McGill University in Montreal, Canada, is facing a growing controversy after a convicted murderer serving a life sentence began attending law classes while on day parole. The case has divided students over campus safety, the university’s handling of the situation and whether a former prisoner should be allowed to continue his education as part of his rehabilitation.The dispute intensified after students raised concerns about the university’s failure to inform them of the man’s criminal history. An open letter called for restrictions on his campus access, while another group of students and alumni has urged the university to allow him to return to his studies.
Who is the man at the centre of the controversy?
The student is Jeffrey George Ewert, now in his 60s. He was convicted of second-degree murder and attempted murder following two violent attacks in British Columbia in 1984.According to a summary of his case in his parole board file, Ewert sexually assaulted and killed a woman and, less than six weeks later, beat and choked a 15-year-old girl, leaving her paralysed and permanently disabled.Ewert is serving a life sentence and was granted day parole in 2025 after spending about 40 years in prison. Day parole allows an eligible prisoner to live in the community under supervision and conditions while continuing to serve their sentence.He began attending classes at McGill’s Faculty of Law in August 2026. He was also attending faculty events before the university controversy came to light.Parole documents cited in reporting say clinical assessments had placed his risk of reoffending in the moderate-to-high range. However, the documents indicated that close supervision in a halfway house and clinical follow-up could bring the assessed risk into the moderate category.
Why are students demanding action?
The controversy came into public view after students learned about Ewert’s criminal history and questioned why the university had not informed them.Some students said they felt vulnerable because they had not known about his past. They argued that advance information about the situation and the safeguards in place would have helped them make informed decisions about interacting with him.An open letter from students called for the university to address concerns about campus safety, risk assessment and the absence of appropriate safeguards and consultation.The letter also made allegations about Ewert’s behaviour on campus and online, including claims that he had been inappropriately physical with female students, some of whom were minors, and that his online activity reflected harmful attitudes towards women.
Why are some students defending his right to study?
Not everyone at McGill believes Ewert should be excluded from campus.A separate petition, drafted by three law students and signed by more than 100 students and alumni, argues that barring him from attending classes undermines his access to education and rehabilitation.The petition acknowledges concerns about student safety but argues that exclusion without a finding of misconduct or a conversation about the circumstances is unfair.“We are asking that Jeff be given the chance to do what the rest of us are doing, which is to attend class and learn,” the petition says.“A ban from the premises, with no conversation beforehand and no finding of misconduct, takes that chance away.”Annica Dickens, one of the petition’s authors, said “public discomfort should not, on its own, be treated as proof that someone poses a threat.”She added: “His past is serious, and I don’t want to minimize the harm experienced by his victims or their families. But we also have to consider who he is today, his behaviour since then, and the safeguards that are in place.”
What does his lawyer say?
Ewert’s lawyer, Nora Demnati, has said McGill knew about his criminal history and parole status when he applied to study law.She has described him as an example of rehabilitation and said his admission to the university followed years of legal advocacy while he was in prison.Demnati has also argued that information about his conduct should be considered in the context of his parole conditions and the supervision he receives.Following the publication of the students’ allegations, she said Ewert shared the letter’s contents with his parole supervisor and was working with his case management team.His parole conditions include restrictions on entering drinking establishments, requirements to report relationships with women and provisions allowing his case management team to access his telecommunications activity.Some of these conditions were introduced after concerns about his interactions with women online, including viewing social media profiles and using a dating site without informing his case management team.Demnati has argued that isolated information can lead to incomplete or prejudicial conclusions when considered without the full context.“Mr Ewert recognizes that his past has caused harm, and he understands that it can make people, particularly women, uncomfortable. That discomfort is legitimate and he does not minimize it. He also remains mindful of the harm caused to his victims,” his lawyer said.
What has McGill University done?
Ewert has not been on campus since October 6, 2026, and the university has been reviewing its response to the situation.McGill has declined to discuss the details of the individual case, citing privacy laws. It has said that criminal background checks are not typically part of Canadian universities’ admissions processes.The university has also said it would act if concerning information about a student’s background or behaviour were brought to its attention and would work with relevant government bodies where necessary.Provost Angela Campbell told the university community that a “fair process” was underway to balance the rights and interests of everyone involved.Law faculty dean Tina Piper also sought to reassure students, saying the university’s priority was the safety and well-being of members of the faculty.