Dennis Oland's bid for bail appeal granted by Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of Canada has agreed to hear Dennis Oland's appeal of a New Brunswick court decision not to grant him bail while he appeals his second-degree murder conviction.

The court directed its registrar to set the appeal for a hearing as early as possible in the court's fall session.

It is a first step toward Dennis regaining his freedom.- Alan Gold, lawyer for Dennis Oland

The country's highest court does not give its reasons when it states whether it will grant leave to appeal a case.

"Obviously, we are delighted," said lawyer Alan Gold of Oland's legal team.

"It is a first step toward Dennis regaining his freedom," he said.

"But obviously it is a crucial first step."

Oland, 48, was sentenced to life in prison with no parole eligibility for 10 years after being convicted of second-degree murder in the 2011 bludgeoning death of his father, multimillionaire Saint John businessman Richard Oland.

• Dennis Oland's lawyers seek expedited decision from Supreme Court on bail review
• Dennis Oland's bail appeal not issue of 'national importance,' Crown argues
• Dennis Oland asks Supreme Court of Canada to hear bail case

In custody since Dec. 19

Oland has been in custody since being found guilty on Dec.19, 2015, after a three-month trial in the New Brunswick Court of Queen's Bench.

The conviction is being appealed to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal and is scheduled to be heard beginning Oct. 18, provided a transcript of the trial is prepared by then.

Olandalso fileda motion to be released on bailpending the hearing and the decision in the appeal. But Court of Appeal Justice J.C. Marc Richard denied the motion, stating "the confidence of the public in the administration of justice would be undermined" if a convicted murder were to be released pending appeal.

Richard's decision was later upheld by a three-justice panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.

No hearing likely before October

The Supreme Court's fall session typically begins in October. This year's opening date of the fall session has yet to be confirmed.

Gold was pleased bythe court's instructions for the registrar to schedule the hearing as soon as possible in the fall session.

"We appreciate the court wants it heard as quickly as possible," he said, adding that Oland's legal team is prepared to argue the case "at a moment's notice."

Oland's mother and wife released a statement through their lawyer that called the decision "welcome news."

"Our feelings are what any family would experience in our situation," statedmother Connie Oland and Lisa Oland in the statement. "We are obviously very emotional.

Dennis's absence these last few months has been incredibly difficult.- Statement by Connie Oland and Lisa Oland

"We hope this decision brings us a step closer to Dennis regaining his freedom. Dennis's absence these last few months has been incredibly difficult, and has compounded the loss and anguish our family has suffered since Dick's murder."

'Model candidate,' argued lawyers

The Criminal Code of Canada allows bail to be granted, pending appeal, if the appeal is not frivolous, the convict's detention isnot necessary in the public interest, and the convict agrees to surrender into custody at the appropriate time.

In seeking leave to appeal the bail decision, Oland's lawyers stated the case provided an opportunity for the country's highest court to clarify the legal test for granting bail pending appeal.

"The leave application is based on the fact that appeal courts across Canada have expressed divergent opinions on the legal test for bail pending appeal," stated lawyer Bill Teed on behalf of Oland's lawyers at the time the application was filed.

Oland's lawyers stated in their application that Olandwas a "model candidate" for interim release and his case could "provide clear guidance" on when bail may be granted pending appeal.

"At present,there is surprisingly no consensus," stated Oland's lawyers Alan Gold, Gary Miller and James McConnell in their 38-page application.

The Crown argued there was no need for the Supreme Court to hear the bail arguments because the case doesn't raise "a matter of national importance."

The Crown said "it is overreach" for Oland's lawyers to suggest the case is of national importance.