Susan Clairmont: Appeal bid denied in Mark Staples case

A failed appeal by a man who murdered his father and sister for a $1.4 million inheritance was paid for by taxpayers because the convicted killer ran out of money.

The case, which began more than 24 years ago when Bill Staples and Rhonda Borelli vanished from their Binbrook farm, had its appeal unanimously dismissed by the Court of Appeal for Ontario in a decision released April 1. Mark Staples, found guilty of two counts of first-degree murder in 2014, maintains his victims were away on a short vacation when they were killed, placed in the back of Bill's pickup truck and left in a parking lot at the Toronto airport. Their decomposed bodies were found nearly six months later.

Bill had extensive skull fractures and had been beaten to death," says the appeal decision. The cause of Rhonda's death was undetermined, but it was theorized that her throat had been cut."

A jury decided Staples killed Bill and Rhonda on the farm and disposed of their bodies. His motive, the Crown theorized, was that his golf business, Mulligan's, was failing and he stood to be the sole heir of his father's fortune if he was the only surviving family member.

Though Staples was publicly identified as the prime suspect in the murders by police and Bill's friends and neighbours, he continued to live in Hamilton until his arrest 12 years after the killings. At the time, he owned a $329,000 house in Dundas and worked as a heavy equipment operator.

He is 59 now and serving a life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years.

The case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, much of it provided by neighbours. At trial, the Crown attorneys repeatedly emphasized Staples' demeanour and conduct in the weeks after the disappearances, citing such things as: his weeping at a time when there still seemed little reason for concern; a fire built at the farm and zippers, coins and buttons being found in the ashes; his cleaning of a shed floor where a large pool of Rhonda's blood was later discovered; his jeans being found in the washing machine after the shed was cleaned.

Lawyers Michael Lacy and Carol Cahill, who represented Staples in the appeal, argued that trial judge Justice Harrison Arrell failed to properly instruct the jury on how to consider the post-offence" behaviour.

They argued there could be many explanations for Staples' demeanour and conduct.

The appellate lawyers said Crown counsel particularly crossed the line during closing arguments to the jury as he recounted Staples' reaction when a homicide detective showed him photos of Bill and Rhonda's decomposed corpses.

He did not look away," Anthony Leitch told the jury. He did not say take them away. He made no comment about Detective Arnold showing him those photographs. Instead, he was cold and clinical, looking coolly at the disturbing remains of this adoptive father and sister. I suggest this was not the reaction of a man who had nothing to do with this crime, but rather the reaction of a cold, calculating killer."

(Leitch is now a judge with the Ontario Court of Justice in Hamilton.)

Justice Grant Huscroft, writing for the Court of Appeal, said: I agree this comment should not have been made ... it suggested that there is a normal way to look at the remains of your deceased family members, and this is clearly not so."

But ultimately, the appeal judges decided Arrell's instructions to the jurors amply dealt with that issue and all the others.

So the appeal was dismissed. Staples now has 60 days from the decision date to apply for a leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.

But who will pay for that?

He paid the fees of his trial defence team through an agreement made with the Ministry of the Attorney General (MAG) after he was turned down by Legal Aid Ontario (LAO). He was loaned as much as $500,000 by MAG and court records available in 2017 indicated he had been repaying the loan on schedule, at least prior to his conviction.

That same year, the Court of Appeal recognized Staples had burned through the inheritance he'd killed for and was once again broke. It appears much of it went to his own legal expenses.

(Rhonda's son, four years old at the time, inherited nothing.)

The court also recognized Staples had the right to legal representation in an effort to appeal his conviction and so - after turning him down once due to his lack of financial transparency - eventually granted funding to cover his costs. The money came through MAG after LAO again refused.

If Staples were to pursue his case to the Supreme Court, he would no doubt need more money to fund his endeavour. And that could mean taxpayers would be on the hook. Again.

Susan Clairmont is a justice columnist at The Spectator. sclairmont@thespec.com