Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #8

Status
Not open for further replies.
I agree with casesensitive. Sometimes, the only ones that win a law suit are the lawyers.

Kerry, I know you are standing by your convictions but I would hate to see you jeopardized by the legal fees.

If you win all the money in the world but can't collect, what good is it?

Many people have enough legal paper to decorate their home but never see a cent.

Just saying......not judging.

I’m also thinking it makes the lawsuit proceedings far more difficult now as the Shermans are deceased. Because the lawsuit was dismissed I wonder what’s to prevent the executor of Estate of Barry Sherman from proceeding with administration and disbursal. As you say, winning a lawsuit that can’t be collected, what’s the point.
 
Well I’ve never heard of anyone comparing a close relationship between two people to “a lock and a key” (least of all when illegal entrance to their home via a lockbox may have been involved in their deaths).

So that’s possibly why he felt the comparison required an explanation - both a lock and key are indeed “useless on their own” (but in reality, only if the door is locked and must be opened from the outside). I don’t think he was meaning both his parents were useless - he was only referring to the lock and key.

Yes I agree, if he had described it as “ying and yang”, then his comparison wouldn’t have required any further explanation whatsoever.

Why he chose “lock and key” instead, we cannot know but I’d be certain the children do know more than the general public by having assisted in the investigation in some way, considering the homicide team took the lead on about day two. For example, identifying happenings at different times or places, or information regarding names or faces who they know were acquainted or not with their parents, typical requests for assistance that close family members often provide. If not TPS, then possibly by information gleaned through their PI team who was also hired a few days prior to the memorial service iirc.
Much of the son's eulogy was about how the couple each had their own strengths, how each of the couple complemented its other half, how each made their children feel loved even though they weren't in the same ways. The lock and key were just a part of an entire description. Perhaps somewhat opposite personalities, coming together to make one balanced couple. For me anyway, the lock and key fit in with everything else he was saying.:

Here is an excerpt from his speech:
Like yin and yang, they completed a circle that encompassed everything important about what it means to be human, neither one perfect, but together wholly balanced and exceptional. One may have been soft, calm, brilliantly logical, staunchly atheist, and unconditionally loving and proud, while the other may have been firm, intensely energetic, brilliantly gregarious, silently spiritual and unconditionally honest and caring. But together, they were everything and perfect.
....
We are taking some comfort in knowing that you two are together forever, and neither of you had to suffer like we are suffering now. You were like a lock and a key, each pretty useless on your own, but together you unlocked the whole world for yourselves, and for us, and for so many others. We promise to carry on your legacy of greatness and giving from now until forever.
Jonathon Sherman pays tribute to his parents Barry and Honey Sherman - Macleans.ca
 
Possibly a European phrase as well. Anyone remember that bridge in Paris where you show your love with a lock. Then, you toss the key into the Seinne river.
 
Much of the son's eulogy was about how the couple each had their own strengths, how each of the couple complemented its other half, how each made their children feel loved even though they weren't in the same ways. The lock and key were just a part of an entire description. Perhaps somewhat opposite personalities, coming together to make one balanced couple. For me anyway, the lock and key fit in with everything else he was saying.:


Jonathon Sherman pays tribute to his parents Barry and Honey Sherman - Macleans.ca

Glad we agree! By your original post, I was mistaken in presuming you thought differently about his reference to “useless”.

"and the siblings now have no useless half of parent left" :p

Well, *that* is a way to put it!
 
I was in the Sherman’s previous home on Beaverhall Drive....prior to building and moving to Old Colony. I was never invited nor stepped foot in 50 Old Colony.
I wonder why not? According to media reports, they'd been in Old Colony since 1990, and your relationship with the Shermans did not 'start to sour' until 1999.
 
I was filmed for hours at the CBC studio BEFORE Gomes press conference!
Kerry when is it that this conversation happened with HS which you reported to Fifth Estate? Also, at which house - the report states the conversation happened at their house. You have stated openly that you hated HS. The relationship according to media reports didn't start to sour until 1999, and the Shermans lived at their current Old Colony house since 1990. Am I making a leap to assume that you wouldn't have hated HS prior to the relationship starting to sour?
---
as posted above:
Beginning @ appx 15:55 into the Feb 2nd Fifth Estate documentary:
But Kerry Winter says Honey Sherman was not enthusiastic about her husband’s renewed relationship with his cousins. He said she had some tough questions for him at their house one day. <begin KW clip>...... “And I didn’t understand her line of questions. What do you want with my husband or how much money is he giving you and she started to berate me and I remember going...uh leaving that day thinking something was amiss....”
 
Even if the Winter children won in the Supreme Court, I think the amount awarded would be a fraction of the millions that BS had already given them, which they had to pay back. I hope the Winter family has a pro bono agreement with their lawyers, although that doesn't help in having to pay BS's legal fees of $300,000, nor the appeal from his grave for an additional $700,000 in fees.

BS built his company up to 11,000 employees world wide and became a multi-billionaire in the generic pharmaceutical business. KW's father may have been successful in own right, but BS (as lead scientist) was a genius in finding the formula in patented drugs, and reverse engineering the formulations so that he could generically reproduce them. His genius, and business decisions and practises are the reason for his success, and do not equate to what his uncle's success may have been had he lived. If the Supreme Court decides that BS had an ad hoc fiduciary duty, I feel that the one billion dollar claim will be reduced to peanuts. Personally, I think Royal Trust were negligent as trustees., and it angers me that they got off scott free.

In hugely different circumstances, I am reminded of Tim Horton's widow who was bought out by Tim's 50% partner a year after his 1974 death. The company was valued by an independent appraiser for $1.7 million. She rejected the 50% offer of $850,000 so Tim's partner Ron Joyce paid her $1,000,000 even though it put him in financial jeopardy. Joyce went on and built up the company to extraordinary growth and success in the following eighteen years. Seeing Joyce's success, Mrs. Horton sued for $10,000,000, saying she wasn't paid enough for her share. She lost the suit. The similarity between the two cases imo, is people thinking that they should be entitled to huge profits of a wildly successful former family business, sold at market value, many years before. Mrs. Horton had her claims for her law suit, which were rejected by the court, and the Winters had their claims,which have been rejected by the court.
Exactly. Something just isn't right, imho, with the thinking that the W orphans are entitled to 20%. The Tim's example is excellent. In my own mind, I was thinking about how, on marital dissolution, an assessment is made on values.. and split up accordingly.. but that then-current value can't then later be sued for more, just because one of the spouses went on AFTER divorce, to become much more successful in the future.

Basically, it seems like it's even somewhat similar to selling a property. Seller sells it at fair market value at that time, and if 2 (or 4 or 10) years into the future, by a stroke of luck, property values increased by 30% - that seller is SOL. (In BS case, he actually paid some 40% more for it than another seller was willing to have paid at same time - BS reportedly purchased the company for $350,000 and we've read that the judge noted that amount was $100,000 more than the other, competing offer on the table at the same time). It is by BS's hard work that the company prospered, not by luck. When Royal Trust was responsible for running it/overseeing it, it was failing fast.

The stipulation was that the boys, even if they had been hired as 'responsible employees' after age 21, had to be employed for 2 years. This never happened. How can it be assumed that it *would* have happened, even if the boys *had* been responsible enough to have been hired? And nevermind that in the first place, that company had been sold to someone else who had no such agreement. It just seems so outrageous to me, I am sorry if that offends anyone.

Sadly, it seems that the whole premise of this story is that parents need to ensure they make arrangements for their children, and business owners need to ensure a plan is in effect for how the business will operate in the event the owner dies. Hard lessons.

jmo
 
Glad we agree! By your original post, I was mistaken in presuming you thought differently about his reference to “useless”.
I'm not sure what we agree about, because I thought you thought something entirely different about the son's mention of the couple being like a lock and key? But in any case, it was one of our members who stated the 'useless' part, and I was just kind of chuckling at the wording, that's all :)

edited for: typo
 
I’m also thinking it makes the lawsuit proceedings far more difficult now as the Shermans are deceased. Because the lawsuit was dismissed I wonder what’s to prevent the executor of Estate of Barry Sherman from proceeding with administration and disbursal. As you say, winning a lawsuit that can’t be collected, what’s the point.
Why can't it be collected? Sorry, I'm feeling a little lost?
 
Why can't it be collected? Sorry, I'm feeling a little lost?

Hypothetically, if a civil suit is won, the Court determines that X owes Y the amount of lawsuit and a Judgement is issued accordingly.

But the Court doesn’t dwelve into X’s financial situation to determine if X has the $ available nor does X immediately hand over the $ to the Court. The onus is upon Y to initiate proceedings to collect on the basis of the valid Judgement and if there’s no $ or assets available or found, then indeed X won in court but gets nothing.

In the case of deceased persons, particularly where estates are probated, the assets are legally distributed to beneficiaries in accordance to instructions in their will. Unless a Judge freezes an estate in order to allow a lawsuit to proceed, the assets within all estates become nil as the executor performs their duty. JMO

How To Enforce Civil Judgments in Ontario
 
Hypothetically, if a civil suit is won, the Court determines that X owes Y the amount of lawsuit and a Judgement is issued accordingly.

But the Court doesn’t dwelve into X’s financial situation to determine if X has the $ available nor does X immediately hand over the $ to the Court. The onus is upon Y to initiate proceedings to collect on the basis of the valid Judgement and if there’s no $ or assets available or found, then indeed X won in court but gets nothing.

In the case of deceased persons, particularly where estates are probated, the assets are legally distributed to beneficiaries in accordance to instructions in their will. Unless a Judge freezes an estate in order to allow a lawsuit to proceed, the assets within all estates become nil as the executor performs their duty. JMO

How To Enforce Civil Judgments in Ontario
Agreed, however I believe that Apotex was named in the lawsuit and it is a viable corporation which is still active. A corporation can't be dissolved, even if the children who presumably inherited it wanted to dissolve it, and leave an open lawsuit on the table. Otherwise every corporation that was being sued would just dissolve and set up shop under a different name. jmo.
 
Agreed, however I believe that Apotex was named in the lawsuit and it is a viable corporation which is still active. A corporation can't be dissolved, even if the children who presumably inherited it wanted to dissolve it, and leave an open lawsuit on the table. Otherwise every corporation that was being sued would just dissolve and set up shop under a different name. jmo.

According to canlii, the civil suit is filed against four parties. If it were eventually successful, that doesn’t mean a Judgement would be filed against each of the four parties. Considering the civil suit focused directly on the question of Barry Sherman’s fiduciary duty, frankly I think it’d be a real stretch to imagine a Judge would hold any other party or seperate entity responsible other than he (his estate).

Regardless, we’re talking about a civil suit that’s already been dismissed twice in lower courts, without ever going to trial. So I think predetermining its success is very much a moot point.

I wonder why the dismissal of the Royal Trust lawsuit as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal wasn’t taken onward to the Supreme Court of Canada? For whatever reason, then the focus of the lawsuit changed and directly applied to Barry Sherman.

“[39] The plaintiffs argue that they were vulnerable. However, vulnerability alone is insufficient to create a fiduciary duty: Elder, at para. 28. Even if there is vulnerability the relevant consideration is the extent to which it arises from the relationship between the fiduciary and the beneficiary. Here, the plaintiffs were not vulnerable because of anything Sherman had done. Rather, they were vulnerable because of the unfortunate deaths of their parents and because they were young. The fiduciary relationship that existed was between the plaintiffs and Royal Trust as executor of their parents’ estates....”
CanLII - 2017 ONSC 5492 (CanLII)
 
Last edited:
There have been a number of comments addressing how the belt/railing configuration could work, so I've created a mock-up that provides one interpretation. Think of it as a generic visual aid, and NOT an exact facsimile. IMO. The proportions are way off. I used what I had handy: a thin leather strap (not a belt) and a standard wooden stair rail.

The first pic shows a loop very close to the "railing" while the 2nd pic shows more room between the loop and the railing.
Notice that the "knot" in the leather is quite simple. If the loop were holding up a weight, the pressure would keep this simple "knot" in place.

20180715_152138.jpg 20180715_152035.jpg
 
According to canlii, the civil suit is filed against four parties. If it were eventually successful, that doesn’t mean a Judgement would be filed against each of the four parties. Considering the civil suit focused directly on the question of Barry Sherman’s fiduciary duty, frankly I think it’d be a real stretch to imagine a Judge would hold any other party or seperate entity responsible other than he (his estate).

Regardless, we’re talking about a civil suit that’s already been dismissed twice in lower courts, without ever going to trial. So I think predetermining its success is very much a moot point.

I wonder why the dismissal of the Royal Trust lawsuit as well as the Ontario Court of Appeal wasn’t taken onward to the Supreme Court of Canada? For whatever reason, then the focus of the lawsuit changed and directly applied to Barry Sherman.

“[39] The plaintiffs argue that they were vulnerable. However, vulnerability alone is insufficient to create a fiduciary duty: Elder, at para. 28. Even if there is vulnerability the relevant consideration is the extent to which it arises from the relationship between the fiduciary and the beneficiary. Here, the plaintiffs were not vulnerable because of anything Sherman had done. Rather, they were vulnerable because of the unfortunate deaths of their parents and because they were young. The fiduciary relationship that existed was between the plaintiffs and Royal Trust as executor of their parents’ estates....”
CanLII - 2017 ONSC 5492 (CanLII)
It's hard to imagine a judge holding anything to do with BS responsible, imho.. but one never knows...

I'm even having difficulty with RT being sued.. because in effect, the owner, the Winters' dad, had left no plan in effect. The mom didn't accept BS's offer.. so RT was left to just oversee the running of it.. who says it's that easy to pull an executive out of nowhere who is able to keep it running at full value, etc? So they sold it before the company's losses were too great.. and end of story. That's how I see it anyway.
 
There have been a number of comments addressing how the belt/railing configuration could work, so I've created a mock-up that provides one interpretation. Think of it as a generic visual aid, and NOT an exact facsimile. IMO. The proportions are way off. I used what I had handy: a thin leather strap (not a belt) and a standard wooden stair rail.

The first pic shows a loop very close to the "railing" while the 2nd pic shows more room between the loop and the railing.
Notice that the "knot" in the leather is quite simple. If the loop were holding up a weight, the pressure would keep this simple "knot" in place.

View attachment 138744 View attachment 138745
Mightn't the weight make the simple 'knot' at the railing come undone though? And if we imagine that the belt size was perhaps say for a 34" waist.. how long would the belt be? Would that be long enough to tie a knot around the railing in addition to being belted around a human neck? And finally, imagine that the belt was say 1.5 to 1.75" wide - being that width, wouldn't it require even more length to tie said knot? In any case, thank you for performing that experiment for us, that is helpful!
 
Take the belt and put it around the neck like it was your waist.Pull tight lots of belt left to tie around the railing.Lean forward and as you lean forward belt tightens around neck..and you know what happens.I tried it and the belt did not come loose from the railing.I did not continue..but was testing this method.Entirely possible.The more you lean forward...the tighter the belt around the neck.
 
Take the belt and put it around the neck like it was your waist.Pull tight lots of belt left to tie around the railing.Lean forward and as you lean forward belt tightens around neck..and you know what happens.I tried it and the belt did not come loose from the railing.I did not continue..but was testing this method.Entirely possible.The more you lean forward...the tighter the belt around the neck.
I wasn't talking about the neck part coming loose in my post above, but the knot around the railing, as it is pictured. The neck part was tightened in the normal belt-buckle fashion. I don't know anything about 'knots' though, so it's certainly possible that that type of knot could stay in place and get tighter with the weight. So would a man's size say 34" waist belt be long enough to do that knot around the railing assuming it was 1.5-1.75" wide?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
68
Guests online
2,552
Total visitors
2,620

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,937
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top