R. v. Wills, 2011 ONCA 468

CITATION: R. v. Wills, 2011 ONCA 468

DATE: 20110706

DOCKET: C48195

COURT OF APPEAL FOR ONTARIO

Moldaver, Simmons and Rouleau JJ.A.

BETWEEN

Her Majesty The Queen

Respondent

and

Richard Charles Wills

Appellant

Richard Wills, in person
Delmar Doucette, amicus curiae
Michal Fairburn, for the respondent

Heard and released orally: June 15, 2011
On appeal from conviction by Justice Michelle Fuerst of the Superior Court of Justice, sitting with a jury, dated October 31, 2007.

ENDORSEMENT

[1] The appellant appeals from his conviction for first degree murder. The trial was conducted before Fuerst J. and a jury. It lasted for approximately 18 months.

[2] The charge against the appellant related to the death of Ms. Linda Mariani, a woman with whom the appellant had been romantically involved for some years.

[3] On June 7, 2002, the appellant turned himself in to the police and revealed that Ms. Mariani’s body was in his basement and had been there since mid-February of that year. In his testimony at trial, he claimed that she had died accidentally in a fall and that he had entombed her body as an act of love with a view to removing it to his cottage in Wasaga Beach where she had requested that she be buried.

[4] The Crown presented a different theory, namely that Ms. Mariani was in the process of exiting the relationship and the appellant would have none of that. As a result, he decided to kill her. To that end, he bought a garbage pail and other supplies and planned to entomb her body after killing her in the hopes of escaping detection. Following Ms. Mariani’s death, the appellant took steps to mislead the police and others both as to his knowledge of her death and the whereabouts of her body. In addition, he tried to point the finger of suspicion at Ms. Mariani’s husband.

[5] By its verdict, it is apparent that the jury rejected the appellant’s evidence and accepted the position put forward by the Crown.

[6] The appellant’s appeal came on for hearing today. The appellant claimed he was unable to make submissions on account of his mental state. He provided no supporting medical evidence and has never provided the court with proper supporting medical evidence, despite having raised his alleged mental difficulties as far back as September 2010. In the face of the appellant’s bald and unsubstantiated claims, we refused to grant his adjournment request and invited him to make submissions. He refused to do so, claiming that he was unable to make submissions. He was told by the court and amicus that this was his final opportunity to say what he wished in support of his appeal and he declined to make submissions.

[7] The appeal was filed in 2007 and the appellant has appeared before the court many times. In his Notice of Appeal, the appellant has raised some 35 grounds of appeal. Some relate to evidentiary rulings; some to the conduct of the Crown and the trial judge; some to the charge to the jury; and others relate to the overall fairness of the trial. Some of the grounds allege ineffective assistance of counsel but the appellant has not filed any material to support his allegations despite being advised of this court’s protocol for doing so. Accordingly, the grounds relating to ineffective assistance must fail.

[8] The appellant has not filed written submissions regarding any of the grounds of appeal raised. Ms. Fairburn on behalf of the Crown has filed a factum and done her best to address the various issues advanced by the appellant in his Notice of Appeal. We have reviewed her factum which includes excerpts from the trial proceedings and various rulings made by the trial judge. We have also reviewed other aspects of the record in preparation for today’s appeal. Having done so, we do not propose to address the various grounds on an individual basis. Suffice it to say that we can detect no errors in the evidentiary or other rulings that would warrant appellate intervention, nor can it be said that the appellant did not receive a fair trial.

[9] On our view of the record, the appellant viewed the court process with disdain and did everything he could to subvert it and make a mockery of the proceedings. He was not interested in receiving a fair trial or indeed any trial. His strategy from start to finish was to delay and obstruct the course of justice and derail the trial if possible. To that end, he hired and fired lawyers at will; he engaged in obstructive trial tactics that turned the trial process into an 18-month ordeal; he brought on countless motions that were largely devoid of merit and in many instances, frivolous and vexatious; he engaged in appalling courtroom antics and he did his best at every turn to bait the trial judge into declaring a mistrial or committing reversible error.

[10] Fortunately, the learned trial judge saw through the appellant’s strategy and was able to rise above it. Although she was firm when necessary, and correctly so, she treated the appellant with respect and dignity throughout and did everything in her power to ensure that he received a fair trial. This took admirable restraint on her part for which she is to be commended.

[11] As indicated, we are satisfied that the trial judge’s rulings on process were fair to both sides and her evidentiary rulings, which were largely discretionary in nature, discloseno reversible error. Her charge was a model of clarity, fairness and balance and we are satisfied that the jury was properly equipped to carry out its duty.

[12] In our view, the verdict is entirely reasonable and amply supported by the evidence. There has been no miscarriage of justice here. As we have said, the appellant received a fair trial and we see no basis for appellate intervention.

[13] Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

Signed: “M. J. Moldaver J.A.”

“Janet Simmons J.A.”

“Paul Rouleau J.A.”