The man convicted of murdering Heather Thomas is approved for 60 days outside prison. Who decided, and under what rules?

On Oct. 1, 2000, 10-year-old Heather Thomas was near her father's townhouse complex in Cloverdale, B.C. At Shane Ertmoed's 2002 trial, the jury heard that he lured her into his home and killed her when she resisted a sexual assault. He was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life. On Sept. 2, 2026, the Parole Board of Canada approved a 60-day absence from prison for a cooking program.

"I'm afraid and I'm afraid for the children, because I know what he did to my daughter and I know he will do it again."

Heather's mother, Jody Aspin, to Global News

The six questions

Who decided?

The Parole Board of Canada, after a hearing. For lifers, the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (CCRA) gives the Board "exclusive jurisdiction and absolute discretion" over unescorted absences (s. 107(1)(e)).

What?

A 60-day unescorted temporary absence (UTA) "for personal development for rehabilitative purposes."

When?

Appeal dismissed 2006. Escorted absences since 2021. Day parole denied January 2025. Approved Sept. 2, 2026. The Sept. 28 start was postponed; no reason given.

Where?

Reports do not name his current prison, the facility or the program. In January 2025 he was at William Head Institution in Metchosin, near Victoria (Times Colonist).

Why is it allowed?

CCRA s. 116(1) lets the Board approve a UTA if there is no "undue risk to society," a listed purpose, a structured plan, and behaviour that doesn't rule it out. Section 116(6) allows up to 60 days, renewable, for a specific program. Lifers become eligible three years before their full parole date (CCRA s. 115; Criminal Code s. 746.1).

Three positions on the decision

As quoted from the decision in news reports:

• The Board found his risk "will not be undue." It cited progress in treatment, arousal-reducing medication and escorted absences completed "without concern," and said the absence offers "opportunities not available within the prison setting" to address his risk.
• His case management team did not support it: "Their view is that your risk cannot be managed safely." It cited limited staff availability, possible stress from public attention, and a poor fit with his goal of plumbing work.
• Heather's mother and a childhood friend opposed it, telling the Board he "should remain in prison until you die."

Conditions and safeguards

As reported, he would live at a residential facility under 24-hour supervision, return nightly, work 4.5 hours a day, five days a week, with a Red Seal chef, and be escorted whenever he leaves. Conditions bar contact with Heather's family or friends, keep him out of more than 30 B.C. municipalities and four provinces, and restrict his contact with girls under 18 and his access to internet devices.

The Board can cancel it before or after it starts (CCRA s. 116(10)). The prison's head can suspend it (s. 117(3)), and a breach triggers an arrest warrant (s. 118). Police must be notified beforehand (s. 25(2)), and victims may request dates, conditions and destination (s. 142).

What's established, claimed and unknown

• EstablishedThe Board approved the absence. His case team, Heather's mother and a friend opposed it.
• ClaimedBoth risk findings are judgments; the underlying assessments are not public.
• Claimed (reports)Full parole eligibility. Abbotsford News says November 2025, a date Parole Board officials gave Black Press in 2021; that article also said 2027. Unconfirmed.
• UnknownWhether he has left prison; why the start was delayed.
• UnknownThe full decision, released only on request; 5W1H has not seen it.

The law's history

The rules date to the 1992 Corrections and Conditional Release Act, with roots in 1974. They have not changed in substance since.

• 1974–76: The three-year rule for murder lifers applies from 1974; the Board takes over some lifers' absences in 1976.
• 1992: The CCRA sets today's framework.
• 1995–97: The three-year limit is re-enacted in the Criminal Code (now s. 746.1).
• 2012–2026: Three Acts amend nearby rules (non-lifers, wording, police notice, victim information). Lifer eligibility is unchanged.

What could change it

Barring such absences would take an Act of Parliament amending the Criminal Code (ss. 745, 746.1) and the CCRA (ss. 107, 115–116), within Charter limits. The Supreme Court has held that life without a realistic possibility of parole violates s. 12 (R. v. Bissonnette, 2022) and that retroactively delaying parole eligibility violates s. 11(h) (Canada (AG) v. Whaling, 2014).

Related bills: C-53 (2015) would have barred UTAs for a new life-without-parole sentence; it died at dissolution. C-232, requiring maximum security (and so no UTAs) for dangerous offenders and multiple first-degree murderers, was defeated June 10, 2026. C-235, at report stage, would allow 25–40 years of parole ineligibility in future abduction, sexual assault and murder cases. None would affect this case.

Sources