U of O Watch mission, in the words of Foucault...

"One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." -- Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

U of O Watch mission, in the words of Socrates...

"An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all." -- Socrates

video of president allan rock at work

Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Allan Rock distances himself from family’s medical marijuana business


Former minister of health uses his name to secure a government license for family business, while still university president, in view of Liberal party plan to legalize marijuana...

http://metronews.ca/news/ottawa/1373556/allan-rock-distances-himself-from-familys-medical-marijuana-business/

"Rock – whose term as president and vice-chancellor of the university ends next year – offered an explanation for why he is listed as the president and a director of the numbered company.

“The only reference to my name in this matter is related to the home I jointly own with my wife. The home was used as collateral to finance the purchase of a parcel of land for the proposed project,” he said.

“The purchased land was placed in a separate company and, as co-owner of the home, I became a director of that company, whose only purpose is to hold title to the property: that does not mean in any way that I am involved in the licence application or the proposed business.”

He says his sole focus is on his job at the university."

Possibly relevant flashback: "[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

Allan Rock, president of U of Ottawa, involved in medical marijuana business


Allan Rock, president of U of Ottawa, involved in medical marijuana business (LINK)

by Haley Ritchie, Metro News, May 19, 2015

Comment: Now if Justin were to be elected and legalizes (as opposed to decriminalizes) marijuana, this little business venture could really take off, and the campus bars could soon recover a 1960s feel. The new Rock family business appears to be a hopeful bet on Trudeau?

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Professor Mark Mercer asks Attorney General to intervene to protect the right to freedom of expression in Ontario


OCLA press release: ENGLISH / FRANCAIS

The letter is posted here: OCLA-LINK.

May 19, 2015

The Attorney General of Ontario
Constitutional Law Branch
4th floor
720 Bay Street
Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1
fax: (416) 326-4015

Hon. Madeleine Meilleur:

Re:    Notice of Constitutional Question, Court of Appeal for Ontario File No. C59074
    St. Lewis v. Rancourt

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) is a proponent of freedom of expression for all Ontarians, on all issues. OCLA is concerned that freedom of expression is in decline in Ontario.

You have been served with a Notice of Constitutional Question (“Notice”), in the above-cited appeal that is listed to be heard in Toronto on Friday, June 26, 2015. A copy of the Notice is attached.

The questions raised in the Notice are vital constitutional questions about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantee of freedom of opinion and expression for all citizens of Ontario.

Defamation law is the main legal instrument used to infringe or deny the Charter right of freedom of opinion and expression, and it is the dominant government-sponsored source of chill against free expression in our society.

OCLA asks that you intervene in this appeal in order to protect the Charter right of expression for all citizens of Ontario. This is particularly important because the defendant/appellant in this case is self-represented, while being opposed by a major law firm being financed without limit using public money.

The common law tort of defamation is in direct opposition to the Charter right of expression, and it is the only tort in which both malice (of defamation) and damages are presumed, rather than needing to be proved by the plaintiff. In this tort, the defendant has a reverse onus to show that the particular defamation is protected by law by virtue of a pleaded common law or statutory defence.

Under such legal circumstances, it was an egregious violation of the appellant’s Charter right of expression for the trial judge to refuse to put the defendant’s defences to the jury, which were pleaded defences that were never struck out, and for which there was ample supporting evidence on the trial record.

OCLA asks that you make a representation in this appeal that barring pleaded and standing defences in a defamation trial is incompatible with the Charter right to freedom of opinion and expression.

The second of three constitutional issues in the Notice is that the recent common law of permanent injunctions (permanent gag orders), against a defendant following a finding of defamation, includes permanent prohibitions of unknown expression, and is thus unconstitutional.

The said common law has never been challenged previously in an appellate court in Canada.

This unfortunate recent development in Canadian common law is at odds with Canadian values of freedom of expression, and the said common law expressly discriminates on the basis of financial means.

OCLA asks that you make a representation in this appeal that the said recent common law of permanent injunction in defamation cases is incompatible with both Charter and Ontario values.

Finally, the Notice challenges the constitutionality of massive costs of trial against an individual defendant, opposed by unlimited public money, in a defamation case.

The excessive chill on expression from extravagant defamation-trial costs ordered against a defendant, while not actually paid by a private plaintiff, is evident. In this case, the trial court permanently barred a blogger from future unknown expression because he has no money, and then turned around and ordered him to pay the huge legal costs of trial, even though the costs had already been paid in full using public money.

Furthermore, such a costs order, in the circumstances of this case, is in violation of Canada’s (and Ontario’s) obligations under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

OCLA asks that you make a representation in this appeal to argue that costs such as those ordered in the circumstances of this case are an unreasonable suppression of the Charter right of freedom of opinion and expression.

Your contributions in this appeal are essential to ensure that the law constraining the Charter right of freedom of opinion and expression is consistent with the values of Ontario’s free and democratic society, and with international obligations.

Yours truly,

Mark Mercer, PhD
Chair, Department of Philosophy, Saint Mary’s University
President, Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship
Member, OCLA Advisory Board

Department of Philosophy
Saint Mary’s University
923 Robie Street
Halifax, NS
B3H 3C3

Ontario Civil Liberties Association
180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 204
Ottawa, ON
K2P 1P5

(Letter footnotes are excluded, see link for original.)

Wednesday, May 13, 2015

St. Lewis v. Rancourt -- Notice of Constitutional Question


This (LINK) is the May 12, 2015, Notice of Constitutional Question, in the appeal listed to be heard on June 26, 2015, at the Court of Appeal for Ontario, in Toronto; in the defamation case St. Lewis v. Rancourt.

The Notice is to inform the Attorney General of Canada, and the Attorney General of Ontario, that the appeal will include constitutional claims or challenges, which are described in the Notice.

There are three claims argued in the Notice:

  1. That the trial judge infringed or denied the defendant's Charter right to freedom of opinion and expression when he barred the jury from considering any of the pleaded defences.
  2. That the ordered permanent injunction for unknown expression is unconstitutional.
  3. That the costs of trial infringe the Charter right to freedom of opinion and expression, and are a violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

All/most court-filed documents in the appeal are HERE.

The factums (arguments) for the appeal are linked HERE.

The full court transcript of the trial is linked HERE.

Saturday, May 9, 2015

St. Lewis v. Rancourt -- Court Reporter Transcript of the Entire Trial

https://archive.org/details/00ALL15DatesFinalAndCertifiedTranscriptsWAllSigsOCR

There were 15 days (or partial-days) of hearings in the trial in the case Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt, including all trial motions and jury selection.

The first day was a hearing of a defendant's (Rancourt) recusal motion, heard on May 7, 2014. The last day of trial was the judge's reading of his reasons in making a permanent injunction against the defendent, on June 6, 2014.

The entire official court reporter's transcript of all the hearings in the trial is available HERE.

Rancourt and a few other participants spoke in French, and the court's language-interpretation from French to English (done on the fly) is included in the transcripts.

APPEARANCES / WITNESSES

Justice Michel Z. Charbonneau, trial judge

Richeard Dearden, plaintiff's lead lawyer
Anastasia Semenova, plaintiff's lawyer
Peter Doody, lawyer for the University of Ottawa, opposing the defendent

Denis Rancourt, self-represented defendant


WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Joanne St. Lewis, plaintiff

Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa
Camille Nelson, expert witness
Charlynne MacCharles, plaintiff's counselor
Bruce Feldthusen, former dean of common law section, University of Ottawa
Denis Laberge, plaintiff's brother-in-law
Jacqueline Yvette Beckles, department of justice lawyer and plaintiff's friend
John Curie, law professor, University of Ottawa
Robert Major, former VP-Academic, University of Ottawa
Saron Gebresellasi, law student, University of Ottawa
Sileen St. Lewis, plaintiff's mother
 

* * *

The CanLII interlocutory, trial, and appeal rulings in the case are here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html#search/id=st.%20lewis%20v.%20rancourt

Links to all/most court-filed documents in the case are here:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/stlewislawsuit.html

An appeal hearing has been listed at the Court of Appeal for Ontario for June 26, 2015, at 10:30 AM. See links to factums (arguments) on appeal in THIS blogpost.

Wednesday, May 6, 2015

Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt -- Appeal will be heard in June 2015


The appeal from the trial decision in St. Lewis v. Rancourt was recently listed to be heard at the Court of Appeal for Ontario on June 26, 2015, at 10:30 AM.

The self-represented appellant's factum (Rancourt's argument) on appeal is HERE. The factum summary reads:

SUMMARY — In this defamation trial, among other errors, the judge circumvented the jury by saying that the defendant (a blogger) had “no defence”. The judge said: “The defendant here has not introduced any evidence establishing a defence. Therefore, there is no defence for you to consider.” In fact, the defendant had explained his defences to the jury on the first day of trial and more than sufficient evidence to establish his defences was entered by the plaintiff while the defendant was present.

The respondent's (St. Lewis's) responding factum is HERE

The private respondent's/plaintiff's legal-costs are entirely funded by the non-party University of Ottawa. The defendant's pre-trial motion that this funding was improper and constituted maintenance and champerty was dismissed prior to trial. (See court documents HERE.)

The appellant made two motions to the Court of Appeal, which were determined prior to the listing for hearing of the appeal:

1. A first motion was for the appellant to obtain non-public communications made during trial between the defendant's lawyer and the trial judge. This motion was dismissed. The motions judge decided not to order disclosure of the communications.

2. A second motion was to overturn a Registrar's decision, based on a technicality, to not accept the filing of the appellant's supplementary factum respecting costs of the trial, in which it was argued that the costs were unconstitutional. The motion was dismissed and the supplementary factum (HERE) was denied filing.

Tuesday, May 5, 2015

This gameshow host gave cash to U of O. Who is Alex Trebek?


Jeopardy! host Alex Trebek has building at the University of Ottawa named in his honour --Ottawa Citizen

  • Mr. Rock deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management, anonymous no less (LINK).

It seems to us that anonymity would be an important discussion point in any “donor recognition” or donation ethics policy.

Since that time, Mr. Rock has always found a way to make these announcements after the academic year, when the students are gone and are in no position to express their views on the selling and buying of the U of O name.

It appears that the U of O doesn't mind not training brain surgeons (LINK), and wants to train more gameshow hosts.

Monday, May 4, 2015

U of O receives notice of intent to withdraw accreditation of neurosurgery program


U of O receives notice of intent to withdraw accreditation of neurosurgery program
--Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen, May 4, 2015


U of O Watch has learned: 

This is the second notice of possible loss of accreditation that the U of O residency program in neurosurgery has received in the last 5 years.

In those 5 years, three directors of the program have resigned: John Sinclair, Richard Moulton, and, most recently (after receiving the latest notice), Charles Agbi (see staff list).

Also in those 5 years, the program hired a needed star neurosurgeon, in the person of Dr. Amin Kassam, but failed to retain Dr. Kassam, who stayed very briefly.

This is the program that in 2011 fired an MD allegedly for leading a human rights complaint, according to a leaked email which is on the public court record (see articles tagged "medicine").


(Sinclair / Moulton / Agbi)


Wednesday, April 15, 2015

Year 7: Allan Rock discovers the utility of universities

On April 14, 2015, school administrator Allan Rock gave a speech at the Economic Club in Toronto (LINK).

As Mr. Rock ends his second mandate at the U of O, having supervised seven years of building-construction growth and of assimilating Franco-Ontarian culture, he has now discovered ...:

“My message here today is that if our universities are given the tools they need, and if they build stronger relationships and new partnerships with industry, they can be the centrepiece of a national strategy to overcome the performance gaps holding us back. Universities can help make Canada the most innovative country in the world”

OK, but universities are of provincial jurisdiction, a fact that Rock has tried hard to deny with all kinds of UN-inspired globalization pet projects... Otherwise, brilliant idea. Especially from a former minister of industry who was not exactly known for helping to "make Canada the most innovative country in the world".

He was more known as minister of health for arbitrarily denying reparations to victims of tainted blood, and as the guy who made Canada safer (ahumm) with a gun registry that went somewhat over budget and never impacted crime rates.

He was also known for accepting what appeared to be a bribe:

"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

Then, he was shipped off to the UN for a cure. Coming out, he was the perfect guy to run a university... ?

It was worth it, with this latest discovery of how to fix Canada. Thank you Mr. Rock.

Oh, and this little sound track of Mr. Rock illustrating his open-door policy by screaming at a student, for no apparent good reason: LINK.

Liberals, rah-rah-rah.

Tuesday, April 14, 2015

Michaëlle Jean to step down as University of Ottawa chancellor

Michaëlle Jean is getting out at the same time that Allan Rock leaves the ship. (LINK)

Together, they will have presided over the rape culture era at U of O, showing the way to all institutions similarly afflicted.

Part of the made-at-U-of-O solution is mandatory education on rape culture suppression, including for staff.

Will there be a media event when Allan Rock and the VPs attend their first re-education session? Will they receive the same curriculum as the deans of faculties, and will the curriculum be shared into the public domain to the benefit of all?


Sunday, March 22, 2015

"We can’t just have a protocol or policy" --Anne-Marie Roy


Forum calls for consent culture initiatives on Canadian campuses (LINK)

Student conference held on the U of O campus makes its point. Are university administrations hearing this? Where is the official forum that would have heard the students? Will resources be allocated for student-lead initiatives?

Now, leaving hockey players aside for a moment, do powerful executives ever participate in rape culture? It seems to me that the student politicians could also focus on obtaining a policy with teeth that admits that the problem can lie with deans, VPs, and presidents, rather than effectively treat the highest echelons as beyond reproach and beyond any real accountability regarding complaints, except when Allan Rock decides to throw one under the bus.

Any such policy without real and apparent teeth at the top will only serve to widen the gap between students and the top executives, and between university employees and their bosses.

Here (below) is a video look at the need to include transparency and accountability at the highest levels when it comes to rape culture. How can rape culture be changed if we condone blindness to the institution's dominance hierarchy?

Will there be transparency regarding the content and frequency of the training provided to deans? Will there be special training for VPs and the President? Will we know what that training or education consists in? Who will have the gravitas to provide that training? Will there be a final exam and grades to ensure certification?

Getting serious about rape culture must include a horizontal policy field that corrects for hierarchical power.


Friday, February 27, 2015

U of O to try to strike hockey lawsuit -- Ottawa Sun



U of O to try to strike hockey lawsuit (LINK)


"The university and its president, Alan Rock, filed a notice of motion this week seeking to strike the $6-million lawsuit filed by player Andrew Creppin."

The motion to strike is scheduled to be heard in June, when the students are away.

Wednesday, January 21, 2015

Waaaa -- Habitual dishonesty -- Turns out Allan Rock did it again -- based on the Globe & Mail article of today

With the hockey team distributed-discipline machination this time...

Remember when Allan Rock let VP-Academic Francois Houle take all the heat for a letter he instructed Houle to write to Ann Coulter (LINK)? That was something. Took him weeks to come out and admit it, after it was disclosed through access to information...

Well now the national media are reporting that Rock's "independent report" about the hockey team was (not just a disingenuous public-image maneuver as students claimed but) actually a covert preemptive tactic against anticipated lawsuits.

There you have it. Hockey team members participated in good faith in what they thought was an independent investigation, which was actually the work of Rock's hired lawyers preempting any legitimate legal action that those same hockey players might need to take to repair the damages caused by Rock.

Then that so-called "independent investigation" was used to punish the entire team but without disclosing the report to them. That's a good educational example to give: "Take that and now go and ponder why I punished you!"

The Globe & Mail reported today -- "University of Ottawa hockey team probe was part of legal strategy":

Last June, university president Allan Rock told a news conference that independent investigator Steven Gaon had delivered a report. Rock said the university fired hockey coach Real Paiement based on the finding he did not inform school officials about the Thunder Bay incident.

In a subsequent letter to The Globe and Mail, Rock said the investigation also “disclosed widespread behaviour that was disreputable and unbecoming of representatives of uOttawa and suggested an unhealthy climate surrounding the team.”

Gaon was actually hired and directed by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, which in turn had been retained by the university.

“Norton Rose Fulbright … retained an independent investigator to probe the facts underlying the allegations, in order to be in a position to give legal advice to the university on potential legal claims arising from the men’s hockey team matter,” the firm said in a submission to Ontario’s Information Commissioner in December.

The Canadian Press lodged a complaint with the commissioner’s office after the university refused to release any part of the investigation’s findings under the province’s freedom of information law.

In May, Gaon delivered not one, but two reports – one about allegations of sexual misconduct and the other on excessive drinking. Those reports were also prepared “for use in giving legal advice,” according to university lawyer David Bolger.

The university said in a June press release that Gaon’s findings would not be published “to avoid any interference with the ongoing police investigation and out of respect for the university’s privacy obligations.”

But in its submissions to the information commissioner, the university cites as its primary concern the fact that the records are considered legal advice.

Disclaimer: The statements herein about Allan Rock's "habitual dishonesty" are not statements of fact. The said Allan Rock's dishonesty has never been proven and is solely my opinion. These are my opinions based on the cited media and blog reports, and the public knowledge reported therein.

Thursday, January 15, 2015

More than twenty Gee-Gees hockey players will sue Allan Rock -- says CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/university-of-ottawa-men-s-hockey-players-to-file-class-action-lawsuit-1.2899006

University of Ottawa men's hockey players to file class-action lawsuit -- Lawrence Greenspon representing all players who aren't facing charges

CBC News, Ottawa, January 13, 2015

Unless this is settled out-of-court, Allan Rock will have left his ugly mess with the next president for the next many years.

We look forward to Rock's secret internal report being eventually released as part of litigation. Will it justify wrecking the reputations and careers of 24 university athletes?

Saturday, December 27, 2014

Reflections on 2014 with Allan Rock

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/newsmaker-university-of-ottawa-hockey-team
Allan Rock handling rape culture and the hockey team.

In 2014, Allan Rock on the one hand denied that there was a rape culture at the University of Ottawa -- despite Michaelle Jean explicitly explaining it to him at a press conference -- while, on the other hand immediately suspended the entire university hockey team.

So, on the one hand, there is no rape culture according to Rock, while on the other hand it is necessary to suspend an entire hockey team and block hockey students from graduation events, their careers, and so forth.

It seems clear that Rock's behaviour, as usual, was entirely geared towards public image management rather than anything else. Immediate firing of the coach. Immediate suspension of a prized hockey team. Frantic creation of an outside expert committee to draw up hasty recommendations. Avoidance of dialogue with student and community groups and professional associations... The message was clear: Expect a management "solution". Don't expect maturity, leadership, or a long-term process involving learning.

In 2014, globe trotting Allan Rock announced that he will be leaving the presidency. He oversaw the building of buildings, the inauguration of pet projects to save the world, a string of public image fiascoes, and the dismantlement of collegial governance at the institution.

His latest creation: The "professional training program that is not an academic program and is therefore exempt from university senate oversight" program that is not a program program... Houaaah.

U of O's dreadful experiment with a star president, lawyer, and former politician is hopefully over. One lesson is: If you can't run a ministry you should not be allowed to run a university. You can't buy enough placements on rankings to fix the damage.

Saturday, November 29, 2014

St. Lewis v. Rancourt: Appellant files motion to obtain ex parte communications

On November 28, 2014, the appellant, Denis Rancourt, in the case St. Lewis v. Rancourt, filed a "motion for directions" to the Court of Appeal for Ontario:

"SUMMARY: The judge communicated in private with the opposing counsel during the trial. I want to know what these “ex parte” communications were."

LINK to full Motion Record


Monday, November 17, 2014

Sophistry 101 -- Allan Rock on what is not an "academic program"

When lawyers run the world... It's not every day that the president of "Canada's university" overtly manufactures a novel mental construct to circumvent the statute (law) that defines the mission and governance structure of the institution.

There you have it, as reported by Student's-Eye View:

Video of Allan Rock Interview with La Rotonde

November 17, 2014
La Rotonde has posted a video (in french) of its recent interview with University of Ottawa President Allan Rock.

At 1:40 in the video, Allan Rock is asked why the university’s new Security and Policy Institute (SPI) program was not approved by the university Senate or Board of Governors.

An English translation of this segment of the video (beginning at 1:40 and ending at 3:34) is as follows (free translation):
LR: Our next question is about the Security and Policy Institute.
Rock: Yes.
LR: So, since the Board of Governors and the Senate were not consulted, we would like to know who approved the program and why there were no consultations?
Rock: Yes. Generally, when we launch a new program, whether it’s in Science, or the Faculty of Arts, or somewhere, we have a consultation and then we also have an analysis and discussions at the level of the Senate and its committees. In this case, we are talking about a program that is non-academic, in the sense that it’s not credited, it’s a program which is offered to people who are implicated in the domain, so that they can perfect their skills, in the professional sense. So, given that it’s not an academic program, we don’t need approval from the Senate and we did not initiate a consultation like we would do with an academic program. The Continuing Education Centre exists in order to give people who are already in the job market a means of improving and perfecting their professional skills — we hire people mostly from outside the university as teachers — so it’s not an academic program as such. We use the framework of the university to offer professional programs, and we also hope to generate additional revenue for the university.
Video by La Rotonde:

Monday, November 10, 2014

Student's-Eye View reports Allan Rock sham to circumvent Senate and BOG


Only a former politician could devise such a sham at a university: "our 'professional training' here is not an 'academic program'... it's just a money-maker to support our academic mission..." ah hummm.

New Interview with Allan Rock

November 10, 2014
La Rotonde has published a new interview with U of O President Allan Rock (see here).

Security and Policy Institute (SPI)

The university’s new “SPI” program was unveiled at a posh reception at the end of last summer, and has been criticized as a project of geopolitics and globalization, in part due to its funding that comes from Symantec, a major U.S. company with military ties in the U.S. and Israel.
La Rotonde asked President Rock why the SPI program was not presented for approval to the university’s Senate or Board of Governors. His reply is as follows (free translation):
“It’s a service offered by the Centre for Continuing Education. The Centre’s objective is to offer non-credited professional training. Programs are not approved by the Senate because the programs are not academic. It’s not an academic activity in the sense that it would have to have approval of the Senate because a degree is awarded. [The training] is aside from the central mission of the university and it’s a means of generating revenue to help us in our main mission, which is the academic programs. According to us, we don’t need approval from the Senate or Board.”
Rock further explained that the upper administration of the university approved the SPI program.
One would think that programs that are not academic do not belong in a university, but then again one might think the U of O is not much of a university.
For comparison with the President’s statement, S. 17 of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, the Ontario statute that governs the U of O, establishes that the university Senate is “responsible for the educational policy of the University and… has power, (a) to control, regulate and determine the educational policy of the University…; [and] (b) to determine courses of study…”

Student Code of Conduct

The spectre of a student code of non-academic conduct has returned to U of O.
La Rotonde asked for Mr. Rock’s comments about the possible re-introduction of a student Code. His response (free translation) was as follows:
“It’s up to the Working Group to decide exactly what they will recommend. I think it was in 2007-2008 that the university proposed the code of conduct, and it was not well-received. There were inadequate consultations, and all that, but I would rather not prejudge the Working Group’s report. It’s up to them to decide what their judgment is concerning the appropriate steps at present. And I imagine it’s possible that they will recommend a code of conduct, but we will have to wait for the report.
I think the most appropriate thing for me to do is wait for the Working Group’s report and to not influence their analysis or pre-judge what they will recommend. It’s up to them [the members of the Working Group] to analyze the current situation and come up with their recommendations. And naturally, we will make their report public, and we will have a discussion — we will decide what to do, but it’s not up to me to judge. I will wait for their report.”
Meanwhile, the SFUO has begun organizing to oppose the re-introduction of a student Code, according to a recent article in The Fulcrum.

Monday, October 20, 2014

U of O student union acts to inform prospective students


On October 17, 2014, the Student Rights Centre of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa distributed flyers at an administration's propaganda event to attract new students.

The flyer was entitled "Top 5 reasons not to attend the University of Ottawa".

Reason-5 on the flyer is:

The upper administration does not respect the recommendations of the University's impartial and independent assessor, the ombudsperson. In a recent investigation where she deemed there to be a "grave injustice against a student", the administration has refused to remedy the situation.

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Report on SPI inaugural event hosted by U of O and held at Chateau Laurier -- US propaganda for Canada's elite

Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, Canada (not USA?)

By Denis G. Rancourt


On September 10, 2014, the University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Canada, held a fancy inaugural event at the Chateau Laurier Hotel, off campus, to launch its new "Security and Policy Institute", with launch event/gala funded by the main donor Symantec.

This was done on two-day's notice by way of a press release, without any consultation with the university community, and without any mention of the new institute at the so-called "Board of Governers" of the university. (See background report HERE.)

I put on a jacket and went to the event, that I assumed would be a press conference. It was a sit-down banquet and all the other guests had received notice to arrive earlier and were in the middle of their meals.

Another alumnus arrived at the same time as I, a charming woman interested in U of O adventures into the realm of knowledge. The hostess at the door kindly suggested that there were only two seats left at Table #1, so we trotted out together to Table #1. Table #1 was to be found somewhere in this panorama of the grand ballroom rented by Allan Rock for the occasion:



We found Table #1 quickly enough. I did not know any of the important folks at Table #1, except Natalie Des Rosiers, the present dean of the common law section of the faculty of law, the former General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the former U of O VP-Governance who trespassed me from campus when I was still a tenured Full Professor, and who was at the meeting at which I was summarily fired and escorted off campus by police in December 2008. She was a bit self-conscious but kindly said hello -- to which I replied with a smile -- but she did not introduce me to the others at Table #1.

The table conversation was horrid. This man told the story of his poor son, it appeared, who for years wanted to served in a US-Canadian war on a front line (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), but kept being assigned elsewhere because his services were needed on other military priorities because of his extraordinary talent, etc. Nathalie politely sat beside this man and never uttered a word.

Meanwhile, my date-by-chance and I raced through the salad, main course, and caught up to the crowd at desert and coffee. Best damn ballroom chicken I have ever had, I must say. The keynote speaker was being introduced as we poured coffee.

Allan Rock was nowhere to be seen. Probably not in Ottawa, as usual. The communications guy was master of ceremony. He has moved up in the world since I use to argue with him to provide sign-language interpretation at my events on campus, but that is another story. Obedience pays.

The keynote speaker was George Friedman, Chairman of Stratfor, a US intelligence corporation. (See background report HERE.) He told us that he has a PhD that he obtained, he said, for writing a thesis that has never been cited, about matters of no interest. Ha ha.

Friedman delivered vintage US propaganda tailored to a willing Canadian elite. The cartoon depictions of "geopolitics" delivered in the 45-minute speech would hurt the brain of any informed person unaccustomed to this kind of rubbish for the managers of US interests.

At times it sounded like he was also recruiting clients from the avid-investor category. There were investor tips on where best to invest to get the cheapest world labour, since Chinese labour is no longer sufficiently cheap, and that is causing China's downfall, etc.

He explained how US presidents don't apply geopolitical strategies but rather simply solve unavoidable emerging problems that they are confronted with, blah blah. I filmed a bit of that in this video:



It was all over the map (literally), without providing any information. That tells us what he assumed about the intelligence of his audience. This was confirmed by the probing questions that followed. I could not bear any more so I ran out, after excusing myself to my date.

The whole event completely confirmed my worst scenario. Allan Rock is totally using what is left of the good name of the institution to legitimize Canada's participation in the predatory US-military economy, and to help indoctrinate the elite managers.

There was not a hint of moral examination, or of questioning the foundations of the US-Empire and the destruction that it uses to kill emerging competitors and non-compliant clients. None. It is clear that the "Security and Policy Institute" is mental-bubble fabrication for the elite managers. The degree of mental compliance in the room was nightmarish. And the students and regular teaching staff were not invited.

Disgusting. All funded by the US-corporation and military-contractor Symantec. (See background report HERE.)

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Major foreign corporation with US-military and IDF ties funds a "security and policy institute" at "Allan Rock's university" in Canada's capital



By Denis G. Rancourt


BACKGROUND ABOUT ALLAN ROCK'S NAKBA AT uOTTAWA

The University of Ottawa was a reputable institution of higher learning in Canada's capital city, before it was taken-over in 2008 by former federal politician and former Canadian Ambassador to the UN Allan Rock.

Following his appointment, Rock immediately proceeded to bring in all his own people to run the place in support of his announced pet projects to support US-colonial "globalization" and to legitimize the state of Israel, in the face of growing international condemnation of Israel's on-going war crimes in Palestine.

There was a complete overhaul of the executive team, and of the Board of Governors (BOG). The new VP-Academic, Francois Houle, disappeared shortly after the start of his mandate. The whole executive team left for one reason or another. The Chair of the BOG left, to be replaced by a retired federal senior civil servant who had been an underling of the then federal minister Allan Rock, and so on.

Rock has gone so far as to receive public condemnations from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers for administrative interferences with the student-based Israel Apartheid Week (see Appendix). He created a questionable joint law graduate degree with an Israeli university, for which there was no apparent or expressed need. He has been pressing for a "School of Government" without consulting the academic community. He accepts large anonymous donations for his pet programs. And so on.

Since Rock's appointment, damaging public relations fiascoes have followed, one after the other, somewhat like in Rock's former political career in which a colleague from his own party said that he has "shit magnets in his pockets".

The most recent matter illustrating Rock's ability to continually harm the institution's reputation has been the subject of several harsh editorial critiques in the national print media: Rock prejudicially and publicly dismissed and tarred the entire university hockey team, thereby wrecking student athlete careers, prior to any criminal charges being laid against two of the team's members.

A partial list of Rock's notorious achievements, up to 2010, in both his past political dealings and on campus, is given in the Appendix below.


A PATTERN OF UNILATERAL AND UNCOLLEGIAL EXECUTIVE DECISIONS BY ALLAN ROCK

An illustrative example of how Rock operates, is shown by student reactions to his "School of Government" brainchild, as follows (LINK).

On January 29, 2013, Sarah Tayyem, President, Public & International Affairs Association, Representative of Students from the Public & International Affairs Program, writes (in part):

"Lack of student input into the consultation process ... The consulting group did not include students in their process, and so this report does not address or cover student concerns. ... There was no student input solicited for the original consultative document, and there has been a lack of effort on the part of the University to solicit feedback from students even though we are at the heart of this proposal. GSPIA students would appreciate a consultation session, especially as we stand to be strongly affected by the proposed SoG."

Similarly, on March 4, 2013, the president of the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO), Professor Christian Rouillard, wrote THIS damning letter to Allan Rock (in part):

I am writing to you in regards to the projected School of Government. Listed as one of the initiatives on the horizon in the plan Destination 20/20, where it is introduced as «a premier centre for governance and public-policy research» (...), this project remains a mystery to most members of our university community.

About a year ago, at the Ottawa Mayor's Breakfast: Ottawa Business Journal and Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, you  explained to the members of the business community present that ... Yet, one year later, as attested by the feedback we received from many members who are themselves part of «the exceptional cluster of expertise that is already at the  University», i.e. faculty conducting research in the areas of governance, public administration, international affairs,  security and human rights, everyone on campus it seems, has been kept in the dark. No relevant information on the projected school has been formally shared by the administration. Not a word on it is to be found in the minutes of the  Senate meetings held in  the  2012-2013 academic year (...). Similarly, not a word on it is to be found in the minutes  of the Board of governors meetings held in the 2012-2013 academic year ...

Such public letters are unprecedented at the University of Ottawa.


THE LATEST ALLAN ROCK SURPRISE: A FOREIGN-FUNDED SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE FOR CANADA

On September 8, 2014, the Allan Rock university put out THIS previously unannounced press release:

MEDIA ADVISORY: Launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development at the University of Ottawa

OTTAWA, September 8, 2014  —  The University of Ottawa invites members of the media to attend the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development. The new institute will offer a unique professional development program for decision-makers working in the public, para-public and private sectors whose responsibilities require them to pay particular attention to national and international security issues.

The courses offered by the Institute will focus on sharing knowledge and best practices to help students take more informed decisions.

In honour of the Institute’s launch, internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman will present the first in a series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issues given by world-leading specialists.

Serge Blais, Director of the Centre for Continuing Education at the University of Ottawa, will be on hand to answer questions about this new professional development program.

WHAT: Lecture and inauguration of the new Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development
WHEN: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Ballroom of the Chateau Laurier, 1 Rideau Street, Ottawa

It is interesting to note that the press release announces an event to be held off-campus, that a university communications person will answer questions rather than Rock himself, that there is no mention of the funding source of the inaugural event for this new institute, and that the guest speaker is a US military intelligence expert (more below).

THIS university webpage informs us that "Symantec is the main sponsor for the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of professional development."

Symantec is a US Fortune 500 corporation, which deals in software/internet "security" (including "cyber war"), and which has strong US military and IDF ties.

Symantec's nine-member Board of Directors (LINK) includes one "Major General and Commander, United States Air Force (retired)".

Symantec has strong corporate ties with Israel and the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Symantec's country manager for Israel is Shmulik Angel. His web bio at Symentec states (LINK):

Previously, he served in the Israeli air force for 25 years. He retired from service as a Colonel and continues to perform active reserve duty in the air force and in the Ministry of Defense. Mr. Angel holds BSc. degree in Industrial Engineering and an MBA from Ben Gurion University, Israel.

The Mossad's cyber weapon "Stuxnet" is said to be "the world's first cyber-weapon of geopolitical significance". It is believed to have been developed in collaboration with the US military, and it is linked to Symantec, as per THIS media report.


IMPLICATIONS OF ROCK'S SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE

Nothing could be a better illustration of Allan Rock's zeal to make the University of Ottawa an instrument to dissolve Canada's sovereignty and to serve the US-Israeli military complex.

Now let us examine Rock's proposed inaugural lecture to launch his institute, given by "internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman". Who is George Friedman?

George Friedman is the Chairman of the US global intelligence firm Stratfor (LINK).

Stratfor is dubbed a "shadow CIA" firm, and Wikileaks has shown that 13 Canadian government agencies have high-cost subscriptions to Stratfor (LINK). "National Defence paid Stratfor $78,225 in 2011, $80,175 in 2012 and $82,200" for 2013.

In addition to obtaining actual contracts for secret services, George Friedman also spews out public "intelligence" reports, which are unabashed propaganda, about every conflict of concern to the US-Israel military. These "reports", masked as objective "intelligence" serve to legitimize the global empire's every intervention, including Israel's so-called "self-defence" against the surrounding Arab aggressors who do not accept Israel's existence and who pose a "long-term threat to its survival".

Allan Rock's star speaker is an Israeli apologist, invited just days after Israel's recent bloody massacre in Gaza. And this invited guest will deliver a "series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issue" to Canada's captive minds.

The Emperor will be pleased to learn that President Rock did not show leadership by condemning Israeli war crimes, or the massacre in Gaza. Quite the opposite, their man has stifled such discussion and replaces it with US-Israel propaganda.

Welcome to "Allan Rock's university", in Canada's capital city.


***

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009: LINK


Appendix: Rock's dealings up to 2010

PART-I : At the University of Ottawa
  • Made a commitment at university Senate (April 12, 2010) to repair the Ann Coulter freedom of expression fiasco and then "clarified" at Senate (February 7, 2011) that this "was not a commitment"
The "clarification" only occurred after physics student Senator Joseph Hickey insisted that the commitment should be honoured as agreed by Senate (LINK, LINK).

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics, again (February 2011)
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management (LINK, and below).

On February 7, 2011, the University announced a new exchange program with Israel "generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation" (LINK, LINK)

  • Lied about the origin of the infamous March 2010 Francois Houle letter to Ann Coulter  
“Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff.”
– National Post, June 30, 2010.

BC Blue blog report: HERE.


  • Hypocrisy regarding respect, restraint, civility, consideration, and a reasoned and intelligent approach…
“I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. ... [This will] lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”
– Rock-Houle letter to Ann Coulter, March 19, 2010.

Versus Allan Rock to Houle and staff:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management, anonymous no less (LINK).

It seems to us that anonymity would be an important discussion point in any “donor recognition” or donation ethics policy.

  • Was publicly accused of lying by a student representative about budget consultations
On June 2, 2010, Martin Schoolts-Mcalpine, Senator-elect for undergraduate students of the Faculty of Arts publicly called for Rock to be impeached and publicly accused Rock of have lied to him about the Faculty of Arts having been consulted in an imposed budget exercise. Rock responded by belittling the student representative who had made every effort to be consulted by his faculty. (VIDEO LINK HERE)

  • Mislead the Board of Governors with incorrect budget information
At the April 27, 2010, Board of Governors meeting Rock told the Board members in his briefing that the projected budget deficit was 25 M$ whereas he had previously told the media that the projected deficit was 19 M$ (without ever explaining how the figure jumped from 25 million to 19 million).

Rock only corrected himself to the Board near the end of the budget discussions and only after being confronted on the question during a break by graduate student union representative Sean Kelly (LINK).

  • Lied to the media to cover up his attacks against freedom of expression
““Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.”
University press release, March 24, 2010.

Rock had been sent a letter in 2009 from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) explaining that the University had violated the principle of freedom of expression by banning a student poster. And in 2010, the national media had the CCLA and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) explaining to the Rock administration that its March 2010 letter to potential speaker Ann Coulter was a violation of freedom of expression.

Therefore Rock knew that the University of Ottawa had not always promoted freedom of expression (LINK).

  • Hired a student newspaper editor in the president’s office, effectively as a reward for favourable editorial support, in violation of the paper’s rules of ethics
Quite remarkable: LINK. The student retained a senior position at the paper while he was fully salaried by Rock.

Related background articles: LINK.

  • Practiced flagrant disregard for student democratic and procedural rights
THIS letter from the student union was sent to Rock requesting urgent attention to student rights being violated by his administration.

The student concerns were disregarded and the student representatives were simply brushed off.



PART-II : Before becoming University of Ottawa president



  • Accepted what was effectively a bribe – This put an end to Rock’s political career and showed him to be “ethically challenged”
"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
– Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

In 2002 when the then Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson discovered that Minister Rock had in summer 2001 accepted a private jet stay at the Irving family salmon fishing lodge, he issued a ruling that Rock was to avoid all ministerial dealings benefiting Irving enterprises for one year. During that blackout year Rock made three significant ministerial decisions benefiting Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

On investigating the latter multimillion-dollar violations, "Wilson said it 'would have be better' if a minister other than Rock had signed the $55-million grant, but noted the signature was made by a machine on instructions from Industry officials." (Ottawa Citizen)

Rock accepted the latter whitewashing that the opposition leaders called a "complete joke" but it put an end to his political and federal judgeship ambitions.


Other well known affairs:

  • Deceived Parliament and the Canadian public regarding the cost of the gun registry: The costing reported to Parliament was overshot by one billion dollars.

  • As Minister of Justice, Rock paid 2 million dollars to Brian Mulroney for no known reason. This was never justified. (RECENT COMMENTARY)

  • As Minister of Health, Rock allowed and found justification for a dubiously discriminating attribution of reparations to tainted blood victims: Victims had to have been infected between 1986 and 1990, not before, not after.
“The offer came despite a recommendation by the report of the Krever Inquiry a year earlier, which called for compensation for anyone harmed by bad blood, regardless of when they were infected.

In just over two months, Ontario would break ranks, saying people who were infected before 1986 had waited long enough for help. The province came up with another $200 million for victims of tainted blood.

"Regardless of legal liability, all governments have a moral responsibility to Canadians who placed their faith in the blood system, and, through no fault of their own, became infected," [said Ontario Premier Mike Harris.]”
CBC media report, July 2006.

"We've done the best we can under very difficult circumstances."
– Federal Health Minister Allan Rock, February 27, 1998.

The cost of the inadequate federal compensation package was less than the gun registry budget overshoot.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Just a thought about Allan Rock and the Globe & Mail


The Globe & Mail is dedicated to the Liberal Machine. Why then did several Globe & Mail editorials so viciously trash Rock about the embattled president's hockey team fiasco? Never before seen.

(Not to diminish the magnitude of the fiasco, which may yet lead to a lawsuit or settlement.)

Rock even felt compelled to respond in fanfare, with the usual empty lines, in a desperate move to attempt damage-control.

My guess is that -- in the context of Justin Trudeau being positioned as the next Prime Minister (even Brian Mulroney is chiming in) -- the Liberal bosses and their funders do NOT want Rock and his baggage back on the scene.

The message is clear: Stay away. Do another term of destruction at the U of O if need be. You have not been cleansed of your famous "shit magnet in his pocket" image.

Too bad for the U of O that its president will not have more important matters to attend to.

Just a thought.

Monday, August 25, 2014

uOttawa's Allan Rock gets another well-deserved thrashing from the Globe & Mail -- Justice gets iced

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/justice-gets-iced-at-u-ottawa/article20178757/

Justice gets iced at U Ottawa

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Globe and Mail (not the National Post) teaches Rock a lesson about due process

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/due-process-on-ice-at-the-university-of-ottawa/article19576175/

Due process on ice at the University of Ottawa

PublishedSunday, Jul. 13 2014, 6:00 PM EDT

Allegations that some members of the University of Ottawa’s men’s hockey team committed sexual assault in Thunder Bay earlier this year are deeply disturbing. If they prove to be true, the young men involved are guilty of a serious criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But the university’s recent decision to suspend the entire hockey program for a full season is hasty and unjust to those players whose only fault is one of circumstance: They happen to play on the same team as the three alleged offenders. Twenty-one players are innocent of any crime – even an alleged one – yet they are being treated as though they are guilty by association. It’s a kind of collective punishment.

It’s a surprising verdict, coming from Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa’s president, who once served as justice minister. He justified the sweeping sanctions after an internal review – details kept confidential – showed some team members’ behaviour during the tournament in Thunder Bay “did not meet the university’s expectations of our student athletes” and “was not in keeping with the university’s values.” If that sounds vague, it is no more so than statements from the Thunder Bay Police concerning the alleged Feb. 1 incident. Their investigation is complete but they have not yet decided whether any charges will be laid. Perhaps the university’s investigators uncovered something the police missed, but unless Mr. Rock makes their findings public, it’s impossible to understand why he chose such a harsh course of action. Would it have made more sense to wait for the police to lay charges, and for those charges to be proven (or not) in court? It’s called due process, and one would think that Mr. Rock would get that.

The university’s suspension of the hockey program doesn’t just mean a couple of dozen players don’t get to play their sport. A group of people who had nothing to do with the alleged incident – some of whom weren’t even in Thunder Bay – have had their reputations tarnished, job offers revoked, and have been ostracized by peers. Mr. Rock should have waited; if any players are ultimately found guilty, the university can punish them (after the justice system does). But based on the evidence that’s publicly known, at least 21 other players have done nothing wrong. They deserve something else from Mr. Rock: the presumption of innocence.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

St. Lewis v. Rancourt: Notice of Appeal served and filed


The defendant Denis Rancourt will appeal the judgement resulting from the May-June 2014 trial of the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation case.

The Notice of Appeal has been served to the plaintiff and filed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and is posted HERE, and as a PDF file HERE.

The Overview section in the Notice of Appeal reads:

OVERVIEW

1. This appeal raises fundamental questions about:
(a)    the sufficient conditions that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, regarding financial and institutional ties, in-court procedural decisions, the charge to the jury, and express findings from the bench;
(b)    the right of a litigant to argue an abuse-of-process remedy in a defamation trial, which was pleaded in pleadings that were not stuck out;
(c)    the right of a defendant to have his pleaded defences and remedies considered by the jury in a defamation trial;
(d)    whether the charge to the jury in a defamation trial can limit the jury members to either accept or reject specified meanings of the words complained of;
(e)    whether an imbedded video that is an integral part of a web article (“blogpost”) complained of and that is essential to the context of the alleged libel in a defamation action must be shown to the jury at trial;
(f)    the limiting of a defendant’s freedom of expression by a permanent injunction that forbids future unknown statements about the plaintiff, following a successful defamation action;
(g)    costs policy principles, the Charter principle of freedom of expression, and the common law of awarding costs, for costs of a defamation trial against an impecunious defendant when there are no costs to the plaintiff.

All/most court-filed documents of both parties in the overall action and its appeals are HERE.


Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel


On June 25, 2014, guest blogger Joanne St. Lewis posted this blogpost on the SLAW legal magazine blog:

Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel (LINK)


Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Defend the right to criticize!

http://t.co/xZyHVtV9tk

Here is the answer:




Please view the story at Indiegogo and consider contributing to the Denis Rancourt Legal Defence Fund campaign: LINK

Monday, June 16, 2014

Cynthia McKinney's petition "Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt " surpasses 1000 signatures

Cynthia McKinney's change.org petition "Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt" has surpassed 1000 signatures. It is addressed to chief justices in Ottawa, Ontario, and Canada.

Ottawa Citizen articles about the petition are HERE and HERE.

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/beverley-mclachlin-scc-csc-ca-james-mcnamara-scj-csj-ca-give-a-fair-court-hearing-to-denis-rancourt
Click image for link to change.org petition

University of Ottawa paying for pointless legal battles -- Sun News

Ezra Levant interviewed Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association Joseph Hickey on May 23, 2014, about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3585179969001
Click image for link to Sun News video report

Related Links:
OCLA campaign: Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics
Cynthia McKinney's petition: Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Denis Rancourt has lost the defamation lawsuit -- Summary and update


By Denis Rancourt

TABLE OF CONTENT
  • Jury awarded damages of $350,000.
  • Permanent injunction and take down order
  • Plaintiff seeks judicial finding of contempt of court
  • Strong case for appeal
  • Need financial help and pro bono lawyer for appeal
  • Trial judge's ties to the University of Ottawa
  • Links to media reports

The last day of trial was June 6, 2014.

The six-person jury found that two 2011 blogposts on the U of O Watch blog were defamatory of Joanne St. Lewis.

The jury awarded $100,000. in general damages (the plaintiff wanted $500,000.), $250,000 in aggravated damages (equal to the amount requested by the plaintiff), and zero dollars in punitive damages (the plaintiff wanted $250,000. and to give half to the University of Ottawa), for a total of $350,000.

After the jury left, the trial judge made an order for a permanent injunction against me. The orders from the trial are HERE.

The judge's court order has forced me to remove my two blogposts complained of, and thus the links to these blogposts no longer exist: HERE, and HERE.

In addition the plaintiff, whose legal costs are paid by the University of Ottawa, orally submitted, through her lawyer, that a "show cause" hearing should be set to make a judicial finding of contempt of court against me, regarding documents published during the trial.

The judge ordered that there would be this "show cause" hearing on September 25, 2014.

The judge said in court that the September 25, 2014, "show cause" hearing could result in a jail sentence against me.

My desire is to appeal the result of the trial. I believe I have a very strong case for appeal. So does Cynthia McKinney who started the petition entitled "Give a Fair Court Hearing To Denis Rancourt": LINK-petition. The petition presently has over 900 signatures and over 200 comments.

I have a strong case because the trial judge cancelled my main ("Jameel") defence while I was trying to present it to the jury (LINK to statement on walking out of trial), and then, in his charge to the jury at the end of the evidence, the judge cancelled all my remaining defences by saying:

"The defendant has not introduced any evidence establishing a defence therefore there is no defence for you to consider."

In fact, the plaintiff had already introduced ample evidence supporting the legal defence of "fair comment", and I had explained this defence to the jury in my opening statement.

I need to raise enough money (approximately $20,000.) to pay for the required court transcripts (one cannot appeal without buying the court transcripts of the trial). And, I need to find a lawyer who will agree to do the appeal on a pro bono basis (i.e., for the public good).

The trial judge has all of his university degrees from the University of Ottawa, and is a regular and annual donor to the University of Ottawa (LINK to recusal motion court documents).

The judge gives money to the university that is using money to finance the plaintiff in the lawsuit; without a spending limit, "without a cap" in the words of president Allan Rock.  

Media links in this case are:
LINK--May 15, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 16, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 22, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 23, 2014--PressTV (TV and print)
LINK--May 23, 2014--SUN-News (TV)
LINK--June 5, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen (with video)
LINK--June 5, 2014--Ottawa-SUN (with video)
LINK--June 6, 2014--Canadian-Lawyer-Magazine
LINK--June 6, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--June 6, 2014--Ottawa-SUN