A Hells Angels hitman serving a life sentence is challenging the Parole Board of Canada’s decision to revoke his day parole, claiming it unfairly prioritizes the victims' families over his own statements. Dean Daniel Kelsie, in his early 50s, is incarcerated for the 2000 shooting death of Sean Simmons in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia. Simmons was killed after having an affair with the wife of a Hells Angels member. In a recent appeal, Kelsie argued that the board's decision was unduly influenced by the emotional testimonies of the victims' families. He expressed confusion over why their statements were given more weight than his own explanations. "You submit that the board’s reasons demonstrate that the victims directly influenced the board’s decision," the Parole Board's Appeal Division noted in its ruling. Kelsie’s day parole was revoked on March 18 after it was reported that other inmates at the Quebec halfway house where he was staying felt unsafe around him. His case managers were unable to find another facility willing to accept him. In June, Kelsie appealed the decision, claiming the board failed to uphold principles of fundamental justice and fairness. The Parole Board countered that it must consider the victims' statements, which highlight the ongoing trauma caused by Kelsie’s actions. The Appeal Division found no evidence that the board was unduly influenced by these statements. It concluded that Kelsie’s right to be heard was respected during the hearing. During the appeal, Kelsie described the perception of him as intimidating as a "misperception from others," noting that he had never been double-bunked before, which contributed to his adjustment issues. He claimed he has not engaged in violence since 2015 and has been working on his behavior. The Appeal Division acknowledged Kelsie’s explanations but maintained that it was within the board's discretion to determine he lacked insight into his behavior. The board noted that Kelsie’s support from the halfway house was withdrawn despite his commitment to a behavioral contract. Kelsie admitted to having committed serious crimes but insisted he has changed. He argued that the decision to revoke his release was unreasonable, as it did not adequately explain why his perceived negative attitude increased his risk of reoffending. However, the Appeal Division stated that the board was justified in considering both positive and negative information before making its decision. The board highlighted Kelsie’s violent criminal history, including a recent conviction for uttering threats during a previous period of day parole. The Appeal Division concluded that it was reasonable for the board to find that Kelsie was unable to modify his behavior despite his claims of personal growth.