The Death of Wayne Millard

[Carli]

IMO (but what do I know )

LE and the Crown will continue to seek evidence against DM and MS.

So DP may be the one needing to do some digging into the company and start throwing the findings into the works. Will this happen? Hard to say, without knowing how DP will work. Once DP has well and truly opened up the hornets nest (with the consent of DM of course) it puts the cards onto the table. The Crown will be forced to look at the defense material and in doing so may be compelled to act. Whether they do act to right any wrongs is questionable and it may fall to DM and possibly a legal team to force the issue. That is what I think.... just as I put it out there about the trust possibility, just an opinion but also IMO worthy of investigation...... but what do I know.... ;-) JMO MOO IMO

True, but until discovery happens, there isn't much that the defense can do other than shuffle paper. There's no point in preparing a defense against anything outside the evidence that make it onto the table at discovery, presumably Aug 1 at this point. If you ask me, (and nobody is likely to do so) I think it's quite appalling that a person can be incarcerated while LE goes on a fishing expedition to enhance and support its charges. In my world, LE would have all the evidence necessary before charges are laid. MOO. I'm such a babe in the woods on the subject that until recently I thought only the Crown could lay charges based on the credibility of the evidence presented to it by LE.

(One teenie correction. As I understand it, assuming the Crown is prepared to go to trial, they provide their evidence to the defense at discovery and thereafter as new information arises. The defense, however is never obligated to tell the prosecution anything about the defendant's case before trial.)

 

[Alethea Dice]

True, but until discovery happens, there isn't much that the defense can do other than shuffle paper. There's no point in preparing a defense against anything outside the evidence that make it onto the table at discovery, presumably Aug 1 at this point. If you ask me, (and nobody is likely to do so) I think it's quite appalling that a person can be incarcerated while LE goes on a fishing expedition to enhance and support its charges. In my world, LE would have all the evidence necessary before charges are laid. MOO. I'm such a babe in the woods on the subject that until recently I thought only the Crown could lay charges based on the credibility of the evidence presented to it by LE.

(One teenie correction. As I understand it, assuming the Crown is prepared to go to trial, they provide their evidence to the defense at discovery and thereafter as new information arises. The defense, however is never obligated to tell the prosecution anything about the defendant's case before trial.)

The defense only has to disclose if they are using expert witnesses or alibis.

30. What is disclosure? Does the defence have to disclose its case to the Crown?
The Criminal Code obliges the Crown to disclose their case to the defence, as the accused has a right to obtain ‘discovery’ of the prosecution’s case against him/her. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that “the Crown is under a duty to disclose all the material it proposes to use at trial and, in particular, all evidence that may assist the accused in mounting his or her defence even if the Crown does not propose to place such evidence before the court.” The Supreme Court also ruled that “there is no reciprocal obligation on the accused to assist the prosecution.” Thus, the Crown must always disclose its case. The defence is not required to disclose except where they plan to use expert evidence or alibis.

http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

 

[Blomquist]

True, but until discovery happens, there isn't much that the defense can do other than shuffle paper. There's no point in preparing a defense against anything outside the evidence that make it onto the table at discovery, presumably Aug 1 at this point. If you ask me, (and nobody is likely to do so) I think it's quite appalling that a person can be incarcerated while LE goes on a fishing expedition to enhance and support its charges. In my world, LE would have all the evidence necessary before charges are laid. MOO. I'm such a babe in the woods on the subject that until recently I thought only the Crown could lay charges based on the credibility of the evidence presented to it by LE.

(One teenie correction. As I understand it, assuming the Crown is prepared to go to trial, they provide their evidence to the defense at discovery and thereafter as new information arises. The defense, however is never obligated to tell the prosecution anything about the defendant's case before trial.)

I believe as you do that LE should have their ducks in order BEFORE laying charges...and that fishing expeditions to support their case should not be allowed. I believe they prematurely lay charges in many cases ,to get jurisdiction over the body as it were...so that they can basically set the target and then throw the mud and see what sticks.JMO

I believe they are supposed to provide disclosures, both warrant disclosures and full disclosure within a reasonable time frame....now that reasonable time frame is getting longer and longer and often violates charter rights. They like to make sure each officers disclosure is in sync as it were...so they take their time. Problem is that once on the stand the officers have to remember their lines or risk looking non credible. Officers do not like to take the stand (I was told this by a couple of officers lol) IMO.

They hold 'resolution type' meetings with the lawyers along the way...waiting for a guilty plea. They will try to offer plea deals to get a win at these meetings. Not necessarily in this case, but in some cases if their case is weak they will offer very sweet deals rather than risk the charges being dismissed or an acquittal etc. They need to win and these offers are to that end. Many people accept these deals as the cost of a lawyer is too high for them and they simply want out.

Thats right the defense never shows their hand. (hence the right to remain silent) But as a trial progresses, and other crimes come to light which could and should be followed up IMO. Evidence given at trials cannot be used in other cases (Canada Evidence Act) unless the case itself has its own merit without depending on the original trial... I think thats how it works IMO

JMO MOO

 

[Archangel7]

We're splitting hairs here, of course, and a third entity is useful where considerable wealth is involved, so many well-off families, particularly where a number of relatives are involved, will also establish a closely held holding company for the sole purpose of participating in its trusts.

In the example I gave earlier, however, where a person has purchased assets with their own funds and they are held in trust for that person (the settlor) by that person's closely held company (the trustee) for its active company's shareholder (its beneficiary) the only time that tax liability would accrue to the true underlying owner is when that asset is sold - assuming there are capital gains. In other words, the trustee corporation in such private arrangements has practically unlimited licence to deal with funds in whatever manner it chooses.

Given then, as I've shown, that the personal owner, the company's principal management and the shareholder can all be one and the same person, you can see how many possibilities there are in such arrangements and, indeed, how settlor, trustee and beneficiary can be one and the same person.

However, in the event that the true owners of some or all of MillardAir's assets were members of the Millard family, in their own name, but third parties had inserted themselves into this trustee corporate structure in a decision making capacity, the worst thing that could happen would be the winding down of the company, because, while as we know "the business of business is to make money", there are also many situations in which "the business of business is to hide/launder money" or, much more commonly, "the business of business is to enrich its employees at its expense until there's no money left." In other words, some corporations exist for the sole purpose of losing money.

Again, as I said, rats in the cupboard can do a great deal of damage, particularly when third parties enter into the decision making aspect of privately held companies. We understand that things had already begun to go pear shaped during WM's tenure; that DM could not or would not right the ship and was trying to sell off the assets. If OC is involved, this could represent a multi-million dollar problem with even greater ramification than might be readily evident. IMO.


That being said, if DM was carefully set up to take a big fall, it would require one or more very knowledgeable individuals to organize and prepare the ground since the death of WM and possibly even earlier. Hopefully LE is not just spending time building a case against DM and MS but is also continuing to seek out evidence and investigate all possible motives that could have led to the tragic murder of TB regardless of whether DM and MS were involved.

A company/corporation/shareholder is different in the eyes of the law than a trust. A trustee by definition can own and be held accountable for an asset but not benefit from it as I understand it.

Whom is and exactly how is DM being framed? I'm open to possibilities, give a specific scenario that is believable, possible and with some basis in fact or supposition that I can get behind.

I've tried several, but I can't get there with the current evidence. I believe DM is simply dense enough to get himself into this mess without some grandiose conspiracy scheme. But heck I think Oswald shot Kennedy........JMO

 

[expat cdn]

I am sorry but I do not agree. I do respect your opinion.

Sorry to hear that. I respect your opinion, might not agree with it, but certainly respect your right to your opinion, even when it differs from mine.

 

[Alethea Dice]

A company/corporation/shareholder is different in the eyes of the law than a trust. A trustee by definition can own and be held accountable for an asset but not benefit from it as I understand it.

Whom is and exactly how is DM being framed? I'm open to possibilities, give a specific scenario that is believable, possible and with some basis in fact or supposition that I can get behind.

I've tried several, but I can't get there with the current evidence. I believe DM is simply dense enough to get himself into this mess without some grandiose conspiracy scheme. But heck I think Oswald shot Kennedy........JMO

Well, technically, a trustee can benefit because the trustee does get paid, does he not? However, the only way I can envision this scenario, it seems like it's too late. But I also have a hard time believing that, no matter how dense some may think DM is, that anyone (let alone someone with a distinctive tattoo) would commit a murder, leave all of the evidence pointing directly at themself, and expect not to get caught.

JMO

 

[Carli]

A company/corporation/shareholder is different in the eyes of the law than a trust. A trustee by definition can own and be held accountable for an asset but not benefit from it as I understand it.

Whom is and exactly how is DM being framed? I'm open to possibilities, give a specific scenario that is believable, possible and with some basis in fact or supposition that I can get behind.

I've tried several, but I can't get there with the current evidence. I believe DM is simply dense enough to get himself into this mess without some grandiose conspiracy scheme. But heck I think Oswald shot Kennedy........JMO

I'm sorry but laws in respect to family trusts and closely held corporations are somewhat more difficult to explain than I'm obviously able to do, though not for lack of trying<modsnip>. MOO. For instance, a trustee does NOT own that which it holds in trust and IS required to do everything it can to legally increase the value of that with which it is "entrusted." I believe I explained how an asset owner, his closely held company - namely one in which he is the sole director and sole shareholder can, indeed be an owner, trustee and beneficiary all rolled into one. At this juncture, IMO it would probably be best to abandon this concept for the time being, if you agree. LOL and MOO.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I don't think he's dense. I think he thought he was untouchable.

 

[Snoofo]

I was reading the WM obit trying to gain his son's perspective from 3 different death angles: a suicide, a murder by DM and a murder by a third party.

We've pretty much agreed the obit is a little bizarre. Its definitely not a traditional death notice. If he committed suicide, DM's obit for his father is not that bizarre anymore IMO. Here is why:
If WM was actually severely depressed or ashamed and just felt himself a huge failure, whatever helpless feelings drew him to take his own life, he wasnt thinking about the positive aspects of his life. The obit however says these things, all the things the suicidal man forgot he was. If he wrote from his heart and was devastated by his father's suicide then it wouldnt really matter if it made sense or not. It may have been a mesage from son to father.

Most people were told he died of an aneurysm. I would say that was to preserve his fathers digity. Or maybe WM left a note suggesting same?

All MOO in the event the suicide was true.

 

[expat cdn]

I was reading the WM obit trying to gain his son's perspective from 3 different death angles: a suicide, a murder by DM and a murder by a third party.

We've pretty much agreed the obit is a little bizarre. Its definitely not a traditional death notice. If he committed suicide, DM's obit for his father is not that bizarre anymore IMO. Here is why:
If WM was actually severely depressed or ashamed and just felt himself a huge failure, whatever helpless feelings drew him to take his own life, he wasnt thinking about the positive aspects of his life. The obit however says these things, all the things the suicidal man forgot he was. If he wrote from his heart and was devastated by his father's suicide then it wouldnt really matter if it made sense or not. It may have been a mesage from son to father.

Most people were told he died of an aneurysm. I would say that was to preserve his fathers digity. Or maybe WM left a note suggesting same?

All MOO in the event the suicide was true.

That makes sense why he wrote the obit as he did. I don't think it's odd either that people were not told the truth about the suicide. Suicide is very difficult to deal with.

I really hope that DM did not kill is father. It is horrible enough that he may have killed a stranger, TB and a friend, LB, but if he killed his own father seems...to horrible for words.

 

[Pink Panther]

That makes sense why he wrote the obit as he did. I don't think it's odd either that people were not told the truth about the suicide. Suicide is very difficult to deal with.

I really hope that DM did not kill is father. It is horrible enough that he may have killed a stranger, TB and a friend, LB, but if he killed his own father seems...to horrible for words.

Um. No. I disagree. The son writes an obituary for his father but basically says NOTHING about him? And that's something normal? Day of birth? What he did with his life? REAL accomplishments? Get together in remembrance at a restaurant that no one seems to know about? Mention of a fund that exists only at the person's home address?

I see NOTHING normal about this obit.

MOO

 

[Blomquist]

If WM killed himself or was murdered by someone outside of his family I see the obit as normal. Anyone who has lost someone very close to them in a quick tragic death will know the intense numbing of senses that occurs immediately and that lasts for some time.

You do not think clearly.... you rely on others to make the decisions about who needs to be called and who needs to know about funeral etc. You do not IMO function like nothing has happened and rush around giving everyone the 'news' and giving speeches as though you are fine.

I think the obit is from someone who is trying to give some insight into the fears WM obviously felt.....enough to want to be released from this world in the case of suicide or due to unfriendly competition taking aim.

I do not see the obit as being from someone who wanted him dead. IMO

The pain you feel when someone very close dies is a private and personal thing.... why anyone would expect a son to bear his soul and his heartache to the local press is quite beyond me... ..... IMO the obit is fine and IMO DM was assisted by his mother...due to the way the words are situated...like English is not the first language... JMO of course..... and all MOO

 

[Archangel7]

The obit is strange to me, almost cryptic in some of the wording. The remembrance dinner oddities are not a sign of a normal, healthy functional family either. IMO

It's not unusual for families to keep quiet about suicide to outsiders, however I've never known any to lie about it.

 

[MsSherlock]

Um. No. I disagree. The son writes an obituary for his father but basically says NOTHING about him? And that's something normal? Day of birth? What he did with his life? REAL accomplishments? Get together in remembrance at a restaurant that no one seems to know about? Mention of a fund that exists only at the person's home address?

I see NOTHING normal about this obit.

MOO

With you on that Pink. IMO, the obit was as dysfunctional as the family. But of course I'm tilted towards DM the sociopath with psychotic features... DM a 26 year old who's come into a vast amount of money and has started to experience the freedom and popularity that only an unlimited budget can provide. The new AMO and WM were both jeopardizing something that he didn't want to let go of. JMO, but that's a good motive, and the conspiracy buffs may toss this aside, but IMO there's a lot of weight to the meeting between DM and AS. “He advised [me] that the family coffers were running low and that he was very apprehensive to keep pouring money into the facility,” Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...bosma-murder-suspect-started-to-dismantle-it/ Best way to get rid of that problem...and that's to get rid of the problem-and that's really killing 2 birds with one stone!
This is where my thoughts are.
A loved one committing suicide is not all that unusual. "Died suddenly", "Passed suddenly", "expectantly" Date, names of loved ones, who he/she was predeceased by...etc etc. Not a blooming cryptic biography of the deceased published on the day of his memorial. IMO, there could be more than a few professional psychiatrist that have weighed in on that one. MOO

 

[cansleuther]

...an obituary for his father but basically says NOTHING about him? And that's something normal? Day of birth? What he did with his life? REAL accomplishments?

The obituary does list various piloting certificates WM held and mentions various organizations that he supported, organized, and helped fund. Ann Brocklehurst mentions in her article that WM spent much of his life uninterested in the family business, or business at all. She also states he was not heavily involved in Millardair and that the Waterloo hanger project was his first major aviation initiative. Perhaps WM considered his humanitarian efforts to BE real accomplishments?

 

[Curiositykitten]

IMO the obit is fine and IMO DM was assisted by his mother...due to the way the words are situated...like English is not the first language... JMO of course..... and all MOO

First of all Madeleine Burns is not French. For some reason this rumour keeps popping up even though it has no basis in fact. Her parents were immigrants from England and she grew up in Toronto.

Yes, her brother lives part of the year in France, and some of the cousins now live there full-time, but that does not make Madeleine French.

Also, I highly doubt his mother helped him with this obituary or it would
likely be more conventional. MOO

 

[JPC]

First of all Madeleine Burns is not French. For some reason this rumour keeps popping up even though it has no basis in fact. Her parents were immigrants from England and she grew up in Toronto.

Yes, her brother lives part of the year in France, and some of the cousins now live there full-time, but that does not make Madeleine French.

Also, I highly doubt his mother helped him with this obituary or it would
likely be more conventional. MOO

Where did the MB bio details come from?

 

[expat cdn]

Um. No. I disagree. The son writes an obituary for his father but basically says NOTHING about him? And that's something normal? Day of birth? What he did with his life? REAL accomplishments? Get together in remembrance at a restaurant that no one seems to know about? Mention of a fund that exists only at the person's home address?

I see NOTHING normal about this obit.

MOO

I did not say it was normal. I was responding to a poster who had made their interpretation of the obit, written by the son of someone who did commit suicide. (if this is the case)

It's certainly not the most eloquent obit I've read, however, when a love one dies, it's a difficult putting down on paper your thoughts, etc. etc. I just did a quick search of today's obits in one of the Toronto's newspapers. There is actually an obit written sort of similar to WM's.

Regarding the restaurant...that has all been sorted out, and the restaurant does exist. On a personal note, my friend had a family member's birthday celebration there, great restaurant. Perhaps that was WM's favourite.

Suicide is extremely difficult to deal with. I'm guessing that the family really did not want a bunch of people at the restaurant, only close close friends and family. That is why little notice was given.

 

[expat cdn]

The obit is strange to me, almost cryptic in some of the wording. The remembrance dinner oddities are not a sign of a normal, healthy functional family either. IMO

It's not unusual for families to keep quiet about suicide to outsiders, however I've never known any to lie about it.

The remembrance dinner is a sign of a family dealing with an unexpected death, like suicide.

Maybe you don't know people have lied to you about a death of a loved one. Although, I haven't lied about it, I've thought about it. Because when I tell someone that my family member died by taking their own life, there is always a moment of awkward silence, people don't know what to say.

 

[Archangel7]

Sorry, I should have said it this way...I knew how they died and as such never personally heard their family lie to a third party or heard of it, not even erroneous comments from others in casual conversations months later. I guess we all have different experiences.

However as I stated above, I have heard families talk around the fact without ever confirming suicide. I believe this supports the awkwardness of the tragic situation that you mentioned.