Evidence 'overwhelming' that Millard killed his father, court says in reasons
for rejecting appeal
Ontario Court of Appeal has issued its reasons for dismissing appeal of murder
Apr 10, 2023
Dellen Millard, 32, is acting as his own lawyer at the Laura Babcock murder
trial. Co-accused Mark Smich has a lawyer. (Toronto Police Service)
Ontario's top court dismissed serial killer Dellen Millard's appeal of his
murder conviction in the death of his father because it says the evidence is
"overwhelming" that he committed the murder.
In reasons published last week, the Ontario Court of Appeal rejected five points
made by Millard in his argument that the guilty verdict was unreasonable.
Millard was convicted of first-degree murder of Wayne Millard in September 2018.
Millard shot his father in the eye while he slept in his Etobicoke home at 5
Maple Gate Court on Nov. 29, 2012. Millard has also been convicted of two other
first-degree murders — the deaths of Hamilton man Tim Bosma, 32, and Toronto
woman Laura Babcock, 23.
Wayne Millard, 71, was a wealthy aviation executive. Dellen Millard was his only
"Although the time of Wayne Millard's death could not be determined with
precision, it was proved that Dellen Millard purchased the handgun that was used
to kill Wayne Millard in July 2012 and that he possessed that gun in the months
before his father's death. The handgun bore Dellen Millard's DNA, but not Wayne
Millard's," the panel of three judges writes.
"This evidence, coupled with the compelling evidentiary foundation that
permitted the trial judge to find that Dellen Millard was in the area of the
Maple Gate home during the window in which Wayne Millard died, after Dellen
Millard attempted to construct a false alibi, provided an overwhelming
foundation for Dellen Millard's conviction."
Millard has appealed all three murder convictions. The court has reserved its
decision on the other two appeals.
'No merit to any of these submissions'
Millard, who was self-represented, had argued that the trial judge relied on
evidence of his former associate Marlena Meneses, who was deemed to be a
"dangerous witness." Meneses was the girlfriend of Millard's friend Mark Smich.
Millard also had alleged that there wasn't enough evidence to suggest he had
concocted an alibi. And he had complained about the finding that he lied to
police about his whereabouts.
He had also complained about the finding of the trial judge regarding one of his
cellphones. And he claimed that the Crown failed to prove that his father died
during the period of time that Dellen Millard was found to be in the area of the
In its reasons, the court replied: "There is no merit to any of these
submissions. We reject Dellen Millard's submission that the verdict was
Wayne Millard, 71 when he died, was a wealthy aviation executive. His son,
Dellen Millard, killed him by shooting him in the eye on Nov. 29, 2012. (Rob
Wayne Millard's death in
November 2012 was originally ruled a suicide. At the time, Dellen
Millard was living at his father's home.
He wasn't charged in his
father's death until 2014, after police started investigating the
slayings of both Bosma, a husband and father from the Ancaster area of
Hamilton, and Babcock, a Toronto woman who had been involved with
A jury in June 2016
first found Millard and Smich guilty of murdering Bosma. The trial heard
Bosma's body was burned in an incinerator. Bosma was killed after he
took the two men out for a test drive of his pickup truck in May 2013.
The Crown argued the
same incinerator was used to get rid of the body of Babcock, theorizing
Millard was motivated to kill his one-time lover to settle a love
triangle with his then-current girlfriend. Babcock, whose body has never
been found, vanished in July 2012.
At trial, the judge
found that Millard purchased the gun that killed his father, was at the
house the night of the murder, and had set up a false alibi to conceal
what he had done.
Millard was sentenced in
2018 for his father's murder with no chance of parole for 75 years after
the trial judge stacked the 25-year period of parole ineligibility with
his previous sentences for the Bosma and Babcock murders.
Then the Supreme Court
ruled those types of consecutive periods of parole ineligibility are
unconstitutional, entitling Millard to apply for parole after 25 years.
With files from The Canadian Press and Adam
Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre
First, this comment is NOT a support of
David Millard who will spend the rest of his life in bars. I met his father
and was pretty upset by his murder by his own son
so please do not take the following as any
support for Millard.
This comment is directed at the Ontario
Court of Appeal who do not have any comprehension of the fundamental
principles of justice.
The Ontario court of appeal historically
acts as a rubber stamp, to sanitize lower court decisions.
This is a court where the odds of an appeal
being successful are amongst the lowest in the western world.
There are several areas where the Ontario
Court of Appeal brings the administration of justice into ill repute.
Unfortunately the Millard case is a classic
In every other country except Canada an
accused person is entitled to a lawyer.
Millard applied for a court appointed lawyer
and was denied. To be blunt, the Ontario Court of Appeal knew
that Millard was incapable of representing
himself and denied him even an adjournment to seek representation by a
This is a classic example where political
reasoning and denial trumped legal reasoning or even common sense.
So, now Millard will apply for leave to the
Supreme Court of Canada who just like the Ontario Court of Appeal will
make a "political decision" rather than a
"legal decision" based on legal logic.
The Supreme Court of Canada historically
operates without logical reasoning, its dominated by "politically correct
and acts as a 'censor" to get rid of cases
that might be embarrassing the Judiciary in Canada.
Its effectively a criminal corporation who
major in obstruction of justice.
Legal reasoning requires the primary
consideration of balancing the probative versus the prejudice.
In this case, both the Ontario Court of Appeal
and the Supreme Court of Canada both fail to
balance or consider the cost of "injustice".
The political reasoning used is that courts or
judges consider political correctness , the notion is that only the rich can
afford a lawyer
and if you can't afford a lawyer you
must be guilty and therefore you can save society money and represent
That is what drives the brains of Canadian
politicians who know didly squat about law and our judiciary who care about
pleasing politicians and telling them what the
politicians want to hear.
In psychology 101 its a form of denial called
I would urge all readers to go read the 1963 USSC case of Earl Gideon v.
Waynewright and or the 1994
Australian High Court case of R v. Dietrich.
In the United States the Gideon v. Waynewright case brought about
the US Public defender system that does not
exist in Canada.