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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's a photo of Barry Sherman's convertible mustang parked next to Jack Kay's Mercedes that shows their parking arrangements in front of the Apotex building. On the day they were killed Honey would have parked her Lexus SUV next to Barry's mustang for the meeting the architects. Police have confirmed through the use of security cameras that nobody followed Honey or Barry home from Apotex that fateful evening. The killers were lying in wait like gutless cowards to overpower 2 senior citizens.
 

Attachments

  • barrysherman.jpg
    barrysherman.jpg
    292.1 KB · Views: 47
Reporting of the complicated network of companies surround Apotex & Sherman. I thought it important to repost the document rather than have people question the entire story.

Yes complicated, but the document is quite old, and some of the individuals have been replaced or are no longer active
. Not to say that any new arrangements couldn't also have been complicated.
 
Yes complicated, but the document is quite old, and some of the individuals have been replaced or are no longer active
. Not to say that any new arrangements couldn't also have been complicated.

Yes, it's a dated document but I believe all the entities(players) were the same on the day Honey and Barry were murdered.
I was surprised that Barry had over 135 million in the Family Trust that was somehow whittled down to 1 Million - although it did include a 1.9 million condo purchase in Florida.
https://nypost.com/2017/12/23/billionaire-couple-faced-financial-woes-before-suspicious-deaths/

The SHERMAN FAMILY FOUNDATION is now known as THE TRANSFORMATION FOUNDATION.


Federal Corporation Information
Federal Corporation Information - 912629-5
Note
This information is available to the public in accordance with legislation (see Public disclosure of corporate information).

Corporation Number
912629-5
Business Number (BN)
813676186RC0001
Corporate Name
The Transformation Foundation
Status
Active
Governing Legislation
Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act - 2014-12-18
Registered Office Address
700 West Georgia Street
Suite 2700
Vancouver BC V7Y 1B8
Canada
Note
Active NFP Act corporations are required to update this information. Changes are only legally effective when filed with Corporations Canada. A corporation key is required. If you are not authorized to update this information, you can either contact the corporation or contact Corporations Canada. We will inform the corporation of its reporting obligations.
Directors
Minimum 3
Maximum 20

  • Lauren Sherman
    1848 1st Avenue West
    Vancouver BC V6J 1G5
    Canada
  • Patrick Jackie Gushue
    1848 1st Avenue West
    Vancouver BC V6J 1G5
    Canada
  • Jonathon Sherman
    10 Director Court
    Suite 302
    Vaughan ON L4L 7E8
    Canada
Note
Active NFP Act corporations are required to update director information (names, addresses, etc.) within 15 days of any change. A corporation key is required. If you are not authorized to update this information, you can either contact the corporation or contact Corporations Canada. We will inform the corporation of its reporting obligations.
Annual Filings
Anniversary Date (MM-DD)
12-18
Date of Last Annual Meeting
2018-06-19
Annual Filing Period (MM-DD)
12-18 to 02-16
Type of Corporation
Non-Soliciting
Status of Annual Filings
  • 2020 - Not due
  • 2019 - Filed
  • 2018 - Filed
Corporate History
Corporate Name History
2014-12-18 to 2018-12-10 SHERMAN FAMILY FOUNDATION
2018-12-10 to Present The Transformation Foundation
Certificates and Filings
Certificate of Incorporation

2014-12-18
Certificate of Amendment Footnote*

2018-12-10
Amendment details: Corporate name

The Transformation Foundation
North York, ON

Outreach and welfareEducation and researchHealth
Charity information
(905) 265-9994
813676186RR0001
150 Signet Dr., North York ON, M9L1T9
 
Here's a photo of Barry Sherman's convertible mustang parked next to Jack Kay's Mercedes that shows their parking arrangements in front of the Apotex building. On the day they were killed Honey would have parked her Lexus SUV next to Barry's mustang for the meeting the architects. Police have confirmed through the use of security cameras that nobody followed Honey or Barry home from Apotex that fateful evening. The killers were lying in wait like gutless cowards to overpower 2 senior citizens.

Rbbm

Do you have a link to the TPS stating the Shermans weren’t followed from Apotex that night?

I have the feeling I might sound a bit harsh, I don’t mean to—we have very little official information from the TPS about this case.

Kevin Donovan directly quoted an Apotex security person by name in his book prior to the quotes below:

“Apotex security cameras show Honey and the architects, in separate vehicles, pulling onto the main road outside the building and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan


“Security cameras record him (BS) getting into his old Mustang GT, backing out of his spot, driving out onto Signet Drive, and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan
The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman
 
Rbbm

Do you have a link to the TPS stating the Shermans weren’t followed from Apotex that night?

I have the feeling I might sound a bit harsh, I don’t mean to—we have very little official information from the TPS about this case.

Kevin Donovan directly quoted an Apotex security person by name in his book prior to the quotes below:

“Apotex security cameras show Honey and the architects, in separate vehicles, pulling onto the main road outside the building and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan


“Security cameras record him (BS) getting into his old Mustang GT, backing out of his spot, driving out onto Signet Drive, and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan
The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman

I would hope that tps didn’t just rely on the cameras at Apotex, but that they also actively searched out other cameras that would have been covering h and barrys drives home. But given the reported delays by tps in securing and then reviewing even basic evidence and other videos (eg from the neighbours) I fear much of this might have been missed or lost
 
Rbbm

Do you have a link to the TPS stating the Shermans weren’t followed from Apotex that night?

I have the feeling I might sound a bit harsh, I don’t mean to—we have very little official information from the TPS about this case.

Kevin Donovan directly quoted an Apotex security person by name in his book prior to the quotes below:

“Apotex security cameras show Honey and the architects, in separate vehicles, pulling onto the main road outside the building and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan


“Security cameras record him (BS) getting into his old Mustang GT, backing out of his spot, driving out onto Signet Drive, and heading south.”

— The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman by Kevin Donovan
The Billionaire Murders: The Mysterious Deaths of Barry and Honey Sherman

There was no evidence that the Sherman's were followed which means there is no evidence.

Yes Page 78 The Billionaire Murders "Dawson had checked many of the video feeds ......he wanted to see when the Sherman's left and if someone followed them.
That's how they know Honey left at 6:30 and Barry left at 8:30. There is no evidence that they were followed.

I disagree with your assertion that we have very little official information from TPS.
Warmington: Barry and Honey Sherman’s legacy endures, so does hunt for their killer a year later

The police all have reporters they speak to on this case.

Respectfully, KD has a bunch of sources as does JoeW.
My contact at TPS is telling me there will be an arrest soon.

Look I've posted this before:
At the end of the video KD clearly states that something is coming down the pipeline.

KD has been quiet given the magnanimity of the SCC case.
He has another FOIR scheduled with TPS in April.
 
Just a side note, from the gist of KD's description, Barry would have been a real asset during this pandemic. I've read that there is concern in msm about the supply chain for medication given how China has been impacted. Having a Canadian manufacturer for meds is a real asset in a global crisis. IMHO, etc.
 
Just a side note, from the gist of KD's description, Barry would have been a real asset during this pandemic. I've read that there is concern in msm about the supply chain for medication given how China has been impacted. Having a Canadian manufacturer for meds is a real asset in a global crisis. IMHO, etc.

Completely true.
 
************** BREAKING NEWS *****************************

Last Factum from KD has been filed with the SCC

https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/38695/FM070_Respondent_Kevin-Donovan.pdf

1 more to go from the Estate side of the equation.


I'm just analyzing the document.

Some interesting tidbits:
It appears that Honey was the only person of Title for the Forest Hill Property. Not a big deal. Barry was probably too busy at work to sign the purchase and sale agreement.


Donovan is intimating that it also appears that Barry's will was not valid or he did not have a will hence. If that's the case then it is shocking!
18. On December 19, 2019, Donovan brought a motion to adduce four pieces or groupings of
new evidence (the "New Evidence Motion")26:
(a) documents retrieved from the Ontario Land Registry Office dated August 2, 2018,
which reveal the names, addresses, and dates of birth of the trustees of Honey
Sherman's estate (the "Land Transfer Documents");27
excerpts from the sworn cross-examination of Toronto Police Services officer
Detective Constable Dennis Yim, held on October 15, 2019 (the "TPS
Evidence").28 Detective Constable Yim, who was at the time the exclusive fulltime
officer on the investigation into the Sherman murders, states that he is not
aware of any safety issues if the contents of the Estate Files are unsealed;29
(c) two Star articles published on June 21, 2019 (the "Barry Will Article")30 and December 14, 2019 (the "Honey Will Article"),31 which cite interviews with sources suggesting both Barry and Honey died with wills. Though they now say it was an error, the Sherman Estates indicated in their factum on the underlying
application that the trustees were appointed “without a will”.32 The same language also appears in the Land Transfer Documents. This suggests the possibility of an issue regarding the administration of the Estates; (d) three newspaper articles dated between January 24, 2019 and July 14, 2019 regarding public activities of two of the Sherman children and presumed Sherman Beneficiaries (Alexandra Krawczyk and Kaelen Sherman), and a description of a recently-published book by Donovan about the Sherman murders that identifies many of the family members and friends, including many who spoke to Donovan (the “Continued Publicity”). 3


Donovan is pegging Sherman's estate somewhere in the 5 Billion Vincinity.

88. In contrast, the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and the press and the open court principle are significant. If what the Appellants have brought to the table in aid of sealing is 189 [New Evidence] Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 19° Appellants' Factum at para. 77. 191 Appellants' Factum at paras. 93-95. 192 See e.g. Brown v. Kagan, 2018 ONSC 564. 193 [New Evidence] See e.g. Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 23863611.7 - 35 - 23863611.7 which were filed by the Estates’ lawyers two days after the application was heard.189 Far from taking an “all-or-nothing” approach to privacy,190 this is a contextual approach that seeks to precisely identify the privacy harm alleged. iii) Protection of minors’ privacy not absolute 85. The Appellants also assert that special consideration should be given to protect any minors named in the Estate Files.191 They appear to suggest that simply by virtue of being a minor, one should be entitled to a sealing order. This is incorrect. As is clear from Bragg, the same contextual DM/Sierra Club test applies; further, there are many instances where information about minors is accessible in public court files.192 The Appellants have failed to articulate a specific risk of harm to minors necessitating a sealing order. iv) Reasonably alternative measures not considered 86. Even if the Appellants’ privacy argument was accepted, it is necessary to consider whether it could be addressed by any reasonably alternative measures. Concerns about specific pieces of information such as home addresses, if found to be justified, can be addressed in ways far short of total sealing. The same is true regarding the claimed security interest, discussed below. v) Harm to free expression outweighs attenuated privacy interests under the second branch of the DM/Sierra Club test 87. The second branch of the DM/Sierra Club test also requires consideration of the specific circumstances in which an order restricting court openness is sought. Given the generalized assertions of privacy on which the Appellants rely, the nature of information in estate files and the fact that at least some of the information appears to be public in other ways,193 the salutary effects of the Sealing Order are very limited. 88. In contrast, the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and the press and the open court principle are significant. If what the Appellants have brought to the table in aid of sealing is 189 [New Evidence] Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 190 Appellants’ Factum at para. 77. 191 Appellants’ Factum at paras. 93-95. 192 See e.g. Brown v. Kagan, 2018 ONSC 564. 193 [New Evidence] See e.g. Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. - 36 - sufficient, the open court principle is at serious risk, the public's confidence in the administration of justice will suffer and the media's newsgathering abilities will be significantly curtailed. As described above, there is a public interest in ensuring proper oversight of estates and the passing of assets after death, an interest that is increased where significant assets and rights, which will also impact third parties, are at issue. Here the cumulative value of the Estates — believed to be approximately $5 billion — is the equivalent of a substantial line item on a provincial budget: enough, for example, to pay for healthcare for the entire province of Nova Scotia.194 89. Of course, it may be that only a portion of assets will necessarily be subject to probate. In this regard, there is also a public interest in the amount of estate administration tax paid by large estates. If the entirety of the Estates were taxed, provincial coffers could be entitled to approximately $75,000,000.195 Assuming the estate tax paid is much lower, this could spur public discussion regarding the appropriate taxation of estates.

OUCH - Donovan connects the dots to the Police investigation into whodunit and the Sherman's Estate's. His factum mentions that Police have ITO'd the estate files.

91. Furthermore, the context of the deaths of the Shermans must not be forgotten. Murder does not only concern the individual, "but the public at large".199 No doubt, in this case, the impact of the murders extends far beyond immediate friends and family. There is great public interest not only in the investigation and prosecution of those responsible, but also in understanding the lives and legacy of the Shermans. Finally, information from the Estate Files is embedded within the police ITOs,200 confirming the relevance of the court files to the police investigation and the link to media and public scrutiny of police conduct

All I can say is Jesus Christ! That is one of the best factums I have ever read. It is close to perfect.
 
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

SCHEDULE 13D

Under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(Amendment No. )*

Counsel Corporation
(Name of Issuer)

Common Shares without par value
(Title of Class of Securities)

22226R102
(CUSIP Number)

Meyer F. Florence
150 Signet Drive
Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9
(416) 749-9300
(Name, Address and Telephone Number of Person Authorized to Received Notices
and Communications)

December 19, 2003
(Date of Event which Requires Filing of this Statement)

If the filing person has previously filed a statement on Schedule 13G
to report the acquisition that is the subject of this Schedule 13D, and is
filing this schedule because of ss.ss.240.13d-1(e), 240.13d-1(f) or
240.13d-1(g), check the following box /X/.

NOTE: Schedules filed in paper format shall include a signed original and five
copies of the schedule, including all exhibits. See Rule 13d-7 for other
parties to whom copies are to be sent.

*The remainder of this cover page shall be filled out for a reporting person's
initial filing on this form with respect to the subject class of securities, and
for any subsequent amendment containing information which would alter
disclosures provided in a prior cover page.

The information required on the remainder of this cover page shall not be deemed
to be "filed" for the purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 ("Act") or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that section of the Act
but shall be subject to all other provisions of the Act (however, see the
Notes).


<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Bernard C. Sherman

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
PF, SC

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 579,150
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 11,834,550
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 579,150
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
11,834,550

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
12,413,700

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
21.2%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
IN



2
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
The Bernard Sherman 2000 Trust

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 10,854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
10,854,400

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
10,854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
18.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
OO



3
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Sherman Holdings Inc.

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 10,854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
10,854,400

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
10,854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
18.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
HC, CO




4
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Shermco Inc.

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 10,854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
10,854,400

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
10,854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
18.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
HC, CO




5
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Sherfam Inc.

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
WC

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 10,854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
10,854,400

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
10,854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
18.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
HC, CO




6
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Apotex Holdings Inc.

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
854,400


11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
HC, CO




7
<PAGE>


SCHEDULE 13D
CUSIP No. 22226R102


1) NAMES OF REPORTING PERSONS
I.R.S. IDENTIFICATION NOS. OF ABOVE PERSONS (ENTITIES ONLY)
Apotex Inc.

2) CHECK THE APPROPRIATE BOX IF A MEMBER OF A GROUP (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
(a)
---
(b) X
---

3) SEC USE ONLY

4) SOURCE OF FUNDS (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

5) CHECK IF DISCLOSURE OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IS REQUIRED PURSUANT TO
ITEMS 2(d) or 2(e)
---

6) CITIZENSHIP OR PLACE OF ORGANIZATION
Ontario, Canada

NUMBER OF 7) SOLE VOTING POWER
SHARES 0
BENEFICIALLY 8) SHARED VOTING POWER
OWNED BY 854,400
EACH 9) SOLE DISPOSITIVE POWER
REPORTING 0
PERSON WITH 10) SHARED DISPOSITIVE POWER
854,400

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
854,400

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.5%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
HC, CO



8
<PAGE>

11) AGGREGATE AMOUNT BENEFICIALLY OWNED BY EACH REPORTING PERSON
980,150

12) CHECK IF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT IN ROW (11) EXCLUDES CERTAIN SHARES
(SEE INSTRUCTIONS)

13) PERCENT OF CLASS REPRESENTED BY AMOUNT IN ROW (11)
1.7%

14) TYPE OF REPORTING PERSON (SEE INSTRUCTIONS)
OO


9
<PAGE>


Item 1. Security and Issuer

The title and class of equity security to which this statement relates
is: Common Shares without par value ("Common Shares"). The name and address of
the principal executive office of the issuer is: Counsel Corporation (the
"Issuer"), Exchange Tower, Suite 1300, 130 King Street West, Toronto, Ontario,
Canada M5X 1E3.


Item 2. Identity and Background

(a) This statement is being filed jointly by the following parties: (i)
Bernard C. Sherman ("Dr. Sherman"), who directly owns 579,150 Common Shares of
the Issuer, who has sole voting and dispositive control, as the sole trustee, of
The Bernard Sherman 2000 Trust ("Sherman Trust"), who has voting and dispositive
control, as president and a member, of Sherman Foundation ("Foundation") which
directly owns 980,150 Common Shares of the Issuer, and who owns 99% of the
outstanding capital stock of Sherman Holdings Inc. ("Sherman Holdings"); (ii)
Sherman Trust which owns 99% of the common stock of Shermco Inc. ("Shermco");
(iii) Sherman Holdings which owns 99% of the preferred stock of Shermco; (iv)
Shermco which owns all of the outstanding capital stock of Sherfam Inc.
("Sherfam"); (v) Sherfam which directly has beneficial ownership of 10,000,000
Common Shares issuable upon conversion of Preferred Shares, Series A of the
Issuer and owns all the outstanding capital stock of Apotex Holdings Inc.
("Apotex Holdings"); (vi) Apotex Holdings which indirectly owns all of the
outstanding capital stock of Apotex Inc. ("Apotex"); (vii) Apotex which directly
owns 854,400 Common Shares of the Issuer; and (viii) the Foundation which
directly owns 980,150 Common Shares of the Issuer (individually, a "Reporting
Person" and, collectively, the "Reporting Persons").*

For each of the corporations (or trust or foundation ) listed above,
the following is a list of each executive officer, director and person
controlling such corporation and each executive officer and director of any
corporation or other person ultimately in control of such corporation (or trust
or foundation):

(i) Sherman Trust:

Sole Trustee: Bernard C. Sherman

(ii) Sherman Holdings:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Michael ("Meyer") F. Florence

Officers: Bernard C. Sherman President and Secretary
Michael F. Florence Vice President

(iii) Shermco:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Michael F. Florence
Jack M. Kay
R. Craig Baxter



Officers: Bernard C. Sherman Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman
Michael F. Florence President
Jack M. Kay Vice President
R. Craig Baxter Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer

(iv) Sherfam:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Michael F. Florence
Jack M. Kay
R. Craig Baxter

Officers: Bernard C. Sherman Chairman
Michael F. Florence President
Jack M. Kay Vice President
R. Craig Baxter Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer

(v) Apotex Holdings:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Michael F. Florence
R. Craig Baxter

Officers: Bernard C. Sherman President
Michael F. Florence Vice President
R. Craig Baxter Secretary and Treasurer

(vi) Apotex:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Jack M. Kay

Officers: Bernard C. Sherman Chief Executive Officer
and Chairman
Jack M. Kay President and Chief
Operating Officer
Michael F. Florence Vice President
Honey Sherman Vice President
R. Craig Baxter Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer

(vii) Foundation:

Directors: Bernard C. Sherman
Jack M. Kay
Anthony Miezlaiskis

Officers: Bernard C. Sherman President
Jack M. Kay Secretary
Anthony Miezlaiskis Treasurer


11
<PAGE>



(b) The principal office or residence address of each of the persons listed
in Item 2(a) above is as follows:

(i) Sherman Trust, Sherman Holdings, Shermco, Sherfam,
Apotex Holdings, Apotex and Foundation each have a principal business and office
address at 150 Signet Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(ii) Dr. Sherman has a principal office address at 150 Signet Drive,
Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(iii) Michael F. Florence has a principal office address at
150 Signet Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(iv) Jack M. Kay has a principal office address at 150 Signet Drive,
Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(v) R. Craig Baxter has a principal office address at 150 Signet
Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(vi) Honey Sherman has a principal office address at 150 Signet
Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(vii) Anthony Miezlaiskis has a principal office address at
150 Signet Drive, Weston, Ontario, Canada M9L 1T9.

(c) The principal business of each of the persons listed in Item 2(a) above
is as follows:

(i) Sherman Trust: Family Trust

(ii) Sherman Holdings: Holding Company

(iii) Shermco: Holding Company

(iv) Sherfam: Holding Company

(v) Apotex Holdings: Holding Company

(vi) Apotex : Pharmaceutical and Holding Company

(vii) Foundation: Private Foundation

(viii) Bernard C. Sherman: Dr. Sherman is Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of Apotex, a Canadian manufacturer of generic
and brand name drugs. He is also Chairman of the Board of Cangene
Corporation, sole trustee of Sherman Trust,


12
<PAGE>

President of Sherman Holdings, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of
Shermco, Chairman of Sherfam, President of Apotex Holdings and
President of Foundation.

(ix) Michael F. Florence: Mr. Florence has been President of Sherfam
since 1989. He is also a director and Vice President of Sherman
Holdings, a director and President of Shermco, a director and Vice
President of Apotex Holdings and Vice President of Apotex. Mr.
Florence and Dr. Sherman are brothers-in-law.

(x) Jack M. Kay: Mr. Kay is President of Apotex. He is also a
director of Shermco and Sherfam.

(xi) R. Craig Baxter: Mr. Baxter is a director and Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer of Shermco. He is also a director and Vice
President, Secretary and Treasurer of Sherfam, a director and
Secretary and Treasurer of Apotex Holdings and Vice President,
Secretary and Treasurer of Apotex.

(xii) Honey Sherman is Vice President of Apotex. Ms. Sherman is the
spouse of Dr. Sherman.

(xiii) T. Miezlaiskis is Treasurer of Foundation.

(d) During the past five years, none of the Reporting Persons or, to the
best knowledge and belief of the Reporting Persons, any of the persons listed in
Item 2(a) above has been convicted in a criminal proceeding (excluding traffic
violations or similar misdemeanors).

(e) During the past five years, none of the Reporting Persons or, to the
best knowledge and belief of the Reporting Persons, any of the persons listed in
Item 2(a) above has been or is subject to a judgment, decree or final order
enjoining future violations of, or prohibiting or mandating activities subject
to, federal or state securities laws or finding any violation relating to such
laws.

(f) The place of organization or citizenship of each of the persons listed
in Item 2(a) above is as follows:


(i) Sherman Trust: Trust formed under the laws of Ontario, Canada

(ii) Sherman Holdings: Ontario Business Corporation

(iii) Shermco: Ontario Business Corporation

(iv) Sherfam: Ontario Business Corporation

(v) Apotex Holdings: Ontario Business Corporation

(vi) Apotex: Ontario Business Corporation

(vii) Foundation: Foundation formed under the laws of British
Columbia

(viii) Dr. Sherman: Ontario, Canada


13
<PAGE>

(ix) Michael F. Florence: Ontario, Canada

(x) Jack M. Kay: Ontario, Canada

(xi) R. Craig Baxter: Ontario, Canada

(xii) Honey Sherman: Ontario, Canada

(xiii) T. Miezlaiskis: Ontario, Canada


Item 3. Source and Amount of Funds or Other Consideration

The Reporting Persons filed a Schedule 13G on October 23, 2003 to
report the ownership of an aggregate of 2,334,800 Common Shares (1,076,400 of
which were issuable upon maturity of the Issuer's 6% Convertible Unsecured
Subordinated Debentures due October 31, 2003 (the "Debentures")). This Schedule
13D is being filed to report the acquisition of beneficial ownership of an
additional 10,000,000 Common Shares by the Reporting Persons through the
purchase on December 19, 2003 by Sherfam in a private placement (the
"Placement") of 10,000,000 Preferred Shares, Series A of the Issuer ("Preferred
Shares") for an aggregate purchase price of US$15,000,000, which Preferred
Shares are convertible into Common Shares. The source of funds with which
Sherfam acquired the Preferred Shares in the Placement was from working capital.
From November 17 through November 19, 2003 Dr. Sherman purchased an aggregate of
78,900 Common Shares in open market transactions for an aggregate purchase price
of US$101,662. Dr. Sherman used his personal funds in effecting such purchases.
Also, the Issuer had commenced a cash tender offer to purchase all of the
$40,861,000 aggregate principal amount of the Debentures outstanding (the
"Tender Offer"). Pursuant to the Trust Indenture under which the Debentures were
issued, the aggregate principal amount of any Debentures not tendered in the
Tender Offer were to be paid on maturity in Common Shares. Holders of the
Debentures that elected not to tender their Debentures into the Tender Offer
were entitled to receive 690 Common Shares per US$1,000 principal amount of
Debentures on maturity. Accordingly, on October 31, 2003, (i) as the holder of
an aggregate of US$725,000 principal amount of Debentures, Dr. Sherman received
500,250 Common Shares and (ii) as the holder of an aggregate of US$835,000
principal amount of Debentures, Foundation received 576,150 Common Shares.


Item 4. Purpose of Transaction

The Reporting Persons acquired the Common Shares of the Issuer to which
this Schedule 13D relates solely for investment purposes. Other than the right
to designate a director of the Issuer which right Sherfam has not yet exercised
and the possible acquisition of additional Common Shares upon conversion of any
Preferred Shares issued to Sherfam in lieu of cash dividends on the Preferred
Shares, the Reporting Persons do not have any present plans or proposals which
relate to or would result in actions referred in clauses (a) through (j) of
Item 4 of Schedule 13D. Each of the Reporting Persons expects to evaluate on an
ongoing basis the Issuer's financial condition, business, operations and
prospects, the market price of the Common Shares, conditions in the securities
markets generally, general economic conditions and other factors. Accordingly,
each Reporting Person reserves the right to change its plans and intentions at
any time, as it deems appropriate. In particular, any Reporting Person may
purchase additional Common Shares, or may sell or otherwise dispose of all or
portions of the Common Shares beneficially owned by such Reporting Person, in
public and private transactions and/or may enter into privately negotiated
derivative transactions with institutional counterparts to hedge the market risk
of some or all of its positions in, or to obtain greater exposure to, the Common
Shares or other securities. Any such Transactions may be effected at any time or
from time to time, subject to any applicable limitations imposed on the sale
of any of their Common Shares by the Act and by applicable Canadian law. See
"Item 6."



14
<PAGE>


Item 5. Interest in Securities of the Issuer

(a) and (b)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Amount Sole Power to Shared Power to
Reporting Person Beneficially Percent of Sole Power to Vote Shared Power to Vote Dispose or Direct Dispose or Direct
Owned (1) Class or Direct the Vote or Direct the Vote the Disposition of the Disposition of
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C> <C>
1. Dr. Sherman 12,413,700(2) 21.2 579,150 11,834,550(2) 579,150 11,834,550(2)
2. Sherman Trust 10,854,400(2) 18.5 0 10,854,400(2) 0 10,854,400(2)
3. Sherman Holdings 10,854,400(2) 18.5 0 10,854,400(2) 0 10,854,400(2)
4. Shermco 10,854,400(2) 18.5 0 10,854,400(2) 0 10,854,400(2)
5. Shermfam 10,854,400(2) 18.5 0 10,854,400(2) 0 10,854,400(2)
6. Apotex Holdings 854,400 1.5 0 854,400 0 854,400
7. Apotex 854,400 1.5 0 854,400 0 854,400
8. Foundation 980,150 1.7 0 980,150 0 980,150
</TABLE>


(1) By virtue of the relationships described in Item 2(a) above, Dr.
Sherman, Sherman Trust, Sherman Holdings and Shermco may be deemed to
possess indirect beneficial ownership of the Common Shares beneficially
owned by Sherfam and Apotex. By virtue of the relationships described
in Item 2(a) above, Apotex Holdings may be deemed to possess indirect
beneficial ownership of the Common Shares beneficially owned by Apotex.
By virtue of the relationships described in Item 2(a) above, Dr.
Sherman may be deemed to possess indirect beneficial ownership of the
Common Shares beneficially owned by Foundation.

(2) 10,000,000 of such Common Shares are issuable upon conversion of the
Preferred Shares.

The filing of this statement by Sherman Trust, Sherman Holdings,
Shermco and Apotex Holdings shall not be construed as an admission that any of
Sherman Trust, Sherman Holdings, Shermco and Apotex Holdings, is, for the
purposes of Section 13(d) of the Act, the beneficial owner of any securities
covered by this statement.

Because of the relationships described in Item 2(a) above, the
Reporting Persons may be deemed to constitute a "group" within the meaning of
Rule 13d-5 under the Act, and as such, each member of the group would be deemed
to beneficially own, in the aggregate, all the shares of Common Stock held by
members of the group. The Reporting Persons disclaim membership in a group.

(c)

The following purchase or sales of Common Shares have been made by the
Reporting Persons in the past sixty days:


15
<PAGE>

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Amount of Nature of
Reporting Person Date of the Transaction Securities Involved Price Per Share Transaction Effected
---------------- ----------------------- ------------------------ --------------- ---------------------
<S> <C> <C> <C> <C>
Dr. Sherman October 31, 2003 500,250 Common Shares Issued upon conversion of From Issuer
US$725,000 principal amount of
Debentures

Foundation October 31, 2003 576,150 Common Shares Issued upon conversion of From Issuer
US$835,000 principal amount of
Debentures

Dr. Sherman November 17, 2003 45,400 Common Shares $1.28 Open Market Purchase

Dr. Sherman November 18, 2003 29,500 Common Shares $1.30 Open Market Purchase

Dr. Sherman November 19, 2003 4,000 Common Shares $1.30 Open Market Purchase

Sherfam December 19, 2003 10,000,000 Common Shares Issuable upon conversion of From Issuer
10,000,000 Preferred Shares


</TABLE>


(d) No person other than the Reporting Persons, with respect to the Common
Shares beneficially owned by each of them, has any right to receive or the
power to direct the receipt of dividends from, or the proceeds from the sale of,
the Common Shares.

(e) Not applicable.


Item 6. Contracts, Arrangements, Understandings or Relationships With Respect to
Securities of the Issuer

There are no contracts, arrangements, understandings or relationships
(legal or otherwise) among the Reporting Persons and any other person with
respect to the securities of the Issuer except for those set forth below:

The Issuer has agreed with Sherfam that, as long as any Preferred Shares
remain outstanding, except with Sherfam's prior written consent, the Issuer will
not issue, or agree to issue, (a) any shares having rights equal or superior to
the Preferred Shares or (b) any shares of the Issuer at a price less than
US$1.50 per share or other securities of the Issuer entitling the holder thereof
to acquires shares of the Issuer at a price less than US$1.50 per such security
or share. The foregoing restriction does not apply to the exercise or
conversion of securities issued prior to December 19, 2003 and to shares issued
pursuant to employee option and benefit plans.

The Issuer has agreed with Sherfam that, as long as any Preferred Shares
are owned by Sherfam, Sherfam has the right to nominate Dr. Sherman (or such
other individual acceptable to the Issuer and Sherfam) for election by the
Issuer's shareholders as a director of the Issuer. If requested by Sherfam, the
Issuer has agreed, in the interim, to increase the size of the Issuer's board of
directors and appoint Dr. Sherman (or such other individual) as a director of
the Issuer. Sherfam has not exercised this right as of the date of this
Schedule 13D.

Sherfam has agreed with the Issuer that until December 19, 2006 Sherfam
will not sell, otherwise transfer, pledge or create a security interest in the
Preferred Shares or the Common Shares issued upon conversion of the Preferred
Shares. Notwithstanding the foregoing, transfers to "affiliates," "related
persons" or "associates" (as such terms are defined by the Business Corporations



16
<PAGE>

Act (Ontario)) of Sherfam or to Dr. Sherman, his family members, trusts the
beneficiaries of which include the foregoing permitted transferees or a
charitable foundation of which Dr. Sherman is a trustee are permitted.

The Issuer has agreed with Sherfam that, as long as any Preferred Shares
remain outstanding, dividends declared by the Issuer on the Common Shares may
not exceed US$0.09 per share per annum (on a non-cumulative basis). The Issuer
has agreed that it will not declare or pay any dividends on the Common Shares,
nor set aside funds for such purposes, if the Issuer is in default of its
dividend or redemption obligations on the Preferred Shares.

The Issuer has granted Sherfam the right, with certain exceptions, to
include all or any part of the Common Shares issuable upon conversion of the
Preferred Shares in any registration statement filed by the Issuer with the
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "SEC") offering Common Shares for its
own account. The Issuer has agreed not to grant U.S. registration rights equal
to or superior to the foregoing rights granted Sherfam.

The Issuer has agreed with Sherfam that the Issuer will not amend or
otherwise alter any provisions of the Issuer's articles which adversely affect
the holders of the Preferred Shares without the approval of the holders of the
Preferred Shares.

The Issuer has agreed with Sherfam that the Preferred Shares shall have the
following rights:

/s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman

THE BERNARD SHERMAN 2000 TRUST
By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
Sole Trustee

SHERMAN HOLDINGS INC.

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
President

SHERMCO INC.

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
Chairman

SHERFAM INC.

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
Chairman

APOTEX HOLDINGS INC.

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
President

APOTEX INC.

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
Chairman

SHERMAN FOUNDATION

By: /s/ Bernard C. Sherman
----------------------
Bernard C. Sherman
President


If you're posting something long like this, can you please place it in a spoiler? It makes the flow of the thread hard to read, otherwise. Plus, not all of us want to read / have to scroll through multiple C+Ps of legal documents!

On the toolbar, to the left of the 'Draft' button (looks like a floppy disk), is the 'Insert...' button, and then you can select Spoiler from the drop down menu. You can give each spoiler a title (ideally one that is clear and descriptive) and then paste the information inside the brackets. For example:

This is an example spoiler, blah blah blah...

You may also find 'Insert -> Quote' useful, as you often quote information from articles and other sources. To take an example from your previous post, that would've benefitted...

Include source in a hyperlink before the quote box, so people can clearly see where you are quoting from:
88. In contrast, the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and the press and the open court principle are significant. If what the Appellants have brought to the table in aid of sealing is 189 [New Evidence] Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 19° Appellants' Factum at para. 77. 191 Appellants' Factum at paras. 93-95. 192 See e.g. Brown v. Kagan, 2018 ONSC 564. 193 [New Evidence] See e.g. Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 23863611.7 - 35 - 23863611.7 which were filed by the Estates’ lawyers two days after the application was heard.189 Far from taking an “all-or-nothing” approach to privacy,190 this is a contextual approach that seeks to precisely identify the privacy harm alleged. iii) Protection of minors’ privacy not absolute 85. The Appellants also assert that special consideration should be given to protect any minors named in the Estate Files.191 They appear to suggest that simply by virtue of being a minor, one should be entitled to a sealing order. This is incorrect. As is clear from Bragg, the same contextual DM/Sierra Club test applies; further, there are many instances where information about minors is accessible in public court files.192 The Appellants have failed to articulate a specific risk of harm to minors necessitating a sealing order. iv) Reasonably alternative measures not considered 86. Even if the Appellants’ privacy argument was accepted, it is necessary to consider whether it could be addressed by any reasonably alternative measures. Concerns about specific pieces of information such as home addresses, if found to be justified, can be addressed in ways far short of total sealing. The same is true regarding the claimed security interest, discussed below. v) Harm to free expression outweighs attenuated privacy interests under the second branch of the DM/Sierra Club test 87. The second branch of the DM/Sierra Club test also requires consideration of the specific circumstances in which an order restricting court openness is sought. Given the generalized assertions of privacy on which the Appellants rely, the nature of information in estate files and the fact that at least some of the information appears to be public in other ways,193 the salutary effects of the Sealing Order are very limited. 88. In contrast, the deleterious effects on freedom of expression and the press and the open court principle are significant. If what the Appellants have brought to the table in aid of sealing is 189 [New Evidence] Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. 190 Appellants’ Factum at para. 77. 191 Appellants’ Factum at paras. 93-95. 192 See e.g. Brown v. Kagan, 2018 ONSC 564. 193 [New Evidence] See e.g. Land Transfer Documents [RR, Vol. II, Tab 1]. - 36 - sufficient, the open court principle is at serious risk, the public's confidence in the administration of justice will suffer and the media's newsgathering abilities will be significantly curtailed. As described above, there is a public interest in ensuring proper oversight of estates and the passing of assets after death, an interest that is increased where significant assets and rights, which will also impact third parties, are at issue. Here the cumulative value of the Estates — believed to be approximately $5 billion — is the equivalent of a substantial line item on a provincial budget: enough, for example, to pay for healthcare for the entire province of Nova Scotia.194 89. Of course, it may be that only a portion of assets will necessarily be subject to probate. In this regard, there is also a public interest in the amount of estate administration tax paid by large estates. If the entirety of the Estates were taxed, provincial coffers could be entitled to approximately $75,000,000.195 Assuming the estate tax paid is much lower, this could spur public discussion regarding the appropriate taxation of estates.

See how it places the information in a box that users can then choose to expand or not? Often posters will also highlight the most relevant parts of a quote in bold, and write underneath 'BBM' (bolded by me), as also shown above.

Remember you can always go back and edit posts to improve formatting, or to add extra information! While it's not so much an issue on Websleuths, on other forums making multiple separate posts in a row (like you have above) is considered bad etiquette.

You post interesting things, but could use a little more consideration to the formatting (and the readability for other users)! ;)
 
Last edited:
************** BREAKING NEWS *****************************

Last Factum from KD has been filed with the SCC

https://www.scc-csc.ca/WebDocuments-DocumentsWeb/38695/FM070_Respondent_Kevin-Donovan.pdf

1 more to go from the Estate side of the equation.

Very interesting, thanks for posting.
The Factum is very persuasive and very well written (NB- I am not a lawyer). But through reading all the various legal filings in this case, 2 questions keep coming to my mind:
1) If the names , addresses, occupations, family relationships, etc. of the Trustees and the adult Sherman children (thought to be the beneficiaries) are already public knowledge via other documents and media reporting (and googling if one was really interested) , what is it in those estate documents that the family (some or all) are trying so hard to keep from being made public?
2) I am not a lawyer ("although I play one on tv"- LOL), but after reading the filings from both sides, this case seems to me IMO to be a slam dunk for Donovan. The arguments in favour of unsealing these files seem obvious to me, and IMO far outweigh the arguments of the Estate. And yet, the SCC agreed to hear the case. I don't understand this, and so I can't help but wonder if connections, money, or influence are driving this decision. I hate to think that, but I don't see any rationale for the SCC to accept this case ahead of so many others that they just dont have time for.
MOO
 
Very interesting, thanks for posting.
The Factum is very persuasive and very well written (NB- I am not a lawyer). But through reading all the various legal filings in this case, 2 questions keep coming to my mind:
1) If the names , addresses, occupations, family relationships, etc. of the Trustees and the adult Sherman children (thought to be the beneficiaries) are already public knowledge via other documents and media reporting (and googling if one was really interested) , what is it in those estate documents that the family (some or all) are trying so hard to keep from being made public?
2) I am not a lawyer ("although I play one on tv"- LOL), but after reading the filings from both sides, this case seems to me IMO to be a slam dunk for Donovan. The arguments in favour of unsealing these files seem obvious to me, and IMO far outweigh the arguments of the Estate. And yet, the SCC agreed to hear the case. I don't understand this, and so I can't help but wonder if connections, money, or influence are driving this decision. I hate to think that, but I don't see any rationale for the SCC to accept this case ahead of so many others that they just dont have time for.
MOO

Donovan is suggesting that perhaps Barry also died without a will. Given that almost all info has been that he had a will does that mean he had one and it was invalidated for some strange reason? If he had one did it contain a bequeath for Charities? If that's the case you'll see other lawsuits against the estate.

Donovan's brief is a legal sledge-hammer. Courts are not to be trusted. Many times they've had a hand in putting the wrong person in prison. Additionally, the US Supreme Court heinously ruled that Black People were to be forever slaves and could never be US citizens. Dred Scott decision | Definition, History, & Facts

The only way to win at court is to pound the evidence and frame the argument so the court would look like a bunch of imbeciles for ruling against you. Donovan's team has done that.

The estate has relied on conjecture (a wheelbarrow of bullcrap) and made up law/legal interpretations. As Donovan cites in factum the estate did not follow the proper process in getting a ban, and Justice Dumphry did not apply the law properly.
 
***** BREAKING NEWS ***********

The factum for the BC AG is in.

They state they do NOT favor one side over the other. They are only asking for the rules of open courts to continue and for the court to decline the appellants' invitation to modify the Dagenais/Mentuck test and, instead, affirm its continued application to all discretionary judicial orders seeking to limit the openness of judicial proceedings.

The tidbit below caught my eye:
15. In certain circumstances, additional documents will be required. For example, in cases where the words of a will have been altered, erased, or obliterated, the applicant must file evidence explaining those changes.

Did Barry alter, erase, or obliterate his will (thereby reducing Jon Sherman's inheritance?) which in turn caused the executors to reject it. If that's the case there will lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit. Many charities that the Shermans gave to felt they were going to be left a bequeath.
 
*********** BREAKING NEWS ***************

No Webcast until a later date (maybe)

Supreme Court of Canada - Scheduled Hearings

I suspect the webcast will be allowed a few days after the ruling.
By that time the newspapers will have beat this issue like a bloody horse.

And just in case people didn't catch it in the Donovan brief.

Both the Forest Hill property and the York Mills property have been sold. Waddington's went through the York Mills property to pick out items for auction. Honey's Louis Vuittons were removed from the house as well as some artwork. Barry had a Rothko. The statues in the Basement, furniture, 2 sub zero fridges, dishwasher, oven, cubbords, clothing, much more we bulldozed and trucked to the dump. It's shameful that it wasn't donated to charity or that Honey's sister Mary wasn't able to pick up some items that reminded her of her sister.
 
If you're posting something long like this, can you please place it in a spoiler? It makes the flow of the thread hard to read, otherwise. Plus, not all of us want to read / have to scroll through multiple C+Ps of legal documents!

On the toolbar, to the left of the 'Draft' button (looks like a floppy disk), is the 'Insert...' button, and then you can select Spoiler from the drop down menu. You can give each spoiler a title (ideally one that is clear and descriptive) and then paste the information inside the brackets. For example:

This is an example spoiler, blah blah blah...

You may also find 'Insert -> Quote' useful, as you often quote information from articles and other sources. To take an example from your previous post, that would've benefitted...

Include source in a hyperlink before the quote box, so people can clearly see where you are quoting from:


See how it places the information in a box that users can then choose to expand or not? Often posters will also highlight the most relevant parts of a quote in bold, and write underneath 'BBM' (bolded by me), as also shown above.

Remember you can always go back and edit posts to improve formatting, or to add extra information! While it's not so much an issue on Websleuths, on other forums making multiple separate posts in a row (like you have above) is considered bad etiquette.

You post interesting things, but could use a little more consideration to the formatting (and the readability for other users)! ;)


Dear Sceawian.

Thank you for the suggestions. I'm sorry I didn't know how to use those advanced options. My apologies for my ignorance. I will try to improve going forward.
Please, if you see room for improvement on my posts just let me know and I'll try to clean it up. I am big on coaching and self-improvement.
 
Donovan is suggesting that perhaps Barry also died without a will. Given that almost all info has been that he had a will does that mean he had one and it was invalidated for some strange reason? If he had one did it contain a bequeath for Charities? If that's the case you'll see other lawsuits against the estate.

Donovan's brief is a legal sledge-hammer. Courts are not to be trusted. Many times they've had a hand in putting the wrong person in prison. Additionally, the US Supreme Court heinously ruled that Black People were to be forever slaves and could never be US citizens. Dred Scott decision | Definition, History, & Facts

The only way to win at court is to pound the evidence and frame the argument so the court would look like a bunch of imbeciles for ruling against you. Donovan's team has done that.

The estate has relied on conjecture (a wheelbarrow of bullcrap) and made up law/legal interpretations. As Donovan cites in factum the estate did not follow the proper process in getting a ban, and Justice Dumphry did not apply the law properly.

Perhaps Barry did in fact have a will, but it was removed/stolen......
 
***** BREAKING NEWS ***********

The factum for the BC AG is in.

They state they do NOT favor one side over the other. They are only asking for the rules of open courts to continue and for the court to decline the appellants' invitation to modify the Dagenais/Mentuck test and, instead, affirm its continued application to all discretionary judicial orders seeking to limit the openness of judicial proceedings.

The tidbit below caught my eye:
15. In certain circumstances, additional documents will be required. For example, in cases where the words of a will have been altered, erased, or obliterated, the applicant must file evidence explaining those changes.

Did Barry alter, erase, or obliterate his will (thereby reducing Jon Sherman's inheritance?) which in turn caused the executors to reject it. If that's the case there will lawsuit, after lawsuit, after lawsuit. Many charities that the Shermans gave to felt they were going to be left a bequeath.

What if the will appears as if it was altered? its possible that it was changed by Barry under duress immediately before he was murdered.
OMG this could get very messy......
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
63
Guests online
4,075
Total visitors
4,138

Forum statistics

Threads
593,095
Messages
17,981,201
Members
229,025
Latest member
Clueliz
Back
Top