Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #13

[MistyWaters]

RBBM
Maybe there are mystery heirs we don’t yet know about?

But if so, I don’t think KD knowing of mystery heirs would provide “new evidence” given the Trustees of the Estate already know who the beneficiaries are.

For whatever reason they want to question KD, I can only think it’s because he’s aware of information that would somehow benefit the Estate’s move to keep the files sealed, at least until charges are laid and a trial occurs, assumably because what’s contained within is critical to the police investigation.

If one of KD’s sources fabricated information -I’m reaching - depending if that person also had a violent background or connections thereof, that also could strengthen the concerns related to safety. My understanding is legal transcripts relating to a crime can later be introduced as evidence in criminal prosecutions as well. So is this using the SCC issue as a sort of throwing spaghetti against the wall to see what sticks (what KD might know), I don’t know either.

But one thing to consider, KD is the reporter, the receiver of information. Although he publishes it, he doesn’t have the ability to determine what he’s been told is truth or fiction as he’s not involved in the investigation. The family’s lips are also sealed regarding first-hand knowledge pertaining to actual facts and possible suspects.

 

[deugirtni]

I'm wondering if they want to question him regarding his intentions.. what he plans to do with the information if it does become unsealed.. why he wants it so badly.. is he going to splash their personal stuff all over the nation.. etc. I'm wondering if, depending on their conversation, they might try to come to a compromise of some kind. I'm also wondering, but not sure if this can happen, maybe someone else knows? .... Is it possible they might offer to give KD a copy of what he's seeking, outside of unsealing the docs (that's the part I don't know if it's possible, ie do the heirs even have a copy, etc?).. so that he will then drop his suit? That way perhaps they could get KD to agree to only expose what might be publicly relevant.. ??? And the rest of the public still gets to stay in the dark, aside from whatever KD agrees to limit his publishing to at this time?

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm wondering if they want to question him regarding his intentions.. what he plans to do with the information if it does become unsealed.. why he wants it so badly.. is he going to splash their personal stuff all over the nation.. etc. I'm wondering if, depending on their conversation, they might try to come to a compromise of some kind. I'm also wondering, but not sure if this can happen, maybe someone else knows? .... Is it possible they might offer to give KD a copy of what he's seeking, outside of unsealing the docs (that's the part I don't know if it's possible, ie do the heirs even have a copy, etc?).. so that he will then drop his suit? That way perhaps they could get KD to agree to only expose what might be publicly relevant.. ??? And the rest of the public still gets to stay in the dark, aside from whatever KD agrees to limit his publishing to at this time?

I’m surely not a legal expert but I think if the SCC Judges rules the Estate files must be unsealed, they’re not just unsealed for KD, they’re unsealed for anyone and everyone who chooses to review them. By that, if the SCC deems the files become unsealed, KD would not become the exclusive recipient of the Estate files. If that were so, can you imagine every other MSM or interested parties also having to file an Appeal with the Estate, one by one? So therefore I also think it’d be impossible for the Estate to delve into any sort of private agreement on the presumption of losing their Appeal or dissolving their Appeal in advance, especially as the SCC has already allowed it to be heard.

What’s contained within the Estate files would be far more than just the Wills. Part of the role of the Trustees/Administrators is to create a snapshot, a sort of balance sheet, on the date of death. That includes not only valuation of assets, receivables, o/s debts owing etc to the Shermans Estates but also paying all outstanding debts in their names as well. Some assets may be liquidated, others not, depends on the instructions in the Will. This is very simplistic though as no doubt the Shermans financial position would’ve been extraordinarily complex considering their great wealth.

As each of the beneficiaries seeing the Will, I don’t think we know because of the Estate files being sealed. But if one of them was prevented from seeing the file, I’d think they’d have far better reason to personally file the Court action instead of KD. IIRC, the beneficiaries were directly involved in requesting the Estate file be sealed.

 

[MistyWaters]

View attachment 231039

(pg 122)

From Maclean’s (bbm):

“ It is the case that there is a lot of finger-pointing going on, as I report, where they initially blame Frank D’Angelo, then Jonathan says Jack Kay was involved. When Greenspan has written me, he says that my own sources, who I don’t identify, may be guilty as well. There’s a lot of finger-pointing.

Who killed Barry and Honey Sherman? A new book offers fascinating insights. - Macleans.ca

I can’t find it now, but Greenspan said some of KD’s information was ‘illegally obtained’ or words to that effect.

McLeans article, a couple of comments also caught my eye ——

“.......... (KD)I understand that after that—I don’t have emails but talked to people who did—Jonathon said to his sisters: “Our father may be showing signs of incompetence; maybe it’s time to do something.”......”

This one, above. Who was his source? People??? If not from one of the sisters, how was it obtained? I also think it’s highly unusual for KD to quote an email word-for-word if he doesn’t have a copy in front of him. If it was one of the sisters on the sly, I also can’t think of one reason they’d be share this information with the media in order for a reporter to create sensationalism and speculation.

Side comment - IIRC KW is the only person who has EVER eluded to Barry’s lack of mental competence in one of his posts here. Others who knew him personally described him as sharp as a tack.


Q: The email from Jonathon to his sister you quote has the subject line “to fellow shareholders.”

And then this - “to fellow shareholders”....what the heck??? It’s never, ever been reported that the four siblings were Apotex shareholders prior to the murder of their father. Why would JS sent such a cold, impersonal email to his sisters with a heading “to fellow shareholders” discussing their fathers mental health if they were already shareholders of Apotex. That makes no sense because it’s shareholders who elect the President of the Board of Directors. Barry was a shareholder, maybe Honey too, making them “fellow shareholders” too.

Is there somebody who had reason to believe Barry had already transferred his Apotex shares to his children by 2015?

These three words have me really doubting the authenticity of KDs source, an inflammatory email which he didn’t view. IMO it reeks of spitefulness, of somebody wanting to cast an aura of blame onto JS.

Maybe the Estate attorneys also have reason to ask KD about information he hasn’t published. It does appear he talked to Greenspan a time or two, in return no answers...

When you went to ask the children, Greenspan asked you to go through him. He then said he couldn’t answer because he was “bound by police request.”
Who killed Barry and Honey Sherman? A new book offers fascinating insights. - Macleans.ca

JMO

 

[Windsorite]

Originally my thought was there was really nothing to see here. It seemed obvious the beneficiaries
were the four children. Since they've fought so hard to keep this quiet I'm now wondering if there may have been bequests for the grandchildren specifically, which would be who they are trying to protect. It would make some sense as to there being changes to the will in 2013, 2015 and again in 2017.

MOO I wondered while reading KD's book whether he had actually spoken to either Alex or her husband. Just a feeling I had.

 

[WINDSOR]

Whatever the motivations the Estate has to keep the estate documents sealed, they likely do not have anything to do with the TPS crime investigation. If the TPS felt that there was anything in the estate documents that would hamper or would in a way negatively impact their investigation, the
TPS would have been the entity that would want the documents sealed. As far as I know they have been mute on this issue.
The Estate, in their role, have officially, nothing to do with the criminal investigation. So I wonder what is their motivation to cross-examine KD? Does one of the heirs want to know what KD knows outside what KD wrote in his book? Whole thing strikes me as a bit odd.

 

[ldlager]

McLeans article, a couple of comments also caught my eye ——

“.......... (KD)I understand that after that—I don’t have emails but talked to people who did—Jonathon said to his sisters: “Our father may be showing signs of incompetence; maybe it’s time to do something.”......”

This one, above. Who was his source? People??? If not from one of the sisters, how was it obtained? I also think it’s highly unusual for KD to quote an email word-for-word if he doesn’t have a copy in front of him. If it was one of the sisters on the sly, I also can’t think of one reason they’d be share this information with the media in order for a reporter to create sensationalism and speculation.

Side comment - IIRC KW is the only person who has EVER eluded to Barry’s lack of mental competence in one of his posts here. Others who knew him personally described him as sharp as a tack.


Q: The email from Jonathon to his sister you quote has the subject line “to fellow shareholders.”

And then this - “to fellow shareholders”....what the heck??? It’s never, ever been reported that the four siblings were Apotex shareholders prior to the murder of their father. Why would JS sent such a cold, impersonal email to his sisters with a heading “to fellow shareholders” discussing their fathers mental health if they were already shareholders of Apotex. That makes no sense because it’s shareholders who elect the President of the Board of Directors. Barry was a shareholder, maybe Honey too, making them “fellow shareholders” too.

Is there somebody who had reason to believe Barry had already transferred his Apotex shares to his children by 2015?

These three words have me really doubting the authenticity of KDs source, an inflammatory email which he didn’t view. IMO it reeks of spitefulness, of somebody wanting to cast an aura of blame onto JS.

Maybe the Estate attorneys also have reason to ask KD about information he hasn’t published. It does appear he talked to Greenspan a time or two, in return no answers...

When you went to ask the children, Greenspan asked you to go through him. He then said he couldn’t answer because he was “bound by police request.”
Who killed Barry and Honey Sherman? A new book offers fascinating insights. - Macleans.ca

JMO

I note that KD is quoted as saying (RBBM) "...Jonathon said to his sisters...". KD doesn't state that the email that he is referring to was actually sent to his sisters.The exact quote from McLeans is "...I understand that after that—I don’t have emails but talked to people who did—Jonathon said to his sisters: “Our father may be showing signs of incompetence; maybe it’s time to do something.”
I think it is entirely possible that JS may have sent an email(s) to certain Apotex shareholders (for example, certain members of senior management, who we understand were/are shareholders of Apotex; and perhaps his sisters), but didn't communicate his message regarding BS' competency by email to his sisters. Instead, he spoke to them.
The emails that KD is referring to "...I don’t have emails but talked to people who did..." may in fact be emails that disclose that JS talked to his sisters. For example, perhaps BS became aware of these conversations between JS and his sisters, and emailed what he had heard to a close friend (or coworker perhaps). FWIW
Whether JS was actually directly a shareholder of Apotex hasn't been disclosed AFAIK. His interest may have been held indirectly, or as a beneficiary of a trust, etc. But judging from the reported exchanges between himself and his father, it seems he certainly considered himself to be an owner of the business.

 

[MistyWaters]

I note that KD is quoted as saying (RBBM) "...Jonathon said to his sisters...". KD doesn't state that the email that he is referring to was actually sent to his sisters.The exact quote from McLeans is "...I understand that after that—I don’t have emails but talked to people who did—Jonathon said to his sisters: “Our father may be showing signs of incompetence; maybe it’s time to do something.”
I think it is entirely possible that JS may have sent an email(s) to certain Apotex shareholders (for example, certain members of senior management, who we understand were/are shareholders of Apotex; and perhaps his sisters), but didn't communicate his message regarding BS' competency by email to his sisters. Instead, he spoke to them.
The emails that KD is referring to "...I don’t have emails but talked to people who did..." may in fact be emails that disclose that JS talked to his sisters. For example, perhaps BS became aware of these conversations between JS and his sisters, and emailed what he had heard to a close friend (or coworker perhaps). FWIW
Whether JS was actually directly a shareholder of Apotex hasn't been disclosed AFAIK. His interest may have been held indirectly, or as a beneficiary of a trust, etc. But judging from the reported exchanges between himself and his father, it seems he certainly considered himself to be an owner of the business.

In KD’s original report, he did state the email was sent to the sisters. Most of the article is pay-locked but this is stated in the first paragraph -

“....In the spring of 2015, upset with what he saw as reckless business decisions, Apotex billionaire Barry Sherman’s son Jonathon floated the idea to his three siblings that their father was incompetent and unable to manage the family’s business affairs, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter....”
Barry Sherman’s son raised concerns about Apotex founder’s investment strategy and business competence: Sources | The Star

 

[MistyWaters]

Whatever the motivations the Estate has to keep the estate documents sealed, they likely do not have anything to do with the TPS crime investigation. If the TPS felt that there was anything in the estate documents that would hamper or would in a way negatively impact their investigation, the
TPS would have been the entity that would want the documents sealed. As far as I know they have been mute on this issue.
The Estate, in their role, have officially, nothing to do with the criminal investigation. So I wonder what is their motivation to cross-examine KD? Does one of the heirs want to know what KD knows outside what KD wrote in his book? Whole thing strikes me as a bit odd.

The remainder of this article below is also paylocked but KD did report the TPS have stated the Estate files and murder investigation are connected. The first two paragraphs can be read from this link but for some reason I can’t c/p here.

Estate of Barry and Honey Sherman part of Toronto police murder probe, detective tells court | The Star

 

[deugirtni]

I don't know how these things work, so just making a suggestion that might be completely stupid.

The estate wants to 'cross' examine KD.. so wouldn't that mean that whatever was initially rendered by KD as far as his 'examination' in the first place, is wanting to be questioned by the estate? So it would all be based on things KD already had in his paperwork, if I'm interpreting this correctly?

If you're representing yourself (that is, you don't have a lawyer) in a Supreme Court trial, you might have to ask the other person's witnesses questions. This is called cross-examination.

There are two main reasons for doing a cross-examination:

• to have the witness give evidence that helps you and your case, and
• to ask the witness questions about any evidence they gave earlier that you don't think is correct.

The rules about cross-examination aren't as strict as they are for direct examination (when you question your own witnesses). For example, in cross-examination, you can:

• ask leading questions, and
• challenge the other party's evidence (that is, try to show that it's not reliable or correct).

Cross-examination questions should be based on a theory (an idea you have about the case and what should happen).

Here are some tips for doing a cross-examination:

• Ask leading questions. That means you give the witness the answer you're looking for in your question. For example:
  • You forgot to pick up the children from after-school care on April 25, didn't you?
• Don't ask narrative questions (questions that don't have a single answer). Ask single, specific questions. For example:
  • Instead of: Could you tell us everything you did that day?
  • Ask: Did you pick up the children from school that day?
• Don't ask questions that are really about opinions (for example, don't ask things like "Do you think he was wrong to forget the children?"). The witness can only tell you what they saw, heard, or did.

See What is evidence and how do you present it in Supreme Court? for more tips about speaking in Supreme Court.

Sample questions to ask when cross-examining witnesses at a Supreme Court trial | Family Law in BC

 

[deugirtni]

In KD’s original report, he did state the email was sent to the sisters. Most of the article is pay-locked but this is stated in the first paragraph -

“....In the spring of 2015, upset with what he saw as reckless business decisions, Apotex billionaire Barry Sherman’s son Jonathon floated the idea to his three siblings that their father was incompetent and unable to manage the family’s business affairs, according to three sources with knowledge of the matter....”
Barry Sherman’s son raised concerns about Apotex founder’s investment strategy and business competence: Sources | The Star

Here is some more of an article, I think the same one but not sure; the whole article can be read at link below:

Soon after these tense discussions between father and son in the spring of 2015, Jonathon sent an email to his sisters, with a subject line that referred to them as fellow shareholders. In the email, Jonathon suggested their father's actions were jeopardizing their inheritance, according to three people who saw the email at the time and discussed its contents with Barry Sherman. Jonathon's email referred to Barry as the founder, a reference to his founding of generic drug giant Apotex, which he grew into a multibillion-dollar enterprise over 43 years. The Star has not seen this email but its content has been described to the Star by three people.

Jonathon told his sisters in his short email that there was precedence for removing or overturning a company founder.
Barry Sherman’s son raised concerns about Apotex founder’s investment strategy and business competence: Sources

 

[deugirtni]

The remainder of this article below is also paylocked but KD did report the TPS have stated the Estate files and murder investigation are connected. The first two paragraphs can be read from this link but for some reason I can’t c/p here.

Estate of Barry and Honey Sherman part of Toronto police murder probe, detective tells court | The Star

Here are the paragraphs, and a link at bottom which if followed, will lead to ability to see whole article (I think).

The multibillion dollar estate of murdered philanthropists Barry and Honey Sherman is part of the police investigation into their deaths, a homicide detective has told a Toronto court.

“The information from the (Sherman) estate files is embedded…it is embedded within the ITO,” Det.-Const. Dennis Yim told the Ontario Court of Justice during an application from the Toronto Star to unseal hundreds of pages of search warrant documents called an “ITO,” or “information to obtain.”

Yim told court that due to the sealing order made by Justice Leslie Pringle he was not allowed to explain why the financial estate information —which details Barry Sherman’s plan for his fortune — is included at various points in the police investigation documents.

http://www.theontariotimes.com/esta...nto-police-murder-probe-detective-tells-court

 

[dotr]

KD has apparently interviewed many people, presumably not everyone he wished to contact were willing and/or able to respond to his requests, imo, speculation.
Maybe some preferred that he send a questionnaire, because they could not communicate directly with him for some reason or another, or because they wanted to first see what his questions would be.

If the above suggestion is true, could it be that the family wants to know who did not want to answer certain questions and particularly, which questions they not want to answer?
speculation.

 

[Kittybunny]

I don't know how these things work, so just making a suggestion that might be completely stupid.

The estate wants to 'cross' examine KD.. so wouldn't that mean that whatever was initially rendered by KD as far as his 'examination' in the first place, is wanting to be questioned by the estate? So it would all be based on things KD already had in his paperwork, if I'm interpreting this correctly?

If you're representing yourself (that is, you don't have a lawyer) in a Supreme Court trial, you might have to ask the other person's witnesses questions. This is called cross-examination.

There are two main reasons for doing a cross-examination:

• to have the witness give evidence that helps you and your case, and
• to ask the witness questions about any evidence they gave earlier that you don't think is correct.

The rules about cross-examination aren't as strict as they are for direct examination (when you question your own witnesses). For example, in cross-examination, you can:

• ask leading questions, and
• challenge the other party's evidence (that is, try to show that it's not reliable or correct).

Cross-examination questions should be based on a theory (an idea you have about the case and what should happen).

Here are some tips for doing a cross-examination:

• Ask leading questions. That means you give the witness the answer you're looking for in your question. For example:
  • You forgot to pick up the children from after-school care on April 25, didn't you?
• Don't ask narrative questions (questions that don't have a single answer). Ask single, specific questions. For example:
  • Instead of: Could you tell us everything you did that day?
  • Ask: Did you pick up the children from school that day?
• Don't ask questions that are really about opinions (for example, don't ask things like "Do you think he was wrong to forget the children?"). The witness can only tell you what they saw, heard, or did.

See What is evidence and how do you present it in Supreme Court? for more tips about speaking in Supreme Court.

Sample questions to ask when cross-examining witnesses at a Supreme Court trial | Family Law in BC

It makes sense to me. Also a potentially innocuous question that they would be interested in knowing would be: "What are you going to do with the information if it were unsealed?" and "Are you in the process of writing another book? Would this information be published?"

That would certainly strengthen or make a case that the information would not be used for public need to know, but instead for commercial gain. Could it be as simple as that?

 

[ldlager]

KD has apparently interviewed many people, presumably not everyone he wished to contact were willing and/or able to respond to his requests, imo, speculation.
Maybe some preferred that he send a questionnaire, because they could not communicate directly with him for some reason or another, or because they wanted to first see what his questions would be.

If the above suggestion is true, could it be that the family wants to know who did not want to answer certain questions and particularly, which questions they not want to answer?
speculation.

Perhaps certain family members want to know if certain other family members have provided information to KD?

 

[Tighthead]

Omnibus reply;

We have to remember that Sherman had a will for probate and a second will for non-probate assets. The second will, which would likely not appear in the court file would likely cover the bulk of his assets, most notably shares in Apotex and all private companies.

I suspect that the reported changes to the will would involve adding executors.

I suspect that there were existing family trusts that would most likely take care of grandchildren.

Cross examination in the SCC matter would likely be questioning Donovan on affidavit material he filed in support of the original application. It does t mean he has been examined to date.

It’s a very unusual remedy. Reading the Appeal decision, it was apparent the initial materials filed by the applicants were quite thin - maybe a miscalculation by counsel that it would be unopposed (not that people don’t lose unopposed motions in court every day). Generally once you go past trial level you are bound by existing evidence.

I’m still surprised leave was granted. It doesn’t seem to fit the normal requirements.

 

[Tighthead]

It makes sense to me. Also a potentially innocuous question that they would be interested in knowing would be: "What are you going to do with the information if it were unsealed?" and "Are you in the process of writing another book? Would this information be published?"

That would certainly strengthen or make a case that the information would not be used for public need to know, but instead for commercial gain. Could it be as simple as that?

A free press trying to uncover information which is publicly available in every other instance doesn’t qualify as some form of improper purpose.

If the court were to use this as a test it would be a chill on our freedoms.

However, Sherman’s team seems to be getting everything they want right now.

 

[MistyWaters]

Sound familiar?

“Considering who could benefit from the estate, the circumstances of the deceased, the ongoing criminal investigation, the absence of information about the motives and identities of the murder or murderers, publication of information could put both the beneficiaries and their family at significant risk of harm of their lives by unsavoury members of the public who could become aware of such inheritance,".....”

This was not a ruling pertaining to the Sherman Estate file. The 01/2020 sealing was in regard to another couple found dead in Moncton, NB. While an investigation is ongoing, if the motive is suspected to be financial I think sealing of the estate file is probably a routine matter. It’s just that typically it’s not reported, nor appealed.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/dieppe-double-homicide-court-documents-1.5429289

 

[ldlager]

Omnibus reply;

We have to remember that Sherman had a will for probate and a second will for non-probate assets. The second will, which would likely not appear in the court file would likely cover the bulk of his assets, most notably shares in Apotex and all private companies.

I suspect that the reported changes to the will would involve adding executors.

I suspect that there were existing family trusts that would most likely take care of grandchildren.

Cross examination in the SCC matter would likely be questioning Donovan on affidavit material he filed in support of the original application. It does t mean he has been examined to date.

It’s a very unusual remedy. Reading the Appeal decision, it was apparent the initial materials filed by the applicants were quite thin - maybe a miscalculation by counsel that it would be unopposed (not that people don’t lose unopposed motions in court every day). Generally once you go past trial level you are bound by existing evidence.

I’m still surprised leave was granted. It doesn’t seem to fit the normal requirements.

Tighthead when you say " the initial materials filed by the applicants were quite thin" do you mean materials filed by the Sherman side; or by KD? Not sure who the applicant is in this instance. Thanks

 

[Tighthead]

Tighthead when you say " the initial materials filed by the applicants were quite thin" do you mean materials filed by the Sherman side; or by KD? Not sure who the applicant is in this instance. Thanks

The estate was the applicant.

In the appeal decision the judge notes there was one 13 paragraph affidavit with one actual paragraph outlining the risks.

The appeal decision reads like the Chambers judge applied the right law, but that the facts of the case didn’t meet the test.