OTTAWA -- The lawyer for Dennis Oland says his client does not want to be "haunted" by the prospect of another unsuccessful bail hearing if his second murder trial takes an "unfortunate turn."
The Supreme Court of Canada reserved judgment Monday after spending the morning hearing arguments over when a convicted killer should be let out on bail pending an appeal.
It's a rarity in Canada -- Oland's lawyers have found only 34 cases and none in his native New Brunswick -- but a number of jurisdictions say they'd like more clarity on how appeal courts should handle such bail applications.
Oland, 48, was twice denied bail last spring following his conviction for the second-degree murder of his father, well-known New Brunswick businessman Richard Oland, who was bludgeoned to death in 2011.
The original bail hearing judge ruled that releasing the high-profile murder convict while Dennis Oland appealed his conviction and life sentence would cause the public to question the justice system.
However after serving 11 months in prison, Oland won a new trial on appeal and is currently a free man.
His lawyer, Alan Gold, told the Supreme Court that he wants the New Brunswick bail rulings to be overturned, even though they are now moot because Oland has been released from custody.
"That decision should be declared to have made an error in law so that it cannot come back to haunt us on some unfortunate turn of events in the future," said Gold.
A cross-section of interveners -- from the Criminal Lawyers Association to attorneys general from three provinces -- all agreed the bail provisions need to be clarified by the top court, because they are currently interpreted differently across the country.
But the nine Supreme Court justices appeared to be genuinely struggling to understand how they might offer legal guidance in what one judge called a highly "contextualized" debate.
In order to grant bail to a convicted person, a judge must be satisfied the appeal grounds are not "frivolous." The court must also be satisfied the person is not a flight risk and be assured that neither public safety nor the public perception of the administration of justice are at risk.
The Supreme Court arguments circled around how courts should weigh and assess public perceptions.
"There are so many variables, it seems to me, we ought not, perhaps, be trying to get too terribly specific about this," Justice Michael Moldaver said during one exchange.
Oland's lawyer said the successful appeal and pending new trial make it self-evident that the bail judge had erred in rejecting Oland's bail bid.
But Kathryn Gregory, responding for the Crown, said deference should be paid to the findings at trial and that the public expects sentences to be enforced.
"It's almost trite to say that the public has a serious concern about individuals convicted of murder being immediately released or very shortly released upon the imposition of a life sentence," observed John Gordon, representing British Columbia's attorney general.
"What is at issue today is the public confidence component."
Michael Lacy, an intervener for the Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario), said courts should seek something more than simply non-frivolous grounds for appeal before granting bail that might cause public disillusionment -- particularly for cases where the trial has produced disturbing evidence.
But Levy cautioned against setting the bar too high or making a blanket rule that applies to all convictions.
"The danger here is that this case becomes an opportunity where we move away from this liberalized access to bail-pending-appeal, which is one of the hallmarks of our criminal justice system in Canada and distinguishes us in a very significant way from other jurisdictions," said Levy.
Oland, a financial adviser, was in the court with his wife Lisa Andrik-Oland but left after the hearing without speaking to reporters.
