Dennis Oland's lawyers seek expedited decision from Supreme Court on bail review

Dennis Oland's lawyers have asked the Supreme Court of Canada for an expedited ruling on whether it will review a New Brunswick court's decisionto twice deny him bailpending the appeal of his murder conviction in the death of his father.

Their application for leave to appeal, which was filed with Canada's highest court on April 29, was made public on Tuesday, along with their motion to expedite the application.

Oland's lawyers contend he is a "model candidate" for release and thathis case could help clarify an important legal issue for the country.

"In the absence of a constitutionallyprotected right to bail pending appeal, along with a dearth of clear guidance from the Supreme Court of Canada, it has fallen to Courts of Appeal to determine the varying legal bases upon which such bail may be granted," the 38-page application states."At present, there is surprisingly no consensus."

"By granting leave in this case, this Honourable Court will have the opportunity to provide clear guidance on what should be, for Canada, the appropriate formulation of the test, a matter of central importance to the administration of criminal justice."

• Dennis Oland asks Supreme Court of Canada to hear bail case
• Dennis Oland's fight for bail pending appeal could go to Supreme Court

Oland, 48, is serving life in prison with no chance of parolefor at least10 years, after a jury found him guilty in December of second-degree murder in the 2011 bludgeoning death of his father, prominent businessman Richard Oland.

New Brunswick's highest court rejectedOland'spreviousbid to be granted bail justlast month.

Court of Appeal Chief Justice Ernest Drapeausaid in hisApril 4 rulinghe was "duty bound" to uphold an earlier decision to deny Oland bail on thegrounds thatreleasing a convicted murderer pending appeal could shake the public's confidence in the justice system.

Drapeau noted, however, that Oland's grounds of appeal of his conviction"appear to be serious."

Oland'sappeal of his conviction is tentatively scheduled for Oct. 18-21, provideda transcript of his three-month trial can be prepared on time.

"To speak plainly, eight months is a long time to spend waiting in prison and, in any event, that may fall far short of the full measure of time until the decision," Oland's lawyers argue in the Supreme Court application.

No one convicted of murder in the province has ever been granted bail and there have only been 34 such cases across Canada, according to the defence.

Oland has been seeking release since Feb. 12, the day after he was sentenced.

On Feb. 17, Court of AppealJustice J.C. Marc Richard had ruled "theconfidence of the public in the administration of justice would be undermined" if a convicted murderer were to be released pending appeal.

Oland's lawyers, however, in their Supreme Court leave application, argue his case raises two issues of "national interest and public importance."

• When and to what extent should courts consider the strength of the underlying grounds of appeal as part of the 'public interest' component of the test?
• What is the standard applicable to a reviewa decision on bail pending appeal?

"The answer to these questions will fundamentally define the liberty interests of all convicted persons in custody awaiting an appeal,"argue Alan Gold, Gary Miller and James McConnell.

Supreme Court decisions on leave applications take, onaverage, three months, according to the court's website.

Judgments on appeals are rendered, on average, sixmonths after the hearing of the appeal, it states.

The body of Richard Oland, 69, was discovered lying face down in a pool of blood in his Saint John investment firm office on July 7, 2011.

He had suffered 45 sharp and blunt force injuries to his head, neck and hands. No murder weapon was ever found.

His son was the last known person to see him alive during a meeting at his office the night before.

Oland'slawyers contend the guiltyverdict was "unreasonable" in the circumstantial case.They argue the trial judge erred in allowing certain evidence and in his instructions to the jury.