LY206 Lecture Notes - Lecture 5: Robert Latimer, Pickup Truck, Convenience Store
Lesson 5 – Dellen Millard
Dellen Millard
Learning Objectives:
Who was Dellen Millard?
Who was Tim Bosma?
How did Millard's conviction for Bosma's murder lead to his conviction for the murders of Laura
Babcock and Wayne Millard?
What is the difference between a concurrent and a consecutive sentence?
Readings:
R v Millard (2018) ONSC
Optional: Podcast from Crime Junkie "Serial Killer: Dellen Millard" (listen here:
https://crimejunkiepodcast.com/serial-killer-dellen-millard/)
Optional: Documentary "The Murders of Dellen Millard: Laura Babcock & Tim Bosma" The Fifth
Estate available on youtube at https://youtu.be/zSQnVSyRFOg
Activities:
Midterm #1 on Thursday, February 11 from 5:30 – 6:50 p.m. Access the midterm on MyLS under
the Quizzes Tab
Discussion Post #4 opens on Tuesday, February 9, at 8 a.m. until Monday, February 22, at 10
p.m.
This week we turn to our final famous person, Dellen Millard. At this point, we've met Socrates, who
was disliked by the Athenians, Ghomeshi, who was publicly disliked but acquitted under the law,
Latimer, who Canadians sympathized with, and Khadr, whose rights were violated by the Canadian
government. These first four individuals have shown us the different ways in which people might be
considered famous in Canadian law. Sometimes they are famous before the case, and sometimes the
case is what makes the person famous. In each of these cases, there was an interesting discussion in the
legal story about the appropriate outcome. Our final person – Dellen Millard – is a bit different. For most
of us, we will not feel torn about Millard's conviction. Millard is not a sympathetic character, and we do
not feel that Millard's actions are in any way excusable, as we might have felt with Latimer. However,
Millard's sentence may give us pause. Can the punishment for multiple murders be too long? Let's get
started!
Reading Millard
Dellen Millard has been tried and convicted of the first-degree murder of Laura Babcock, Tim Bosma,
and his father, Wayne Millard. The decision you are reading this week is the decision regarding Millard's
sentence for the murder of Babcock and Bosma. As we learned in Lesson 3: Robert Latimer, second-
degree murder carries a mandatory sentence of life without parole eligibility for ten years. First-degree
murder also has a mandatory sentence of life, but in this case, there is no eligibility for parole for 25
years. In 2018 Millard received his second first-degree murder conviction. Historically, life sentences are
served concurrently (at the same time) because a person has "only one life and because a life sentence
never ends until death." (para 3) The issue is what to do with the period of parole ineligibility. If Millard
can serve his sentences concurrently (at the same time), he will be eligible for parole after 25 years. If
Millard serves his sentences consecutively (one at a time), he will be eligible for parole after 50 years.
Here is the summary. In this lesson, I am focusing on the case of Millard. Mark Smich was also part of
this trial and received the same sentence. We will focus on Millard and consider Smich as part of the
overall story about Millard.
R v Millard, 2018 ONSC
Parties
Dellen Millard and the Canadian Government
Level of
Court
Ontario Superior Court of Justice
Year
2018
Charges
Should Millard serve consecutive or concurrent life sentences? (parole
eligibility); Do consecutive sentences violate s.7 and 12 of the
Charter?
Holding
Millard will serve consecutive sentences (no parole eligibility for 50
years); the sentence does not violate Millard's Charter rights.
In Lesson 3: Robert Latimer, we learned about mandatory sentences for murder, and in Lesson 4: Omar
Khadr, we learned about s.7 of the Charter. You may want to return to those lessons to refresh your
memory on these topics.
When determining if a person has committed first-degree murder, the Crown's job is very similar to
what we learned about second-degree murder. The Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that
the accused:
(a) Caused the death of a human being, and
(b) Acted intentionally, and had subjective foresight of the likelihood of death;
(c) And, the murder was planned and deliberate.
The first two criteria (a) and (b) are the same as second-degree murder. I have added "planned and
deliberate" as the extra criteria for first-degree murder. Like (b) this has to do with what the accused
was thinking. In order for a murder to be planned and deliberate, the Crown is looking for evidence that
the accused had thought about the murder and put in place some kind of plan in order to murder the
person. Compare the following two examples:
Example #1: Bob runs an illegal gambling business. Joe places a bet for $10,000 on "Lucky Ride" a
horse running in the race today. Unfortunately, "Lucky Ride" is not so lucky and ends up coming in
dead last. Bob goes to collect the money from Joe, but it turns out Joe doesn't have $10,000. Bob
is angry and hits Joe several times with a crowbar. One of the hits is to Joe's head. Joe falls
unconscious and later dies.
Example #2: Bob runs an illegal gambling business. Joe has bet with Bob before, but usually, Joe
ends up losing money. Joe is about to lose his house, and he needs $10,000. He knows that Bob
keeps his winnings in a safe in his basement. Joe doesn't know the combination, but he thinks that
if he times it right he could be in Bob's basement right when Bob is putting his winnings from the
most recent race away in the safe. Joe brings a gun and goes to Bob's basement. Luckily, Joe has
timed it perfectly, and he shoots Bob in the head just as Bob opens the safe. Joe reaches over
Bob's dying body and steals the money from the safe.
While in both examples a person is killed, the way in which they are killed is different. In Example #1,
Bob is beating Joe with a crowbar. This is dangerous and could easily lead to death. Bob carries around
the crowbar in case he needs to defend himself or teach someone a lesson. He did not bring it to kill Joe.
In Example #2, Joe has put together a plan and brought the tools necessary to carry it out. The purpose
of the plan was for Bob to die.
In Canada, we see the second case as worse than the first. There is something about the cold-blooded
attitude of Joe as he plans the death of another human being that feels worse than the case where Bob
beats Joe to death. Very often, serial killers will fall into example #2 because they are planning the
murders they commit. Dellen Millard was convicted of first-degree murder, and the Crown was able to
prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he murdered Babcock, Bosma, and later, he was also convicted of
the first-degree murder of his father, Wayne Millard.
Let's turn to the case!
Dellen Millard – The Personal Story
You may have noticed that I included another optional resource this week – a podcast from Crime
Junkie hosted by Ashley Flowers on the case of Dellen Millard. Flowers is an American who usually
covers American cases, and it's interesting to hear her take on this Canadian case. I have also included a
link to a Fifth Estate documentary about Dellen Millard. You do not need to listen and watch to these
extra resources, but they are available if you are interested.
Dellen Millard
Photo found here: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-42375159
Dellen Millard was born on August 30, 1985. His grandfather founded Millard Air, an aviation firm that
Dellen's father Wayne was running. He made headlines in 1999 when, at the age of 14, he set a world
record for the youngest person to fly a helicopter and fixed-wing plane on the same day. Millard
graduated high-school with honours and completed a variety of diploma courses at three community
colleges. (para 14) In his twenties, Millard dropped out of college and began experimenting with drugs.
At the time of the homicides, Millard was working at Millard Air. While he was only in his mid-twenties,
Millard already owned assets worth a few million dollars. (ibid.) Millard spent his time throwing
