Posted by 
Susan de Grood knows the immense pain and sorrow her son caused. But she insists: “if you know Matthew, he’s not the monster people like to believe he was.”
In their first interview since Matthew fatally stabbed five people at a house party in 2014, Susan and her husband Douglas are speaking out about the case that made them one of the most infamous families in Calgary.
Their decision to speak publicly comes after a court ruling dismissing claims of political bias on the part of the Alberta Review Board, which has governed Matthew’s fate since the 2016 court ruling finding him not criminally responsible (NCR) for the murders of Lawrence Hong, Joshua Hunter, Kaitlin Perras, Zackariah Rathwell and Jordan Segura.
Matthew is currently living in a group home in Edmonton under 24-hour supervision after the review board deemed him a “significant” threat to public safety.
His lawyer, however, argues the decision is not a reflection of his actual risk, but rather the result of “pressure” not to release him.
Despite the Alberta Court of Appeal’s ruling, and stressing their sympathy for the victims’ families, Susan and Douglas said they are no longer confident the review board will uphold their or Matthew’s rights in the face of what they believe is a campaign to keep their son under its authority for the rest of his life.
‘Incapable of … knowing that his actions were wrong’
Matthew de Grood was a 22-year-old University of Calgary psychology graduate preparing for law school when he grabbed a knife at an end-of-semester house party in Calgary’s Brentwood neighbourhood.
As the party was winding down, de Grood stabbed Rathwell, then attacked Segura and Hunter, who he later chased down the street. De Grood also stabbed Perras while she tried to escape, and Hong while he dozed on the couch.
Another party guest eventually disarmed de Grood, who fled into the night. While hiding in a dumpster, he slashed his wrists. Calgary police officers with a dog team eventually tracked him down and arrested him after a brief struggle.
While in custody, de Grood made a series of bizarre statements about religion, politics, prophecies and aliens, claiming he was defending himself against “medusas and werewolves.” He carried a clove of garlic taken from his job as a Safeway produce clerk — one in a string of references to vampires made before and after the killings.
De Grood was charged with five counts of first-degree murder. After a trial in 2016, Justice Eric Macklin concluded that while he killed the victims, de Grood was not criminally responsible because his untreated schizophrenia “rendered him incapable of appreciating or knowing that his actions were wrong.”
The ruling, and the ensuing sentence to an indefinite period in a psychiatric facility, were immediately controversial. Some suggested Douglas de Grood’s status as a Calgary police inspector had afforded his son special treatment. Others suggested Matthew’s educational background made him well-equipped him to fake mental illness (a conclusion dismissed by Macklin and multiple psychiatric experts).
Since the NCR verdict, public outcry has greeted review board-approved changes to de Grood’s privileges.
In 2019, the board permitted de Grood — then detained at Alberta Hospital Edmonton — to apply for unsupervised day passes into the city, the first step into transitioning him to a supervised group home.
Then-UCP justice minister Doug Schweitzer was unhappy with the move, acknowledging people “frustrated and disturbed” by the decision.
Schweitzer said he would formally ask the review board to “ensure a maximum possible role for victims” in the hearing process and lobby Ottawa for a review of standards of release. When the review board chair resigned in the aftermath of the comments, Schweitzer doubled down, saying she was a partisan appointment by the NDP.
Vacant review board positions were later filled with people de Grood’s lawyer claims were directly recruited by government, some who have political ties. His privileges were revoked by the board in 2020 (despite no request being made by de Grood’s treatment team, the hospital or the Crown), before being restored by the Court of Appeal in 2021.
In de Grood’s appeal last month, Jacqueline Petrie argued her client is facing in the review board “arbiters who were recruited by the provincial government for the express purpose of ensuring he is not discharged or granted further privileges.”
The Court of Appeal shot down this argument, calling it “unsubstantiated innuendo.”
‘Trying to make him pay’
Susan de Grood said she’s nevertheless seen the board become more “adversarial” since the 2019 decision. She was particularly disturbed how the board handled a privacy breach involving one of the victim’s parents.
The parent, who worked for Alberta Health Services (AHS), repeatedly accessed private health information about Matthew and his parents, including their addresses and contact information. The de Groods were told by the Information and Privacy Commissioner that the person had been sanctioned by AHS, though no details were given. Crown prosecutors determined the case did not meet the threshold for criminal charges.
The parent’s victim impact statement also contained what Petrie said “could be regarded as implied threats.” She added that some of the families had posted unedited versions of victim impact statements that had been redacted by the board for “inappropriate content.” Petrie said other online posts have “implied, or encouraged, vigilante action and retribution toward the appellant, and his parents.”
Petrie asked the board to allow the victims’ families to give their victim impact statements, then close portions of the hearing dealing with sensitive personal information on the grounds it might be disclosed. The board denied the request.
“There is a safety factor here, because the information is such that, if it is posted (online), and somebody decides to come hunt us down, what recourse do we have?” Susan de Grood said.
She believes the review board — which by law is supposed to determine conditions that maximize and NCR patient’s liberties while protecting public safety — has become an annual re-litigating of Matthew’s trial.
“The focus of the board isn’t now about what Matthew did and how he’s supposed to get better,” Susan de Grood said. “The focus is still trying to make him pay for what he did, and reminding him every year of what a horrible person he is.”
‘Low’ risk to re-offend, but risk of severe violence remains: doctor
In 2022, the review board opted to continue restricting de Grood to a group home. Board members acknowledged that while he is in some respects a “model” patient, he has no history of independently taking his medication and suffered two instances of “decompensation” in 2019 and 2021.
A doctor concluded that while Matthew is a low risk to re-offend, any violence if he does would likely be severe.
Susan de Grood counters that her son’s schizophrenia has been deemed in full remission. She said he has never been anything but compliant with his medication. Their appeals aren’t about fast-tracking their son, she said, acknowledging that doing so could be disastrous.
“We’re just fighting to (have him) progressed the way he’s supposed to be progressed.”
She believes those in the system, including doctors, are scared to grant new privileges to Matthew, “not because of his progress, (but) because of what they think the public will say.”
She worries how her son’s case will impact other NCR patients, some of whom spend longer in the review board system than if they’d been criminally convicted.
Susan de Grood said the review board should recognize “there are six families impacted by this, not just five.”
“We feel great sympathy (for the victims), but we also have to protect our son.”
De Grood’s next annual hearing has not been scheduled but will likely take place this fall.
