Top court says Oland wrongly denied bail

OTTAWA — Dennis Oland was wrongly denied bail pending an appeal of his second-degree murder conviction, the Supreme Court of Canada says in a judgment that clarifies the grounds for granting release to people who challenge a finding of guilt.

The unanimous high court ruling Thursday had no immediate effect on Oland’s highprofile case, given that he is no longer in custody while awaiting a new trial.

But the 9-0 decision breaks new ground on bail eligibility in appeal matters and is therefore almost certain to have influence beyond the sensational New Brunswick case in which Oland was initially convicted of killing his father.

Well-known businessman Richard Oland was bludgeoned to death in his Saint John, N.B., office in July 2011, and his son Dennis, now 49, was convicted in 2015.

He was sentenced to life in prison with no chance of parole for 10 years.

Oland appealed in January of last year and sought release, but the bail request was turned down — a decision that was later affirmed by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

Oland was subsequently granted release by the same court last October, when a new trial was ordered after he had spent almost a year in prison.

That effectively made his appeal to the Supreme Court moot.

Nevertheless, his lawyers continued to pursue the bail eligibility matter with the aim of clarifying the issue in cases that turn on the question of public confidence in the justice system.

In a statement Thursday, Richard Oland’s brother Derek said: “We are pleased with today’s Supreme Court of Canada decision and continue to believe Dennis is innocent.”

In denying bail last year, a New Brunswick judge said that while Dennis Oland posed no danger to the general public, the seriousness and brutality of the crime weighed in favour of his detention.

The judge was not persuaded that granting bail would uphold public confidence in the administration of justice.

A three-judge panel of the Appeal Court agreed with the decision, saying that while it was a “judgment call,” there was no error in law.

In its ruling, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Justice Michael Moldaver said in the court’s reasons for the judgment that Parliament did not restrict the availability of bail pending appeal for people convicted of murder, or any other serious crime, “and courts should respect this.”