Man who killed 5 at Calgary house party to remain at group home after failed bid for more freedom

A man who stabbed five young people to death at a Calgary house party nine years ago will remain confined to a group home following a ruling Thursday from Alberta's highest court.

The Alberta Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal launched by Matthew de Grood — upholding a 2022 decision by Alberta's Criminal Code Review Board, which determined he still poses a significant risk to public safety. 

De Grood, who is currently living in a supervised group home in Edmonton, had sought either an absolute discharge, which would free him from review board supervision, or a conditional discharge that would allow him to live with his parents in Calgary while being monitored under a full warrant.

A three-member panel of judges ruled unanimously Thursday that de Grood failed to raise any "reviewable error" made by the review board, and rejected claims from his lawyer that political interference had tainted the board's decision.

"[De Grood] is undoubtedly much less dangerous now than he was then. However, his transition to unrestricted life in the community will not happen overnight," the judges wrote in their decision.

"However, on the evidence on this record, it was reasonable for the review board to conclude that the appellant still poses a risk of serious violent behaviour." 

Thursday's decision follows a September 2022 ruling from the review board that de Grood should remain in the group home and that his ongoing detention was necessary to protect the public.

De Grood was 22 in April 2014 when he fatally stabbed Zackariah Rathwell, Jordan Segura, Kaitlin Perras, Josh Hunter and Lawrence Hong.

At de Grood's first-degree murder trial in 2016, a Calgary judge heard that in the hours before the stabbings, de Grood sent ominous messages and told friends he thought the end of the world was imminent.

A judge found that de Grood was delusional at the time of the killings and did not understand his actions were wrong. He was found not criminally responsible due to undiagnosed and untreated schizophrenia. 

The freedoms and privileges he has been granted since then have rested with the review board. Every year, the board reviews de Grood's case to determine if and when he can safely transition back into the community. 

In 2019, the board allowed him to live in a group home in Edmonton after his treatment team reported he was in remission and a "model patient." 

After that decision, then-justice minister Doug Schweitzer said publicly he would advocate for changes regarding the standards of release and committed to requesting the Alberta Review Board ensure a maximum role for victims at hearings.

De Grood's lawyer, Jacqueline Petrie, argued before the Court of Appeal in June of this year that her client has been stable on medication, is a low risk to reoffend, and should be allowed to reintegrate into the community.

Petrie told the court that the 2022 review was procedurally unfair and tainted by political interference, and that members of the board were "directly recruited" by the provincial government.

She accused Schweitzer of interfering by stacking the board with members who were aligned politically with the provincial government.

She also argued that the board misunderstood medical evidence provided during the 2022 review about de Grood's lingering symptoms.

Thursday's ruling found no evidence of political influence over the proceedings and no evidence of bias on the board.

It also found that concerns about the misinterpretation of de Grood's medical assessments were without merit. 

"While the appellant characterizes these as examples of the board ignoring or misunderstanding key evidence, they are merely factual findings with which the appellant does not agree," reads Thursday's decision. 

"It is not the role of this court to re-weigh the evidence … the board's finding that the appellant still poses a risk to the public did not turn on any one of the many discrete factors disputed by the appellant.

"The board is an expert tribunal including both lawyers and doctors and its findings are amply supported by the record." 

A judge ultimately ruled de Grood was delusional at the time of the offences and did not understand his actions were wrong.

Families of the five victims have repeatedly opposed any additional freedoms or privileges for de Grood.