The 12-year-old boy's legal team had initially hoped to seek bail in youth court Tuesday, but withdrew the request.
Lawyers then ironed out unspecified conditions under which he'd be able to pay his respects.
"It's not a special permission, actually what it is (granted) for is compassionate reasons or humanitarian reasons," said Crown prosecutor Marie-Claude Bourassa.
"What was discussed today in front of the judge is just to make sure that the court takes notice of the conditions."
The boy is currently under the care of youth protection and will be accompanied by two employees for a predetermined period of time.
His family indicated through lawyers last week they wanted the accused freed so they could grieve together.
The boy appeared unmoved as he appeared for a third time since his arrest. One of his lawyers, Karine Doherty, told the court the defence wasn't prepared to proceed with bail Tuesday. They asked for postponement to a later date when they'll make the request.
More evidence was disclosed in the case and Doherty said they needed more time to prepare for bail.
The boy was charged with manslaughter after his 16-year-old sibling was shot to death on Jan. 21 at the family home in Dorval, a suburb in western Montreal.
The accused is also charged with illegal possession of a loaded, prohibited weapon.
The identity of the accused and the victim cannot be revealed because they are minors. The circumstances of what happened have not been made clear.
The accused pleaded not guilty to the charges during his initial appearance.
If found guilty, he faces a maximum three-year sentence.
The victim's visitation is scheduled for Wednesday and a funeral is set for Thursday.
The next date in the criminal case is Feb. 8, when a bail hearing may be set.
The Crown has said it will continue to oppose bail whenever it is requested.
"Under the law, specifically when a firearm is used, it's the gravity of the offence and the situation of the youth (that's considered)," Bourassa said.
The accused also agreed to not speak to four people somehow linked to the case and who may testify at an eventual trial.Suggest a correction