One of the three Evidentiary Pillars of Evidence that was determinative in the Estate of David Kwinter’s extraordinary legal victory at trial and on appeal was a letter from David Kwinter’s U.S. based lawyer, James A. Bond, written on May 18, 1984, to Aaron Gelber and Norman Sternthal’s lawyers (just 23 days before David Kwinter signed the option agreement (the "Contested Option Agreement") which clearly reaffirmed David Kwinter’s emotional attached to the Beacon Hill Villa Project (the "Project") and his desire to not sell his ownership interest in the Project.  Mr. Justice Gomery found that Mr. Bond's May 18, 1984 letter provided important “insight into what preceded the signature of the {Contested Option) Agreement that was concluded as of June 11, 1984” and what the true intentions of the Parties were.  In his  May 18, 1984 letter, David Kwinter’s lawyer explicitly and emphatically confirms his client’s desire to retain his ownership in the Project:

​

At the outset let me state it is Mr. Kwinter’s position that in the event of a death of Mt. Gelber or Mr. Sternthal, because of his position outside the province of Quebec, that he will be, in all likelihood, unable to directly consider the purchase of any partner’s interest in the partnership. It is also Mr. Kwinter’s position that when Beacon Hill Villa was constructed, he placed a great amount of effort and expertise into the construction and is most desirous of retaining his interest in the project.

​

Notwithstanding this letter’s clear message of David Kwinter’s passionate intention and desire to retain his interest in the Beacon Hill Villa Project, a mere 23 days later Mr. Kwinter signed the Contested Option Agreement that placed his very ownership in the Project at risk.  In Mr. Justice Gomery’s findings, he concludes that David Kwinter, ignoring his lawyer’s advice, capitulated like his sons had done in resolving their Mother's estate, and entered into an agreement that provided no benefit to him. In his Judgement, Mr. Justice Gomery writes:

​

[43]   It is apparent that in signing this document David Kwinter abandoned all of the advice, proposals and suggestions that had been made on his behalf by his lawyer, and accepted totally the terms and conditions that had been proposed by Aaron's lawyer. The Agreement is completely one-sided and provides no protection or consideration to David Kwinter.  By signing it he exposed himself throughout the life of the Agreement to the possibility that Aaron and Sternthal would choose to disagree with him at a moment in tine chosen by them with respect to the administration of the Property, which would trigger the option provisions granted in their favour. 

​

[44]   It is impossible to imagine what benefit David Kwinter would realize by the signature of the agreement, except to satisfy the desire of Aaron Gelber that he do so. 

​

This pivotal May 18, 1984 correspondence, which is reproduced below, provided the trial judge with a strong evidentiary basis on which to draw his ultimate inference that the Contested Option Agreement was secured through the Plaintiffs’ exertion of illegal coercion on the late David Kwinter.

​