Canada - Barry, 75, & Honey Sherman, 70, found dead, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #10

[Tighthead]

If it matters, I've worked for a couple of privately held companies and there were never any voting shares that I was aware of. Companies were not as big as Apotex mind you, but not a ma & pop shop either.

It’s impossible to govern the company without at least one voting share.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is the only corporate filing I can find related to Apotex - Apotex Pharmaceuticals Holdings Inc. The latest modification is indicated to have been Dec 15, 2018 and three individuals associated to Apotex act in the capacity of directors included JKay. It will be interesting to watch for any updates.

Federal Corporation Information - 323974-8 - Online Filing Centre - Corporations Canada - Corporations - Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada

 

[Tighthead]

Often all shares issued within private companies are considered voting shares and therefore the company is controlled by those who own the majority of shares. I’m not sure how this discussion morphed toward the issue of voting or non-voting shares or how it’s relative to the topic of this thread. Somewhere buried in the media archives, I recall reading the only other shareholders aside from the Shermans were company employees who held a minor interest.

BBM

Your corporation's shareholders
.....Generally speaking and unless your articles provide otherwise, each share in the corporation entitles the shareholder to one vote. The larger the number of shares a shareholder holds, the larger the number of votes the shareholder can exercise.
Share structure and shareholders - Corporations Canada

What is the legal definition of “considered”? Shares are either voting shares or they are not. There is no grey area. Who does the considering? What an odd term to use. If I consider my shares voting and you consider them non-voting, what is the determination?

So now you are saying private companies do have voting shares? Why did you unequivocally sttate the exact opposite earlier today to contradict my point? Do you now admit that was completely wrong? What has changed your opinion?

It’s relative to the control of Apotex and the authority of JS.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Homicide in Canada, 2017

Interesting StatsCan study of homicides in Canada in 2017. Highlights that I took from this study (my comments in italics):
1) 67% of all homicides that occurred in 2017 were "solved" (see definition below) by the end of 2017. Since the Shermans were killed at the end of 2017, (let's call it effectively 2018 to give the benefit of the doubt to LE), one could argue that there was about a 2/3 chance that their murders should have been "solved" in 2018. Yet we have no charges or accused persons.
2) Four out of five victims of solved homicides in 2017 knew their killer. Wow
3) In 2017, two-thirds (66%) of adults (18 years or older) accused of homicide had a criminal record in Canada

Excerpt from the above study (RBBM)
A look at solve rates from the Homicide Survey
A homicide incident is considered solved (or ‘cleared’Text box 1 Note 1) when police either report laying or recommending a charge of homicide against at least one accused person or they report solving homicides by other means (e.g., the suicide of the accused person).Text box 1 Note 2 Where there are multiple victims involved in a single homicide incident, the solved status of the incident applies to each victim. In incidents where there are multiple accused persons involved, a homicide is considered solved on the date when the first accused person in the case is identified by police.

Homicides may be solved months or years after they occur. The Homicide Survey collects updates for previously reported homicides to revise the solved status and to allow for the collection of additional details gathered throughout homicide investigations, if applicable. In all cases, the number of solved homicides are always reported according to the year in which they were reported by the police to the Homicide Survey (which also corresponds to the year in which the incident was deemed a homicide by the police and began being investigated as such). For instance, as of December 31st, 2017, 441 of the 660 homicides that occurred in 2017 had been solved, resulting in a solve rate of 67%, the same rate as that of 2016 at the end of the year but lower than the average over the previous 10 years (70%). During the 2018 data collection cycle, some of the outstanding unsolved homicides may become solved, which would then increase the solve rate for 2017 homicides.

Note 1
The terms ‘solved’ and ‘cleared’ are used synonymously in this article to describe homicide incidents where police investigation has led to the identification of an accused person (charged/suspect-chargeable) and whether a charge has been laid or recommended, or cleared by other means. The term ‘cleared’ is widely recognized by North American and international law enforcement agencies. For further information regarding police-reported clearance rates refer to the Juristat article, “Police-reported clearance rates in Canada, 2010” (Hotton Mahony and Turner 2012).

Return to note 1 referrer

Note 2
The Homicide Survey is a police-reported source of data, therefore it does not track court-related outcomes for homicide incidents such as decisions put forth by Crown attorneys, convictions, or sentencing-related information. For further information related to court decisions for homicide charges brought before the adult criminal court system in Canada, refer to the Juristat article, “Adult criminal court statistics in Canada, 2015/2016” (Maxwell 2017) or Table 35-10-0027-01.

Bbm

Very interesting, thank you. That answers my question about the ‘unsolved’ vs ‘solved’ status on the TPS homicide lists. They’re cleared when a suspect is identified.

4/5 of the solved cases knew their killer.

Where do you find your sources of information? You have found some excellent articles.

 

[deugirtni]

Bbm

Very interesting, thank you. That answers my question about the ‘unsolved’ vs ‘solved’ status on the TPS homicide lists. They’re cleared when a suspect is identified.

4/5 of the solved cases knew their killer.

Where do you find your sources of information? You have found some excellent articles.

Yes interesting.
It suddenly becomes clear to me (imho) why the Shermans were not on the 'unsolved' 2017 list awhile ago when it was noticed they were missing. I believe after MSM questioned it, it was quickly updated. If their murders were not officially declared as being murders until late January 2018, it may have been easy enough to neglect to update the pair onto the 2017 unsolved murder list. Or had we already figured that out? I forget?

In all cases, the number of solved homicides are always reported according to the year in which they were reported by the police to the Homicide Survey (which also corresponds to the year in which the incident was deemed a homicide by the police and began being investigated as such).

 

[ldlager]

Bbm

Very interesting, thank you. That answers my question about the ‘unsolved’ vs ‘solved’ status on the TPS homicide lists. They’re cleared when a suspect is identified.

4/5 of the solved cases knew their killer.

Where do you find your sources of information? You have found some excellent articles.

Thank you Lexi.im afraid I can’t claim any special skills other than curiosity, and access to google!

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Just a thought- when I purchased my last home over a year ago the real estate lawyer said to bring in my will. My property previous to this home was mentioned by its address. My will would have to be updated to mention the current address.

The new plot of land that the Shermans purchased was in Honey Sherman’s name alone.

At closing, wouldn’t that change to her will have been brought up as a matter of routine? If so, where is her will?

 

[Tighthead]

Just a thought- when I purchased my last home over a year ago the real estate lawyer said to bring in my will. My property previous to this home was mentioned by its address. My will would have to be updated to mention the current address.

The new plot of land that the Shermans purchased was in Honey Sherman’s name alone.

At closing, wouldn’t that change to her will have been brought up as a matter of routine? If so, where is her will?

Mentioning a property specifically is quite unusual, although it does happen. It’s more common with recreational properties.

Most people, even high net worth types, just divide the residue of their estate into shares.

It’s a bad idea because if you sold the property and had lost your capacity to make a new will, your testamentary intent will be frustrated.

I would be absolutely stunned that Barry and Honey didn’t do their wills together. It’s possible, obviously. But people at this level tax plan everything.

If her will is missing, it’s certainly a possibility that she destroyed it intentionally.

Although 99.5 per cent of the time it makes sense to have a will, in certain exceptional circumstances a person will be intentionally intestate and rely on the statutory distribution. When there is no will, there can be no challenge if the will.

 

[human]

Would the lawyer(s) who made the will have copies?

I cannot imagine that they did not advise of every tax advantage and also that it would not contain directions for her favorite charities

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Would the lawyer(s) who made the will have copies?

I cannot imagine that they did not advise of every tax advantage and also that it would not contain directions for her favorite charities

It’s the signed original versions of the wills that are critical. You have the option of the lawyer storing a copy and the signed original version.

(I think I have 3 original signed wills, the content is the same. They were individually signed and witnessed).

If you rip up the original signed will(s), the will is destroyed. A lawyer might have a copy on file, but it’s like a copy of a ten dollar bill.

**note: The above knowledge is based on links that I’ve read, which I can supply, and from my own experience with my will.

 

[Tighthead]

It’s the signed original versions of the wills that are critical. You have the option of the lawyer storing a copy and the signed original version.

(I think I have 3 original signed wills, the content is the same. They were individually signed and witnessed).

If you rip up the original signed will(s), the will is destroyed. A lawyer might have a copy on file, but it’s like a copy of a ten dollar bill.

**note: The above knowledge is based on links that I’ve read, which I can supply, and from my own experience with my will.

Having multiple signed copies is not a good idea or common practice. There should be one true original.

A copy can work in certain circumstances. It used to be the presumption that a missing will was destroyed intentionally as a form of revocation. This could be overcome with evidence to the contrary. The law may have shifted on this, and it varies in jurisdictions.

For someone like Honey, I would estimate it 90 per cent likely that the will would be with a lawyer or Trust Company, 8 per cent a safety deposit box, and 2 per cent other.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Having multiple signed copies is not a good idea or common practice. There should be one true original.

A copy can work in certain circumstances. It used to be the presumption that a missing will was destroyed intentionally as a form of revocation. This could be overcome with evidence to the contrary. The law may have shifted on this, and it varies in jurisdictions.

For someone like Honey, I would estimate it 90 per cent likely that the will would be with a lawyer or Trust Company, 8 per cent a safety deposit box, and 2 per cent other.

My lawyer advised me to have one for my safety deposit box, one to be held in his office, another at home in a fire-proof case with my other documents.

It’s likely just his standard suggestion, I don’t know.

ETA: my parents each had two original signed wills.

 

[MistyWaters]

It’s the signed original versions of the wills that are critical. You have the option of the lawyer storing a copy and the signed original version.

(I think I have 3 original signed wills, the content is the same. They were individually signed and witnessed).

If you rip up the original signed will(s), the will is destroyed. A lawyer might have a copy on file, but it’s like a copy of a ten dollar bill.

**note: The above knowledge is based on links that I’ve read, which I can supply, and from my own experience with my will.

Donovan’s story “Where’s Honey Will?” was woefully short on details imo. It’s not even clear why he waited until December to report on events of a hearing that occurred in July, as if time stands still.

My question would be Where was Barry’s Last Will and Testament found and why weren’t the wills for both of them all together in the same place? If Honey was Barry’s beneficiary and/or owned joint assets, considering all Estate lawyers are well versed on the risks of simultaneous accidental death, what was the reason the Estate Lawyer didn’t draw up Wills for both at the same time? I feel we’re missing too much information to draw any reasonable conclusions, including factual details that lay beneath a headline geared to invite sensationalism.

 

[human]

Donovan’s story “Where’s Honey Will?” was woefully short on details imo. It’s not even clear why he waited until December to report on events of a hearing that occurred in July, as if time stands still.

My question would be Where was Barry’s Last Will and Testament found and why weren’t the wills for both of them all together in the same place? If Honey was Barry’s beneficiary and/or owned joint assets, considering all Estate lawyers are well versed on the risks of simultaneous accidental death, what was the reason the Estate Lawyer didn’t draw up Wills for both at the same time? I feel we’re missing too much information to draw any reasonable conclusions, including factual details that lay beneath a headline geared to invite sensationalism.

There is no way fiscally astute people like them did not have the best wills ever. I doubt if they were in a shoebox under the bed.

The wills are probably in the hands of attorneys and accountants and whatever other advisors are needed to figure out how to best adminisnter and shelter whatever is in them.

The family can afford to hire the best

 

[MistyWaters]

The other piece of information we’re missing is what was the date of Barry’s Will that was found early on and how often were his wills updated? Because there’s a strong chance he completed more than one single will in his lifetime.

If it was from several years ago, was it the Last Will? Considering safety of beneficiaries was one of the main reasons the Judge sealed the Estate file, is it possible another Estate Lawyer had completed more recent Wills but didn’t come foward at the request of the beneficiaries who held out hope that somebody would be charged in the first few months?

Or if Barry’s will dated quite recently....that also refutes the notion that he hated his wife, if it’s true she was sole beneficiary.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Or if Barry’s will dated quite recently....that also refutes the notion that he hated his wife, if it’s true she was sole beneficiary.

^^ Good point!

 

[Tighthead]

Donovan’s story “Where’s Honey Will?” was woefully short on details imo. It’s not even clear why he waited until December to report on events of a hearing that occurred in July, as if time stands still.

My question would be Where was Barry’s Last Will and Testament found and why weren’t the wills for both of them all together in the same place? If Honey was Barry’s beneficiary and/or owned joint assets, considering all Estate lawyers are well versed on the risks of simultaneous accidental death, what was the reason the Estate Lawyer didn’t draw up Wills for both at the same time? I feel we’re missing too much information to draw any reasonable conclusions, including factual details that lay beneath a headline geared to invite sensationalism.

If a lawyer didn’t draw wills for both, the simple reason would be that he/she didn’t have instructions to do so.

 

[Tighthead]

The other piece of information we’re missing is what was the date of Barry’s Will that was found early on and how often were his wills updated? Because there’s a strong chance he completed more than one single will in his lifetime.

If it was from several years ago, was it the Last Will? Considering safety of beneficiaries was one of the main reasons the Judge sealed the Estate file, is it possible another Estate Lawyer had completed more recent Wills but didn’t come foward at the request of the beneficiaries who held out hope that somebody would be charged in the first few months?

Or if Barry’s will dated quite recently....that also refutes the notion that he hated his wife, if it’s true she was sole beneficiary.

A lawyer in that case wouldn’t take instructions from beneficiaries.

If a lawyer felt he or she had the most recent will and knew that an earlier revoked Will was being submitted for probate, he/she would contact the executor(s).

If the will was registered as per standard practice, that would not be necessary.

 

[human]

A lawyer in that case wouldn’t take instructions from beneficiaries.

If a lawyer felt he or she had the most recent will and knew that an earlier revoked Will was being submitted for probate, he/she would contact the executor(s).

If the will was registered as per standard practice, that would not be necessary.

I doubt if the family wants their legal affairs on the public stage.

The money has to be incredibly complicated.

Barry had an army of lawyers. I imagine they rustled up some good ones for the wills. I doubt if they wanted their hard work and potential for good deeds to be thwarted by stupidity on their part.

 

[anonymess]

It was also reported that Honey had recently battled with throat cancer; you'd think that would've triggered a reminder to get a will created if for some reason there wasn't one till then.