R. v. Runholm, 2009 ONCA 304

CITATION: R. v. Runholm, 2009 ONCA 304

DATE: 20090414

DOCKET: C42674

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Blair and MacFarland JJ.A.

BETWEEN:

Her Majesty the Queen

Respondent

and

Larry Scott Runholm

Appellant

Counsel:

Anil K. Kapoor and L. Daviau for the appellant

Howard Leibovich for the respondent

Heard and released orally: April 1, 2009

On appeal from conviction by Justice Kurisko of the Superior Court of Justice dated January 14, 2003.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] We see no merit in this appeal.

[2] The appellant has put forward fresh evidence in support of his position that his pleas were invalid and should be struck In our view, his proposed fresh evidence is incredulous and contrived and it is littered with internal and external contradictions and inconsistencies. In short, it is unworthy of belief and thus the appellant has failed to meet his onus of persuading us that the pleas should be struck. If anything, the proposed evidence demonstrates the appellant’s duplicity and his willingness to have the trial judge deceived into believing that he had no recollection of the events surrounding the murders in an attempt to obtain a reduction in the period of his parole ineligibility. From this and other aspects of the record, our overall impression of the appellant is that he is manipulative and willing to mislead the court if he considers it to be to his advantage.

[3] As for the pleas in issue, we are satisfied that they were fully informed and voluntary and that the appellant knew full well that his pleas constituted an admission that he intentionally killed the two young victims. The record at trial bears this out, perhaps most convincingly in the fact that the appellant remained silent in the month between his pleas and sentence and only raised the matter after he was sentenced. As indicated, the proposed fresh evidence does not alter our conclusion in that regard.

[4] Put bluntly, the interests of justice do not warrant appellate interference. There has been no miscarriage of justice here. The appellant has presented no evidence that he actually has a defence to the charges. That comes as no surprise to us. The case against him for first degree murder in each instance is overwhelming. In the circumstances, far from being the victim of a miscarriage of justice, the appellant should consider himself fortunate that the Crown agreed to let him plead to two counts of second degree murder and that the trial judge accepted his pleas.

[5] In the circumstances, we agree with the submission of the Crown in paragraph 25 of its factum that to grant the appellant the relief he seeks “would make a mockery of the criminal justice system and turn the appellate process into a game to be played by wily litigants at the expense of a search for a truth”.

[6] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signature: “M. J. Moldaver J.A.”

“R. A. Blair J.A.”

“J. MacFarland J.A.”