In the Milgaard case, the Minister of Justice initially dismissed his application and then his mother approached the Prime Minister. After that a reference was sent to the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court looked at the evidence and heard from a lot of witnesses. In its decision, it recommended to the minister that it could be referred back to Saskatchewan for a new trial.
When it's referred back for a new trial, under the common law, I think the superior court in Saskatchewan would have had the authority to determine whether Mr. Milgaard could be released or detained pending that new trial. It didn't get to that, because a stay was entered, as you pointed out.
Section 679 deals with release pending a review, or release after the commission in the future makes a reference for a new appeal or a new trial that the court of appeal is the court that should hear that application for a release. I think I articulated the test. It's the same thing as if it were a conviction appeal.