obtained from FIC investors.

If Earle transferred recoverable money into a particular property, establish the evidence.

If Vicki contributed her own money, equity or other consideration, establish that as well.

Then let a court determine what portion, if any, is properly recoverable.

That approach protects investors without abandoning fairness.

THE NUMBERS MAKE THIS EVEN MORE IMPORTANT

The scale of the BCSC's pursuit makes careful tracing especially important.

Public reporting on the litigation describes the BCSC collection action as targeting property worth more than $17 million allegedly transferred to Vicki and Vicker.

That is an enormous amount of property.

The value of property caught in a collection proceeding is not automatically the same thing as the amount of investor money proven to have gone into that property.

Those numbers should never be casually treated as interchangeable.

The government should establish the connection.

If $100,000 was improperly transferred into a property worth $2 million, identify the $100,000 and establish the legal basis for whatever recovery the statute permits.

If the government alleges the entire $2 million is recoverable, it should establish the evidence and statutory basis for that position.

That distinction is fundamental.

VICKI WAS NOT SANCTIONED IN THE ORIGINAL CASE

This fact should never disappear from the discussion.

Vicki was not one of the people sanctioned in the original BCSC proceeding.

The $21.7 million disgorgement order was not entered against her.

The $15 million administrative penalty imposed against Earle was not imposed against her.

Yet she has spent years defending herself, her company and substantial property from the BCSC's collection efforts.

Whatever one's opinion of Earle or me, Vicki's position should be judged on the evidence concerning Vicki.

Not on guilt by association.

Not because she married Earle.

Not because the BCSC has been unable to collect its enormous judgment from Earle.

And not simply because legislation enacted years later gives the regulator extraordinary powers to pursue property transferred to family members.

THE CASE HAS NOW REACHED CANADA'S HIGHEST COURT

Vicki has continued fighting.

Following the 2025 British Columbia Court of Appeal decision, Vicki and Vicker Holdings applied for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The case is:

Vicki Irene Pasquill, et al. v. British Columbia Securities Commission

Supreme Court of Canada File No. 42049.

The Supreme Court's own case summary identifies the issues as involving limitation periods and "retrospective legislation."

The Court's docket records that Vicki filed her application for leave to appeal in October 2025.

The BCSC responded.

Vicki replied.

On June 8, 2026, all materials on the application for leave were submitted to the judges for consideration.

The dispute therefore raises legal questions serious enough to have been taken all the way to Canada's highest court.

WHEN DOES ENOUGH BECOME ENOUGH?

This case started with events occurring almost two decades ago.

Earle has been sanctioned.

He has lost financially.

The BCSC continues pursuing his retirement payments.

And his wife has spent years defending herself and her property against the regulator.

The BCSC's original collection claims against Vicki and Vicker largely failed in 2021.

Yet that did not end the pursuit.

Newer legislation containing expressly retroactive collection powers provided another route.

The BCSC took it.

Perhaps the courts will ultimately determine that every step of this collection campaign falls within the powers granted by the Legislature.

But the public is entitled to ask a different question.

Has the BCSC pushed too far?

My answer is yes.

There must be limits to government enforcement.

There must be proportionality.

There must be finality.

And when government relies upon laws enacted years after the underlying events to reach property belonging to someone who was never sanctioned in the original proceeding, fairness deserves at least as much attention as collection.

THE PRINCIPLE SHOULD BE SIMPLE

If Vicki received recoverable property from Earle, prove it.

Trace it.

Show where it went.

Show what asset it purchased.

Show how much of that asset represents the recoverable transfer.

Then seek the remedy the evidence supports.

But do not turn a $21.7 million judgment against Earle into an assumption that everything belonging to his wife represents investor money.

Do not confuse the value of property with the amount allegedly transferred.

Do not confuse an allegation with a finding.

And do not ignore the significance of a government regulator relying upon retroactive powers that did not exist when the underlying events occurred.

Vicki fought the BCSC and succeeded in having most of its original claims against her struck.

The BCSC did not walk away.

It relied upon a new legal framework with expanded retroactive powers and continued the fight.

That is lawful according to the court decisions to date.

I still believe it is wrong.

Government power should have boundaries.

Winning against a government regulator should mean something.

And when the rules available to the regulator expand after the events, after the alleged transfers and even after the original collection lawsuit began, the public should pay close attention.

I have said throughout the FIC story that justice should follow the money.

The same principle applies here.

Follow the money.

Prove the transfers.

Prove the connection to each property.

Recover what the evidence and law establish is recoverable.

But do not destroy another person's financial life simply because she is married to someone the government has pursued for nearly two decades.

At some point enforcement stops looking like investor protection and starts raising serious questions about the limits of government power.

In my opinion, the BCSC's pursuit of Vicki Pasquill has reached that point.

THE BCSC, EARLE PASQUILL AND A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS

By Mike

I have written extensively about my history with the British Columbia Securities Commission and the collapse of the Freedom Investment Club group of companies.

I am not writing this article to retry the original BCSC case.

I am writing because what is now happening to my former business partner, Earle Pasquill, raises serious questions about fairness, proportionality and the extraordinary power of a government regulator to continue pursuing an individual almost two decades after the events at issue.

I believe people deserve to understand the complete story.

The public narrative created around Earle and me has always been simple: investors lost $21.7 million, therefore Earle and Mike personally obtained $21.7 million.

That is not what happened.

The BCSC's own legal theory did not require a finding that Earle or I personally received $21.7 million.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal explained this distinction when reviewing the disgorgement provisions of the Securities Act. The disgorgement orders against Earle and me were upheld because we exercised control and direction over corporate entities that obtained the investor funds. The Court specifically explained that the statutory concept of an "amount obtained" did not require a profit calculation.

That distinction is enormous.

Corporate receipt of money is not the same as personal enrichment.

Neither Earle nor I walked away from FIC with $21.7 million.

We did not become wealthy because FIC investors lost money.

To the contrary, Earle and I lost substantial amounts of our own money when the businesses collapsed.

This is one of the most important facts in this entire story.

WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?

There is another side of the FIC collapse that I believe has never received the attention it deserves.

Substantial amounts of money disappeared through transactions involving other people and entities.

I have published documents on this website concerning John Tansowny, Dennis O'Dowd and others. Those materials describe transactions that I believe resulted in millions of dollars being improperly taken from FIC and its shareholders.

These are not minor issues.

There were real transactions, real properties, real companies and real money.

There were people who financially benefited from transactions involving FIC assets.

My position has always been simple.

Follow the money.

Determine who received it.

Determine who kept it.

Determine who personally benefited.

Then pursue those people.

Instead, the BCSC has spent years pursuing Earle and me.

The irony is difficult to ignore.

The BCSC obtained a $21.7 million disgorgement order without needing to establish that Earle and I personally retained $21.7 million. The legal basis for the order included our control over the corporate entities that received investor funds.

That legal distinction has largely disappeared from the BCSC's public messaging.

Read the BCSC's recent press releases and you repeatedly see phrases such as "ill-gotten gains."

A member of the public reading those words would understandably conclude that Earle and I personally put $21.7 million into our pockets.

We did not.

I believe this distinction should matter to anyone interested in justice rather than headlines.

EARLE'S RETIREMENT MONEY

What is happening to Earle today concerns me even more.

Earle has Life Income Fund accounts containing retirement money.

The BCSC wanted those assets.

Earle fought the BCSC over them.

And he won.

In November 2021, the British Columbia Court of Appeal revoked the BCSC's preservation order against Earle's LIF accounts.

The Court concluded that the Pension Benefits Standards Act protected those pension-derived funds.

Justice Mary Newbury wrote that the legislation meant the Commission did not have authority to enforce its judgments against plans derived from pension funds.

That should be understood clearly.

This was not Earle hiding money in a secret offshore bank account.

These were regulated retirement accounts.

The BCSC tried to reach them.

Earle challenged the BCSC.

The British Columbia Court of Appeal agreed with Earle.

Then the law changed.

THE GOVERNMENT CHANGED THE RULES

Following Earle's successful 2021 appeal, British Columbia amended its legislation.

The BCSC then continued its collection efforts under the changed statutory framework.

In December 2024, the British Columbia Supreme Court ordered payments from Earle's two LIF accounts forfeited to the BCSC.

Earle appealed again.

On March 18, 2026, the British Columbia Court of Appeal upheld the order affecting payments from those retirement accounts.

The BCSC celebrated the result publicly as another legal victory.

I see something entirely different.

I see a government regulator pursuing a man over conduct dating back to 2008, losing a Court of Appeal battle over his protected retirement accounts, benefiting from subsequent legislative changes, and then returning to pursue those retirement payments.

A court has determined the current collection mechanism is lawful.

My opinion concerns fairness.

I do not believe this is fair.

THE RETROACTIVE PROBLEM

There is an even broader issue surrounding the BCSC's collection campaign.

In 2020, British Columbia substantially strengthened the BCSC's collection powers.

These changes occurred approximately twelve years after the events underlying our original case.

Some of the new collection provisions were expressly given retrospective effect.

Separate litigation involving Earle and his family has examined the BCSC's ability to rely upon these expanded collection provisions in relation to transactions predating the amendments.

Think about the principle involved.

The events underlying the FIC case occurred in 2008.

The BCSC imposed sanctions in 2015.

The Legislature subsequently gave the BCSC stronger collection tools.

Earle successfully established in 2021 that his pension-derived accounts were protected from the BCSC preservation order.

The relevant legislation was subsequently changed.

Today the BCSC is taking his mandatory retirement payments.

The courts have determined what the legislation legally permits.

I am entitled to have an opinion about whether the process is fair.

I believe it is profoundly unfair.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY SHOULD MATTER

I am not suggesting regulators should lack enforcement powers.

Securities regulators serve an important purpose.

People who steal investor money should be pursued.

People who personally enrich themselves through wrongdoing should be required to return those gains.

That principle is precisely why the history of FIC deserves closer examination.

Who personally received the money?

Who personally profited?

Who ended up with properties or proceeds purchased with investor funds?

Who lost money?

Those questions should matter.

Earle and I were trying to keep the FIC businesses alive during the 2008 global financial crisis.

The BCSC concluded that we failed to disclose important information about FIC's financial condition and improperly moved money among related companies.

I disagree with important aspects of the BCSC's characterization of what occurred, but those findings are part of the legal record.

There is another fact that belongs in the discussion.

Earle and I did not emerge from the collapse enriched.

We lost substantial amounts of our own money.

Other people benefited financially from transactions involving FIC.

I have spent years presenting information concerning those transactions.

Yet the BCSC's relentless focus has remained on Earle and me.

That is what I find so troubling.

A REGULATOR WITH ENORMOUS POWER

The BCSC describes its mission as protecting investors and maintaining a fair securities market.

Fairness should apply to everyone.

It should apply to investors.

It should also apply to people accused and sanctioned by the regulator.

Government agencies possess resources and powers that individuals simply do not possess.

When an individual successfully establishes a legal protection in the province's highest court, and legislation subsequently changes in a way that allows the regulator to overcome that protection, the public should pay attention.

When expanded collection laws reach conduct and transactions occurring years before those laws existed, the public should pay attention.

When a regulator repeatedly describes corporate investor funds as "ill-gotten gains" without explaining that its disgorgement case did not depend upon proving that Earle and I personally pocketed $21.7 million, the public should pay attention.

And when evidence exists showing that other people financially benefited from transactions involving investor assets, the regulator's response to those people deserves scrutiny as well.

MY VIEW

I have lived with this case for many years.

I know what I invested.

I know what I lost.

I know what Earle lost.

I also know the transactions I have spent years documenting and the people I believe received millions of dollars belonging to FIC companies and shareholders.

People are free to read the BCSC decisions and disagree with me.

I encourage them to read everything.

Read the BCSC decisions.

Read the court decisions.

Read the documents I have published.

Follow the money.

Then decide whether the public narrative tells the complete story.

My opinion is clear.

Earle Pasquill has been punished enough.

Going after his retirement income almost two decades after the underlying events does nothing to change what happened in 2008.

Changing legislation after Earle successfully protected his pension-derived accounts in the Court of Appeal might satisfy the legal requirements created by the Legislature.

In my opinion, it does not satisfy the basic test of fairness.

The BCSC has spent enormous time and resources pursuing Earle and me.

I believe the same determination should have been directed toward tracing the people who personally benefited from the collapse of FIC and recovering money from those who ended up with investor assets.

Justice should focus on facts.

It should follow the money.

And it should apply the rules fairly, even when doing so produces a result a government regulator does not like.

That is my opinion.

Readers should review the evidence and reach their own.