GUILTY - Wayne Millard Murder Trial - Dellen Millard Charged With Murder - #4

[ABro]

If he he was as flush as people say, he wouldn't have needed to do that.

No one has ever said he was flush.

The evidence is clear that he had a cash flow problem.

But you can have a cash flow problem and still have lots of non-liquid assets.

This issue here is we've never had a clear accounting of Millard's and his father's assets.

And, once again, the judge who handled the Rowbotham hearing, described him as a "wealthy young man."

 

[ABro]

I'm obviously not a bankruptcy trustee, lawyer, or forensic accountant.. and this is WAY over my head, but all I can suggest is that in Canada's Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, it defines an 'insolvent person' as someone who is *not* bankrupt, but whose liabilities to secured creditors amount to $1000 or more (the secured loan to MB), AND whose total assets are not sufficient to cover payment of all obligations present and accruing (the TB lawsuit of $14million) - would that mean he is an insolvent person?

I'm not going to stake my life on it, because as mentioned above, I had only understood that the courts had locked up DM's monies and assets because:
i)he'd been charged with murdering someone from whom he had already inherited monies, which is not allowed by law; and
ii)he was being sued for millions of dollars.

I was not aware that one *had* to be either a bankrupt or an 'insolvent person' in order for the courts to order receivership, and I'm still not convinced that that is the case.

The document from Zeifman could simply be stating that the same formalities are being followed as are required for a bankrupt or insolvent person, as outlined in the Act, by giving notice to the appropriate parties?

from the Act:
insolvent person means a person who is not bankrupt and who resides, carries on business or has property in Canada, whose liabilities to creditors provable as claims under this Act amount to one thousand dollars, and

• (a) who is for any reason unable to meet his obligations as they generally become due,
• (b) who has ceased paying his current obligations in the ordinary course of business as they generally become due, or
• (c) the aggregate of whose property is not, at a fair valuation, sufficient, or, if disposed of at a fairly conducted sale under legal process, would not be sufficient to enable payment of all his obligations, due and accruing due; (personne insolvable)

Madeleine Burns asked for the receivership and the courts agreed to it. Again, bankruptcy is not a prerequisite.

The last significant event in this four-year history is that Ms. Burns brought an Application in this Court on November 13, 2015, seeking the appointment of a Receiver of all the property and assets of Millard, pursuant to s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

CanLII - 2017 ONSC 2836 (CanLII)
​

At the Rowbotham hearing the Crown argued there had not been full and complete disclosure of financial records: no bank accounts, no tax returns assessments, no loan agreements with mother and the companies

They said Millard and his mother had taken as series of "artificial, deliberate and reversible" steps to put his money out of reach. These included granting power of attorney to Burns, making her administrator of Wayne's will, her becoming sole officer and director of the Millard companies, disposing of Millard's assets, and applying for receivership.

"Those five steps artificially intended to put assets out of reach, make it appear as if they aren't liquid and available," the Rowbotham Crown said.

 

[MistyWaters]

Madeleine Burns asked for the receivership and the courts agreed to it. Again, bankruptcy is not a prerequisite.

The last significant event in this four-year history is that Ms. Burns brought an Application in this Court on November 13, 2015, seeking the appointment of a Receiver of all the property and assets of Millard, pursuant to s. 101 of the Courts of Justice Act.

CanLII - 2017 ONSC 2836 (CanLII)
​

At the Rowbotham hearing the Crown argued there had not been full and complete disclosure of financial records: no bank accounts, no tax returns assessments, no loan agreements with mother and the companies

They said Millard and his mother had taken as series of "artificial, deliberate and reversible" steps to put his money out of reach. These included granting power of attorney to Burns, making her administrator of Wayne's will, her becoming sole officer and director of the Millard companies, disposing of Millard's assets, and applying for receivership.

"Those five steps artificially intended to put assets out of reach, make it appear as if they aren't liquid and available," the Rowbotham Crown said.

Regarding the Rowbotham Hearing and your canlii, that hearing was adjourned pending the Judge’s request to the receiver to release partial funds to enable Motions to be heard. (refer the last paragraph of your link).

But the issue of facilitating money to pay for DMs legal defence didn’t end there. According to the Judge’s timeline in the document below, further funds were made available from WMs Estate. Rather than the court agreeing DM had hidden money available and therefore didn’t qualify for legal aid, it appears the Judge was intently focused on pursuing the release of funds that DM didn’t have direct access to, facilitated through the receiver.

(I’m not noticing any nefarious activity related to DMs mother considering a court appointed receiver was involved. I think we can agree that during trials or hearings, what the Crown or defence might allege doesn’t become a fact unless it’s proven to be true?)

Then it goes on......although eventually DM would’ve had adequate funds arranged by the court to pay for a reasonable defence for LBs trial, he procrastinated in obtaining legal representation to such a great extent that the Judge eventually proceeded to trial. (IIRC this also is the basis of DMs appeal of the verdict in the LB case.)

*****

“.... Hainey J. ordered the Estate to pay the Receiver almost $1 million in proceeds of the sale of Millard Properties Inc.’s main asset on the basis that Millard had an “equitable interest” in these proceeds. In this regard, Hainey J. accepted the Receiver’s submission as follows (at para. 18):

The Receiver submits that Millard’s personal funds were used to repay the amounts owing by Millard Properties to RBC. This in turn allowed Millard Properties to sell the Waterloo Hangar for a total purchase price of $4,800,000. Therefore, Millard should have access to those funds to enable him to fund his defence to the murder charge.

Hainey J. ordered the Receiver to use these monies “to pay Millard’s reasonable defence costs in connection with his current murder charge”;

• on July 17, 2017, Millard appeared before me. I asked whether he had now retained counsel for trial, in light of Hainey J.’s favourable Order. He advised that he had not. He acknowledged that he had sufficient money to retain counsel but that now the issue was preparedness for trial, “whether with or without counsel,” as Millard put it.....”

CanLII - 2017 ONSC 4548 (CanLII)

 

[MistyWaters]

That there was no bankruptcy is not an opinion, it’s a fact.

That’s true, “there was no bankruptcy” because the two companies are still in receivership.

DM was required to pay off the RBC loans to prevent RBC from pursuing further legal action against either him, Millardair or his father’s estate. It’s unknown if either company still has other debt outstanding and we don’t know the separation between Millardair and Millard Properties.

It’s possible the Bosma family attorneys already have a good inkling there’s not going to be much left when all is said and done.

“....But for the Bosma family, the simple principle of going after Millard in court means more than any financial windfall, Chapman said.

"It's more just holding him accountable," she said.

Tim Bosma's father, Hank, echoed that sentiment in a text message to CBC News.

"It has never been about the money … we just want to move on with our wonderful memories of Tim," he said....”
How the 'slayer rule' could keep millions of dollars away from Millard's victims | CBC News

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I'm only understanding 1/3 (if at all) of the whole financial construct and it's effects. Because I'm too stupid for the matter, my thoughts are: It seems "worth it", to be a divorced ex-wife of a wealthy man and have one single child only, which at the end of tens of years having a difficult existence re solely nursing/educating/working (WM) switches the father off.

 

[Errrr]

No one has ever said he was flush.

The evidence is clear that he had a cash flow problem.

But you can have a cash flow problem and still have lots of non-liquid assets.

This issue here is we've never had a clear accounting of Millard's and his father's assets.

And, once again, the judge who handled the Rowbotham hearing, described him as a "wealthy young man."

Except you don't need cash flow to get a mortgage or closing costs, just assets. Sounds like the judge thought he was flush.

 

[deugirtni]

If he he was as flush as people say, he wouldn't have needed to do that.

Except you don't need cash flow to get a mortgage or closing costs, just assets. Sounds like the judge thought he was flush.

In Canada, to get a mortgage, you have to provide a down payment. He would have required at least 20% down (I'm not sure if it was 20% at that point in time or 25%?) in order to avoid CMHC's involvement on that purchase (which I'm assuming he wouldn't have wanted, since it incurs additional costs of its own)... the purchase price of the condo was said to be $627,524, so he would have had to pull at least $125,500 out of.... somewhere? If the man had lots of assets, it doesn't matter, he still required at least that amount of cash on hand to have made that condo purchase that day, which he seemed to be having difficulty coming up with at that moment.

 

[Satchie]

In Canada, to get a mortgage, you have to provide a down payment. He would have required at least 20% down (I'm not sure if it was 20% at that point in time or 25%?) in order to avoid CMHC's involvement on that purchase (which I'm assuming he wouldn't have wanted, since it incurs additional costs of its own)... the purchase price of the condo was said to be $627,524, so he would have had to pull at least $125,500 out of.... somewhere? If the man had lots of assets, it doesn't matter, he still required at least that amount of cash on hand to have made that condo purchase that day, which he seemed to be having difficulty coming up with at that moment.

He could, however, have gotten a line of credit for the downpayment, by borrowing against his other real estate. He owned multiple high value properties, apparently mortgage-free. The problem might have been, those homes were already being used as collateral for the hangar, so the banks were possibly objecting to yet more loans on them.

The problem was, he wanted out of the hangar business, but he didn't want to sell the hangar. I guess his attitude was, where would I keep my toys?

I think he was wealthy, but it was all tied up in real estate and in the proposed business, it wasn't, as they say, liquid, or easily turned into cash.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

People with money and accountants/lawyers doing work for them keep their assets out of the business. Millard Properties likely owned the hanger and rented it out to Millardair for tax purposes. Could be other registered companies or trusts involved in the ownership structure to muddy the waters further.

Millardair would take a loan rather than using WM own assets because if the business goes down, the bank can only go after the corporations assets and not WM's personal assets (assuming his properties/assets weren't used to secure the loan)

 

[MistyWaters]

Ever since I began following this particular case it leaves me with a feeling of sadness when thinking about the life of WM and his wasted hopes and dreams for DM to carry on the family business, Millardair.

Was WM so isolated that nobody cautioned him about high risks involved in the new hanger venture he embarked on? Or was he just plain stubborn with the intent to prove himself by stepping out from the shadow of his late father who, after renting out hangers at Pearson for decades, earlier planted the MRO seed?

Regardless if DM is found Guilty of Murder or not, I’m certain this tragedy serves as an extreme example of what not to do in terms of family business management and succession planning.

This is a widely known family business statistic - only 30% survive the transition from first to second generation and just 12% to the third. While the exact percentages could be argued, the odds against future generations capably managing grandpa or grandma’s thriving business is not a hidden secret in the business world.

This article talks about it.

Why Families Lose their Fortunes in Three Generations
.....For a telling example of the adage "shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations" – meaning that wealth gained in one generation will be lost by the third – Canadians don't have to look far.

Under the helm of his great-grandsons, the famous retail empire founded by Timothy Eaton went from boom to bust, although in this case it took four generations.......

.....Yet among the most compelling causes are younger family members who are ill-prepared or unwilling to shoulder the responsibility of wealth stewardship. They have grown up with plenty of money and are a step or two removed from the work ethic and drive of the people who made it for them.......

........almost as much time and effort should be spent in preparing the heirs to receive the wealth as actually investing and managing it.......

.....Most owners of multi-million-dollar family businesses are keenly aware of the destructive consequences of not doing so, says Susan Bell, executive vice-president at the investment consulting firm Bell Kearns & Associates Ltd. in Toronto.

"I would say that almost every client who walks through the door has come to us already knowing two things," she says. "One is that shirtsleeves to shirtsleeves in three generations is true, and secondly, that there are many families out there who have been very publicly ripped apart over the money.

"But I would say the one that keeps them up at night, the one that worries them, is the family deterioration.".....”
Why wealthy families lose their fortunes in three generations

 

[deugirtni]

It seems that everyone is basically saying the same thing, in that he was wealthy on paper, but not so much in actual available cash. When one gets a mortgage, the banks also like to know how the loan payments are going to be serviced. I'm not sure DM even got a mortgage for the condo purchase, I remember reading at one point that he had intended on paying cash for it. I'm not sure how much his tax returns were showing as far as his annual 'income' (and it seems he also had a hefty debt owing to CRA). He was eager to shut down the operations of the 'hangar', but yet still had the mortgage and other expenses to pay on it. He was interested in flipping houses, but seemed he wasn't necessarily keeping monies available to play the game with. jmo.

 

[MistyWaters]

People with money and accountants/lawyers doing work for them keep their assets out of the business. Millard Properties likely owned the hanger and rented it out to Millardair for tax purposes. Could be other registered companies or trusts involved in the ownership structure to muddy the waters further.

Millardair would take a loan rather than using WM own assets because if the business goes down, the bank can only go after the corporations assets and not WM's personal assets (assuming his properties/assets weren't used to secure the loan)

Yes the two companies may have been set up like that, as you say.

According to trial testimony, the company loans were required because of cost overruns and to pay employees and buy tools. Somewhere else I recall reading, although I don’t have the link at the moment so not a fact, Millardair had insufficient funds to fully pay the builder of the hanger, who agreed to carry a mortgage.

If either of those situations were true, banks do not look fondly upon business operators who lack ability to accurately forecast their business finances and are forced to seek 11th hour financing. One trial witness testified he believed WM was required to put up the family home in order to inject more money in the business. Court documents also state both DM and WM personally guaranteed the company loans. Nowhere have I noticed the total indebtedness in the name of the business/s mentioned. And aside from routine operating costs, lease payments, 11 mechanics and 5 managers on payroll, Millardair yet had no signed contracts so possibly there were operating loans as well.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Any word on when the verdict is this month?

 

[Jasper52]

Any word on when the verdict is this month?

I think it is the 25th, iirc.

 

[MsRyber]

Through all of DM's lies and hyperbole, I have to think that his utterance to MS about needing to quickly make 10k a month was a whole lot of truth. Even if inflated, the debt servicing costs must have been gigantic.

It really would have been no problem for the hangar to get profitable. If you had been out to Waterloo Regional Airport back in September 2011 (for Open Doors Waterloo Region) it was no secret that the hangar was expected to be massively busy. It was under construction and it was all anyone was talking about on that day (September 17th). It was literally the biggest facility of the expansion. When WestJet started operations at YKF in 2007, there was really no dedicated maintenance facility that could even service all of their fleet flying in and out. They couldn't fly 737's in as the airport was at that current time. Let alone FIT their 757's and 320's. WM knew that. He also knew that there was a need and the growth of YKF would require that hangar if they wanted to expand. This was well in the works in 2009 when he knew Waterloo Region had approved a $9m expansion that had been developed in 2008. After wrangling about leasing the property and other crap, the permits came July 2011. People often wonder what took so long between the meeting Millard had (July 2010) and the start of construction (July 2011). YKF had to do the infrastructure, servicing, utilities, etc. that had to be done before their construction could begin. And they had to honour their own lessors and do the expansion around WestJet and their other clients. The hangar was built in like 7 months, IIRC. We went out there a bunch to watch it be built. He had just received Transport Canada certification on November 1, 2012. Then he was killed.

DM may have cancelled the cert, but he was still stuck leasing that hangar at $1800 a month, plus property taxes, utilities, etc. That itself would have been nearly 1/3 of that 10k figure he whined to MS about, not to mention the cost of the mortgage (not sure how much of the $6.4m was a loan).

DM needed cash. The hangar, without planes in it, was a massive albatross.

 

[Arnie M]

Some recent pictures of the hangar with Chartright operating it
So clean you could eat off the floor

Google Maps: Report Inappropriate Image

 

[beedais]

Some recent pictures of the hangar with Chartright operating it
So clean you could eat off the floor

Google Maps: Report Inappropriate Image

The picture with the sunset is beautiful but reminds me far too much of a fire light flaring there in a video during the Bosma case.

 

[redheart]

Any word on when the verdict is this month?

I think it is the 25th, iirc.

It looks like it's September 24th. Decision in Dellen Millard murder trial expected in September, judge says | The Star

 

[tmar]

I think it is the 25th, iirc.

I thought early Sept, then mid Sept, now 24 Sept.
As we've waited so long, I guess we're almost there.
Hope we'll be celebrating, as having verdicts, that majority don't agree with, is horrid for us all.

 

[Satchie]

DM needed cash. The hangar, without planes in it, was a massive albatross.

RSBM

Thinking about your post a bit, there's also the question of how long the airport authority and the banks would allow him to use the hangar as his personal garage. It was a potential public scandal, since the airport had invested so much. I don't think DM would have voluntarily sold the hangar like a normal person would eventually have to do.

I think it gave him a grandiose sense of superiority and power that may have contributed a lot to his murder spree. It seems he killed his father primarily to keep the hangar for himself, and he used it as an essential part of covering up his other murders.

It's hard to imagine how he thought it could continue. His energy and effort was channelled into extreme means to acquire a 'stupid truck', and yet the whole hangar deal was headed for big trouble. Did he imagine he could also kill the airport executives and bankers to get what he wanted?