No. I would not have answered if that had been the case.
I have absolutely no connection to that case, but I am glad of that you brought up the question, because it is a case where a reverse onus exists in the Criminal Code. Because someone was killed, it is a murder. So reverse onus already applies. According to what I saw and read in the media—I do not know the file—it seems plain and obvious that the defence is going to claim self-defence.
I have the honour of teaching each year in the criminal law program of the Federation of Law Societies of Canada. Strange as it may seem, this was exactly the example that we used in our workshops last year. We had to decide if someone is guilty of the murder of a police officer if he believes that he is the victim of a home invasion. Life is strange sometimes: a very similar event happened a few months later.
I am happy that you raised that question, because it is a case where a reverse onus applies. The person was released on bail, because it was shown that he deserved to be released under paragraphs 515(10)(a), (b) and (c) of the Criminal Code. But this is extremely rare. Reverse onus does not mean that the person will not be granted bail. It just means that the accused must show why he should be released.