CANADA Canada - Billionaire Couple Barry & Honey Sherman Murdered at Home, Toronto, 15 Dec 2017 #23

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
There is no evidence that Honey ever had a will. No person has stated that they witnessed her signing a will. A court has declared that she did not have a will. The current and former trustees of Barry’s will have never suggested that she had one. No individual with a financial stake in Honey having a will has ever suggested that she had one.

What we have is a single person who recalls Honey saying she was “updating her will”. It’s possible that she was in the process of creating one, but an incomplete will is no will at all.

The guesses about the possibility of a hidden or stolen will aren’t based in reality and don’t seem to lead anywhere interesting.
Of course, there is always the possibility that she did in fact have a valid Will. Witnessed by BS. Removed from the house by the killers.
 
A Will of HS, Witnessed by BS?
Of course, there is always the possibility that she did in fact have a valid Will. Witnessed by BS....
Snipped for focus. @ldlager Addressing only part of ^ post.

BS Signing HS' Will?
Not claiming to be familiar w ONT. law but have gen knowledge about common law & some American states' statutes, and have read some st. statutes similar to ONT. law* below.

If the Ontario statute is/would have been applicable to HS's estate, I doubt that such a will would have been drafted by an ATTY/law firm.

Why? The law below provides, iiuc, if a person who is a BENEFICIARY of a bequest in the will, attests --- that is, signs the will as a witness to the testator's signature --- then that bequest "is VOID so far only as it concerns, the person so attesting." * (my CAPS).
Does not make the entire will void, just that bequest.

IOW, if a husband signs as witness to wife's signature on will, and if will provides that he is to receive $ amt. & property at 123 Main Street, that bequest would be void (well, subject to an exception in sub-¶3). Iiuc, that $ amt & property at 123 Main Street would pass to other(s) under the will's RESIDUARY clause.

If such a will had been created, it may have originated from a DIY hardcopy fill-in-the-blank form or an online "legal forms" templates website imo.

Common practice (ime but things change) for atty/law firm drafting a will to have testator & others attend apptmt. in person, in law firm office, and for testator to sign will there, and for the attesting witnesses to sign then & there also.
Not like a wedding ceremony where a BFF/bestie :) is asked to sign a document as witness to the event.

Difficult for me to imagine that a law firm would allow spouse (or anyone) who is a beneficiary under the will to sign it, attesting to the testator's signature, but ICBW.

Welcoming correction or clarification.

_______________________________
* Ontario Statute on Testate Succession
"Witness etc., beneficiary from will”
"Bequests to witness void"
"12. (1) Where a will is attested by a person to whom… a beneficial devise, bequest… is thereby given… the devise… is void so far only as it concerns,
(a) the person so attesting;
…. but the person so attesting is a competent witness to prove the execution of the will or its validity or invalidity." (sbm)
....
"Where no undue influence”
"(3) Despite anything in this section, where the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that neither the person so attesting… for the testator… exercised any improper or undue influence upon the testator, the devise, bequest… is not void." (sbm)

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 12 (1).
R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 12 (3); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1).
 
Last edited:
A Will of HS, Witnessed by BS?

Snipped for focus. @ldlager Addressing only part of ^ post.

BS Signing HS' Will?
Not claiming to be familiar w ONT. law but have gen knowledge about common law & some American states' statutes, and have read some st. statutes similar to ONT. law* below.

If the Ontario statute is/would have been applicable to HS's estate, I doubt that such a will would have been drafted by an ATTY/law firm.

Why? The law below provides, iiuc, if a person who is a BENEFICIARY of a bequest in the will, attests --- that is, signs the will as a witness to the testator's signature --- then that bequest "is VOID so far only as it concerns, the person so attesting." * (my CAPS).
Does not make the entire will void, just that bequest.

IOW, if a husband signs as witness to wife's signature on will, and if will provides that he is to receive $ amt. & property at 123 Main Street, that bequest would be void (well, subject to an exception in sub-¶3). Iiuc, that $ amt & property at 123 Main Street would pass to other(s) under the will's RESIDUARY clause.

If such a will had been created, it may have originated from a DIY hardcopy fill-in-the-blank form or an online "legal forms" templates website imo.

Common practice (ime but things change) for atty/law firm drafting a will to have testator & others attend apptmt. in person, in law firm office, and for testator to sign will there, and for the attesting witnesses to sign then & there also.
Not like a wedding ceremony where a BFF/bestie :) is asked to sign a document as witness to the event.

Difficult for me to imagine that a law firm would allow spouse (or anyone) who is a beneficiary under the will to sign it, attesting to the testator's signature, but ICBW.

Welcoming correction or clarification.

_______________________________
* Ontario Statute on Testate Succession
"Witness etc., beneficiary from will”
"Bequests to witness void"
"12. (1) Where a will is attested by a person to whom… a beneficial devise, bequest… is thereby given… the devise… is void so far only as it concerns,
(a) the person so attesting;
…. but the person so attesting is a competent witness to prove the execution of the will or its validity or invalidity." (sbm)
....
"Where no undue influence”
"(3) Despite anything in this section, where the Superior Court of Justice is satisfied that neither the person so attesting… for the testator… exercised any improper or undue influence upon the testator, the devise, bequest… is not void." (sbm)

R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 12 (1).
R.S.O. 1990, c. S.26, s. 12 (3); 2006, c. 19, Sched. C, s. 1 (1).
Fair enough. Except I find it extremely unlikely that BS would be named as a beneficiary in HS’ Will. BS was extremely wealthy already.
 
June 16 2024
1718548038669.png
''As Elliott’s book details, the treatment of whistleblowers follows an invariable pattern: deny, delay, divide and discredit. My story followed this well-worn path. When Sherman threatened me with legal action, he did not need to add “I’m a billionaire, and I have the power to ruin your life.”
Our legal battles were settled only after 18 years. Over those years, senior administrators at my university and hospital, expecting the largest donation in the university’s history from Sherman, “took actions that were harmful to my interests and professional reputation, and disrupted my work,” The Olivieri Report, written by Jon Thompson, Patricia Baird and Jocelyn Downie, reports.''
 
BS. A Possible Witness to HS’ Will?
Fair enough. Except I find it extremely unlikely that BS would be named as a beneficiary in HS’ Will. BS was extremely wealthy already.
@ldlager
Thanks for responding. Agreeing w your post just above. Somehow in my earlier post I got distracted about possibility of HS making a BEQUEST to BS (which was not part of your post). Sorry that I jumped the track. Or maybe jumped the shark. ;)

Hope this clarifies my earlier post addressing your earlier comment about BS "WITNESSING" HS' will.

If HS had had legal counsel, which presumably she did, & if atty had drafted a will for her, I wonder if the firm would have suggested or allowed BS to be an attesting WITNESS.
If in 2017, 69 y/o HS was arranging for a will, BS then 75 y/o was statistically likely to be incapacitated (physically or mentally) or to predecease her & not be available to verify his witnessing of her signature on will, if the need arose.

Welcoming correction or clarification re ^. Jmo imo moo ICBW.

IDK if HS did have a will which would have been accepted for probate, regardless of when it was drafted.
 
Of course, there is always the possibility that she did in fact have a valid Will. Witnessed by BS. Removed from the house by the killers.
Except, I do not believe Barry would have been a valid witness, Barry would have insisted the will be drawn up by a lawyer, and that lawyer would have a copy on file in his office.

To assume, Barry would have used a will kit from online, or from Staples, had Honey sign it, and then witness himself is not realistic to me.
 
Noting, 2 people allegedly involved in a Bridle Path mortgage scheme, have been shot dead by an alleged victim, also now deceased. fwiw,
rbbm
''Police on Tuesday afternoon identified the dead as Arash Missaghi, 54, of Toronto, and Samira Yousefi, 44, of Concord, Ont., while the third deceased is an unnamed 46-year-old man who police believe was responsible for the shooting following an altercation between the trio.
Citing sources, the Toronto Star reported that Missaghi was charged in 2018 but never convicted of defrauding investors of as much as $17 million in an alleged scheme dating back to 2013 that targeted luxury homes in the Bridle Path.''

9 min (4.6 km) via York Mills Rd
.
 
Last edited:
Except, I do not believe Barry would have been a valid witness, Barry would have insisted the will be drawn up by a lawyer, and that lawyer would have a copy on file in his office.

To assume, Barry would have used a will kit from online, or from Staples, had Honey sign it, and then witness himself is not realistic to me.
More likely BS asked HS to bring the Will home so he could review it and subsequently witness it, instead of him travelling to a lawyers office. Maybe that’s what HS was talking about when she said she was “looking after a few things” or words to that effect. I believe HS had at least a draft of a will if not a final Will at her house the night she was murdered.And I believe the murderers took it.
MOO
 
More likely BS asked HS to bring the Will home so he could review it and subsequently witness it, instead of him travelling to a lawyers office. Maybe that’s what HS was talking about when she said she was “looking after a few things” or words to that effect. I believe HS had at least a draft of a will if not a final Will at her house the night she was murdered.And I believe the murderers took it.
MOO

But it would be a file on someone's computer and would have turned up ages ago. A draft will for this wealthy woman would be a hundred of pages of printed text.
 
But it would be a file on someone's computer and would have turned up ages ago. A draft will for this wealthy woman would be a hundred of pages of printed text.
A draft will isn’t worth anything. Only the original can be used. So a lawyer may have had a draft on their computer but would have no way of knowing if it represented the final Will, as that draft could have been superseded or cancelled, or never ultimately signed and witnessed.
Plus in any event I’m not sure a lawyer would disclose any such document to the police, citing solicitor client privilege. Anyone have any views on this?
Finally, I had a wealthy relative who passed away a few years ago. Her Will was less than ten pages long, so I don’t think HS would have necessarily needed a Will that was hundreds of pages long.moo
 
A draft will isn’t worth anything. Only the original can be used. So a lawyer may have had a draft on their computer but would have no way of knowing if it represented the final Will, as that draft could have been superseded or cancelled, or never ultimately signed and witnessed.
Plus in any event I’m not sure a lawyer would disclose any such document to the police, citing solicitor client privilege. Anyone have any views on this?
Finally, I had a wealthy relative who passed away a few years ago. Her Will was less than ten pages long, so I don’t think HS would have necessarily needed a Will that was hundreds of pages long.moo
A will that’s not signed and witnessed is not a will.

If a lawyer had a signed and witnessed will in their files, they would have provided it to the executors. I agree that Honey’s will could have been very simple and relatively short, if it existed. With no evidence that it existed, I believe it did not exist.
 
A draft will isn’t worth anything. Only the original can be used. So a lawyer may have had a draft on their computer but would have no way of knowing if it represented the final Will, as that draft could have been superseded or cancelled, or never ultimately signed and witnessed.
Plus in any event I’m not sure a lawyer would disclose any such document to the police, citing solicitor client privilege. Anyone have any views on this?
Finally, I had a wealthy relative who passed away a few years ago. Her Will was less than ten pages long, so I don’t think HS would have necessarily needed a Will that was hundreds of pages long.moo
TIPS FOR WHEN A CLIENT DIES from LAWPRO/Practice pro:

Wills: • If you drafted a will for the client, who is now deceased, review the will and the file to determine what steps may have been provided regarding releasing the will. • Subject to your client’s instructions, contact family members of the existence of the will. • If requested to produce your will file, contact LAWPRO. See When You Get a Call About a Will You Drafted… What Is Your Next Step? for more information.


This guidance for Ontario lawyers, gives the recommendation that the lawyer contact the family members. I believe any lawyer that Honey would use would have done that.
 
Plus in any event I’m not sure a lawyer would disclose any such document to the police, citing solicitor client privilege. Anyone have any views on this?
RSBM

The Star said the police were permitted to see the headings of some of Honey’s emails to and from Doug Hendler’s law firm, but weren’t permitted to see the contents because they were privileged.

Doug Hendler was able to talk to police about the mortgage discharge but not what else he was working on with either Honey or Barry. We know Honey had been emailing with someone at his law firm right up to the day of the murders. I don’t think that had anything to do with the mortgage discharge Barry was working on, imo.

“Asked for more details about his legal work for Sherman, Hendler told police he could not discuss any of it without permission from the executors of the Sherman estate. The documents do not say if that was given, and Hendler told the Star he could not provide an interview to the Star due to solicitor-client privilege.”
Paywalled link: New search warrant in Sherman murder case
 
TIPS FOR WHEN A CLIENT DIES from LAWPRO/Practice pro:

Wills: • If you drafted a will for the client, who is now deceased, review the will and the file to determine what steps may have been provided regarding releasing the will. • Subject to your client’s instructions, contact family members of the existence of the will. • If requested to produce your will file, contact LAWPRO. See When You Get a Call About a Will You Drafted… What Is Your Next Step? for more information.

This guidance for Ontario lawyers, gives the recommendation that the lawyer contact the family members. I believe any lawyer that Honey would use would have done that.
Whom of the relatives did the lawyer have to contact, when both clients were dead? It couldn't be the spouse. Did he have to inform one of 4 children? All 4 children?
 
Last edited:
Whom of the relatives did the lawyer have to contact, when both clients were dead? It couldn't be the spouse. Did he have to inform one of 4 children? All 4 children?

The recommendation to lawyers in Ontario is "contact family members of the existence of the will" I think most lawyers in Ontario should be able to figure out who they should contact. If I as a lawyer could not decide whom to contact, I would find out who made the funeral arrangements (by calling the funeral home, Benjamin’s Park Memorial Chapel) to learn this info.

As well, it was public knowledge that Brian Greenspan was representing the Sherman estate soon after their deaths, so any lawyer who had knowledge of the existence of a will for Honey, could have contacted those Greenspan.

There is no valid evidence of a will for Honey.

IMO
 
If Honey had a valid will, all of these things would have to be true:
1. She did not ask a lawyer to help her make sure her wishes would be carried out.
2. The witnesses are either dead or have tricked the family into thinking they weren’t involved. (It is *possible* that the witnesses were Barry and the murderer, but I think the chance of this is near zero.)
3. She did not mention it to any of the beneficiaries.
4. She did not keep it with Barry’s wills, or in any place it could be found.

People don’t hide wills in their walls. A will needs to be located after the person’s death. I just can’t see a scenario where she had a valid will.

It is very plausible that she was working on a will for the assets she personally controlled. But almost all of the family wealth was dealt with in Barry’s will, which didn’t leave Honey the assets, only the net income. She couldn’t have willed away the assets; they were all to be held in trust until her death and then distributed to the kids.
 
If Honey had a valid will, all of these things would have to be true:
1. She did not ask a lawyer to help her make sure her wishes would be carried out.
2. The witnesses are either dead or have tricked the family into thinking they weren’t involved. (It is *possible* that the witnesses were Barry and the murderer, but I think the chance of this is near zero.)
3. She did not mention it to any of the beneficiaries.
4. She did not keep it with Barry’s wills, or in any place it could be found.

People don’t hide wills in their walls. A will needs to be located after the person’s death. I just can’t see a scenario where she had a valid will.

It is very plausible that she was working on a will for the assets she personally controlled. But almost all of the family wealth was dealt with in Barry’s will, which didn’t leave Honey the assets, only the net income. She couldn’t have willed away the assets; they were all to be held in trust until her death and then distributed to the kids.
My point is that I believe it is unlikely that any family member except HS knew the details of BS Will. I believe HS had a valid Will.
But whether she did or didn’t have a valid Will doesn’t matter. What matters is that the person(s) behind the murders BEJLIEVED she had a valid Will; or couldn’t take a chance that she didn’t have a valid Will. And I believe that’s why she was murdered. IMO
 
My point is that I believe it is unlikely that any family member except HS knew the details of BS Will. I believe HS had a valid Will.
But whether she did or didn’t have a valid Will doesn’t matter. What matters is that the person(s) behind the murders BEJLIEVED she had a valid Will; or couldn’t take a chance that she didn’t have a valid Will. And I believe that’s why she was murdered. IMO

Are you thinking that the killers destroyed her will?

I would be shocked if Honey kept her will at home, or had taken it home for execution.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,316
Total visitors
1,449

Forum statistics

Threads
600,559
Messages
18,110,533
Members
230,991
Latest member
Clue Keeper
Back
Top