The parole denial for a first-time Canadian offender involved in the 2022 Coutts border protest has raised concerns about bias and fairness, especially given the common approval of parole for violent criminals.
Anthony “Tony” Olienick, who was convicted of mischief and weapons offences and sentenced to six and a half years in prison, was denied parole last month despite meeting several key criteria typically considered by the Parole Board of Canada.
True North obtained exclusive access to the Parole Board’s written decision in Olienick’s case, and the rationale has left supporters puzzled.
Meanwhile, others with far more serious criminal records — including violent repeat offenders — have been granted release, raising serious questions about consistency and transparency in Canada’s parole process.
Olienick, who was arrested peacefully in February 2022, had no previous criminal record. His charges stemmed from his participation in the politically charged blockade at the Coutts, Alberta border crossing — part of the nationwide “Freedom Convoy” protest movement.
By contrast, Tyrell Evans — an Ontario man granted parole last year — had a long and violent criminal history before being released. Just months after receiving parole, Evans allegedly attacked a woman with a knife in a luxury West Vancouver apartment, then engaged in a prolonged police standoff.
Evans’ past charges include attempted murder, pointing a firearm, assault with a weapon, possession of a firearm obtained by crime, carrying a concealed weapon, and multiple violations of previous probation orders.
Despite this extensive history, Evans was deemed suitable for parole. Olienick, with a clean record and positive assessments, was not.
According to the Government of Canada, approximately 70% of federal offenders are denied full parole at their first review. The Parole Board assesses each case based on three key factors: criminal history, institutional behaviour, and the presence of a viable release plan.
Each factor is intended to gauge an individual’s likelihood of reintegration and risk to public safety. The stated goal is to make decisions that are fair, impartial, and evidence-based.
Rather than viewing Olienick’s lack of a criminal record as a positive, the Board interpreted it as a red flag — describing his 2022 charges as a “severe escalation in criminal offending:”
“You had no prior criminal record before the index offence,” the decision reads, “which makes this a significant and concerning leap in behaviour.”
This interpretation contradicts typical parole logic, where a clean record is considered a mitigating factor.
The Board acknowledged that Olienick’s institutional behaviour had been “unproblematic,” but then dismissed his clean record while institutionalized as irrelevant:
“As positive institutional behaviour is not necessarily correlated with positive behaviour in the community,” the Board stated, “this is a neutral factor in the assessment of risk.”
Such a dismissal seems inconsistent with how this criterion is usually treated in parole hearings.
Finally, a community release plan assessment report confirmed that Olienick would live with either his mother or a close family friend, both of whom expressed full willingness to support his reintegration. The Parole Board described both reports as positive.
And yet, despite meeting the stated criteria, Olienick’s application was denied.
But perhaps most troubling is the parole decision’s acknowledgement that because Olienick’s crimes were “politically motivated” they should be provided greater weighting when it comes to balancing justice with public safety:
“Your willingness to use potentially lethal violence to effect political, economic or social change is completely inconsistent with the notion of a safe and secure democratic society,” said the Parole Board of Canada in its decision.
“As found by the Court,” the document continues, “your offence was politically motivated.”
Notably, no language in the Parole Board’s official mandate explicitly allows for harsher treatment of offenders whose crimes are politically motivated, as opposed to apolitical acts of violence.
In its decision, the Board further states:
“Through the use of inappropriate thoughts and justifications, you convinced yourself of the righteousness of your criminal actions… While external factors are certainly contributors and triggers, the deeper issue is your own cognitive processes, decision-making and justifications.”
True North contacted the Parole Board of Canada to clarify whether politically motivated crimes are considered more serious than other offences but did not receive a substantive response.
Observers of Olienick’s trial have additionally raised concerns about how the Parole Board interpreted key findings from court proceedings.
“The trial judge found as fact that you possessed firearms for the potentiality of entering into a shootout with the police,” the Board wrote in its decision.
Supporters of Olienick, however, strongly dispute this interpretation. They argue that the firearms were not intended for aggression, but for self-defence — a claim that was never clearly rebutted in court.
“He wasn’t sitting around waiting to kill cops — he was sitting around waiting to defend himself,” said Danielle Sledette, a childhood friend who attended much of the six-week trial in Lethbridge.
“He didn’t know that was illegal, and to be honest, I still don’t think he fully understands.”
Multiple requests for comment and clarification from the Parole Board of Canada remain unanswered.