Some members of Alberta s legal community are asking whether the review board process has been politicized, and if so, what that means for people whose lives…
Article content
Jordan Kankam celebrated his 28th birthday with takeout, using his small monthly allowance to order ginger beef from a Chinese restaurant in northeast Edmonton.
Few restaurants deliver to Alberta Hospital Edmonton, a psychiatric facility on the outskirts of town. The hospital is at the end of a bumpy two-lane road, and once the driver gets there, the wooded complex of institutional buildings is like a maze. Kankam met the driver outside the Helen Hunley Forensic Pavilion, returned to his room, and ate alone.
We apologize, but this video has failed to load.
Try refreshing your browser, or The Matthew de Grood case reshaped Alberta s mental health review board Back to video
Court of Appeal restores privileges for man who killed 5 at Calgary house party
The Alberta Court of Appeal has restored some privileges for a mentally ill man who fatally stabbed five young people at a house party seven years ago.
A provincial mental health review board ruled last September that Matthew de Grood was making progress as a patient at Alberta Hospital Edmonton, but he would not be allowed to go to a group home.
The Appeal Court says the hospital decision was not reasonable, since de Grood’s schizophrenia has been in remission since 2015 and he has had no troubling behaviour.
Alberta Court of Appeal to issue ruling on Matthew de Grood s freedoms
The province s top court is set to rule on whether the Alberta Review Board was fair when it rejected the recommendations made by Matthew de Grood s treatment team.
Social Sharing
It said that de Grood, 29, still posed a significant threat to the safety of the public.
His lawyer argued earlier this month that the Alberta Review Board failed to properly consider evidence from his client s treatment team when it removed the overnight passes, which had previously been granted, and seemed to engage in speculation and dwell on what-ifs.
The Appeal Court agreed. We are satisfied that the board’s decision to rescind some of the privileges the board granted Mr. de Grood on September 17, 2019 is not reasonable and is unsupported by the evidence, wrote Justice Thomas Wakeling in the decision released Monday.