THE BCSC, EARLE PASQUILL AND A QUESTION OF FAIRNESS
By Michael Lathigee | September 2026
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.
BCSC Does Not Want to Know the Truth:
Dear Reader and BCSC: (who stalks my page)
This post presents, as of January 23, 2026, documents and records alleging serious misconduct by John Tansowny, Dennis O’Dowd, and related entities connected to the Freedom Investment Club Group of Companies collapse.
The material attached outlines the financial misconduct, including skip-transfer land transactions, undisclosed conflicts, and payments linked to Phoenix Land Holdings, Crown Capital, and affiliated parties. Investors lost substantial funds during these transactions stolen by Tansowny and O’Dowd.
The British Columbia Securities Commission received this information. The BCSC enforcement action focused on Lathigee and Earle Pasquill. BCSC counsel acknowledged no personal financial gain by either party.
BCSC enforcement decisions appear driven by public perception. Media coverage by the Vancouver Sun played a central role. Reporting by David Baines and Gordon Hoekstra shaped public narrative used by the regulator. A case of the “tail wagging the dog”.
BCSC actions show no effort to pursue individuals accused of directly profiting from investor losses. Enforcement strategy instead targeted parties linked to media optics. Tansowny had past sanctions by regulators, but the BCSC ignored all this information.
Several years ago, a payment exceeding USD 400,000 went to the BCSC from myself to pay investors. Investors received zero recovery. Details appear elsewhere on this blog. The record reflects a regulator focused on revenue for itself and public relations outcomes. I know this as I called several former FIC investors who received no monies and no contact from the BCSC.
The attached documents detail payments from Phoenix entities to John Tansowny. Records also describe rapid same-day property transfers. These transactions show properties purchased and resold multiple times. Profits flowed to Tansowny and O’Dowd while investors absorbed losses. The BCSC has shown no interest in the truth of what occurred.
During his tenure, John Tansowny and his wholly owned company Crown Capital acquired numerous Edmonton-area land parcels. Evidence shows close coordination with Dennis O’Dowd and Phoenix Land Holdings. Phoenix paid Tansowny from February 2008 through May 21, 2015. Total payments reached USD 678,000.
While Tansowny was acting as VP of Real Estate for FIC Group, multiple land acquisitions resulted in alleged overpayments. Phoenix Land Ventures intervened through skip transfers. Phoenix purchased land, then resold to FIC at sharply higher prices. Transaction specifics appear in the attached materials.
I KNOW THE BCSC READS THIS AND WHY HAVE YOU DONE NOTHING? YOU ARE NOT INTERESTED IN JUSTICE BUT JUST PR AND NEVER ONCE INVESTIGATED TANSOWNY OR O’DOWD DESPITE ALL THE EVIDENCE. SHAME ON YOU!
Loading document...
Unable to display the document. Open the PDF.