University of Ottawa - L’Université d’Ottawa's first law dean was an unprincipled creep.
Keep the building name Fauteux as a reminder.
Law students should be reminded to consider a different career path.
This site is devoted to transparency at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. UofOWatch exposes institutional behaviour that is not consistent with the public good.
University of Ottawa - L’Université d’Ottawa's first law dean was an unprincipled creep.
Keep the building name Fauteux as a reminder.
Law students should be reminded to consider a different career path.
The University of Ottawa will not comment on the decision rendered today by the Ontario Court of Justice in the sexual assault trial of two former Gee-Gees hockey players.
As we have stated previously, the University’s 2014 decision to suspend the men’s hockey program was based on the serious nature of allegations against team members and following the results of an independent investigation into the events in Thunder Bay that illustrated widespread misconduct unbecoming of University representatives. Today’s court ruling has no impact on that decision.
Additionally, the University has presented its statement of defense in a related class action lawsuit. Our statement speaks for itself and the University will not comment further on its substance.
Since 2014, the University of Ottawa has taken several key steps to counter sexual violence and harassment on campus, including the creation of a Task Force on Respect and Equality, along with an Action Team to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.
The University followed up on these efforts with the development and adoption in 2016 of a campus-wide policy on the prevention of sexual violence. This survivor-centric policy aims to maintain a campus culture that fosters respect for every individual in a University-wide environment that is free of harassment, discrimination and sexual violence. This policy takes into consideration how difficult it is for survivors to come forward.
Following the suspension of the hockey program, the University implemented new measures to provide student-athletes, coaches, administration and support staff in all varsity and competitive club sports with the support they need to ensure respectful and appropriate conduct. The University believes that these measures have fostered a positive environment for student-athletes and coaching staff.
The men’s varsity hockey program was relaunched in 2016 and this past season, the team made the playoffs for the second consecutive season under the leadership of Patrick Grandmaître.
[...] A patient (whose country of origin is outside Canada) complained to the College that after initiating financial support for the patient’s studies in Canada, Dr. Kilby said he would not continue to support the patient unless they were sexually intimate. The patient was also concerned that Dr. Kilby treated him for a certain condition and offered to give him a related vaccine, but then said the vaccine would cost $1500; the patient also claimed that Dr. Kilby did not tell him of risks associated with the patient’s condition.
Dr. Kilby denied the patient’s claims. He said he absolutely never made any suggestion to the patient that his financial support was conditional upon entering into a sexual relationship. He acknowledged treating the patient’s condition, but said he never gave him incorrect information and that he offered the patient employment at a clinic to help pay expenses, which could include a vaccine.
[...] As to the concern that Dr. Kilby threatened to withhold funds from the patient unless they engaged in a sexual relationship, the Committee concluded that a referral to the Discipline Committee was not warranted in all the circumstances of the case, as there was no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the concern.
However, the Committee stated that it did have concerns about Dr. Kilby’s overall understanding of boundaries with patients, noting:
• The investigative record describes how Dr. Kilby has funded many students to come to Canada for university education, and how (among other forms of support) he has arranged (and often paid for) things such as part-time work and housing for them.
• By Dr. Kilby’s own admission, he provided episodic treatment to the patient (whether he made statements attributed to him about a vaccine was unknown to the Committee),and he admits to treating some of the other students for whom he provided financial support.
• Dr. Kilby indicated that, on reviewing the College policy, Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members or Others Close to Them, he recognized it could be perceived that the students fell under the definition of “others close to him.”
• Dr. Kilby indicated he has taken steps to ensure he will not treat the patient and he has drafted a letter to the other students under his care advising he was making arrangements to transfer their care.
The Committee noted that while it was important that Dr. Kilby has recognized the problem in treating the students whom he sponsored and often continued to support financially, the Committee was concerned by his actions to begin with, which reflected poor judgement on his part. The Committee said it needed reassurance that Dr. Kilby will not treat these students going forward, and that he fully understands his obligations in not treating those close to him and maintaining appropriate boundaries with patients at all times. The Committee decided the two-fold disposition set out above was appropriate in all the circumstances of this case.
"Rock is so deeply embedded in the University that he will not be gone for long. After a sabbatical, during which he will spend a semester at a U.S. law school, he hopes to teach in the Faculty of Law."
|Zeph Zabo (left), Denis Rancourt (right), with M. Zabo's new book about his ordeal|
That makes the exemption sound broad, but Stéphane Émard-Chabot, a municipal law expert at the University of Ottawa and former city councillor, says it’s actually quite a high bar.
“The fact that you’re dealing with contentious issues, that’s certainly not a reason in itself to go in private,” he says. “You have to show the ‘outweigh’ factor: the fact that keeping it private is paramount or of such importance that it outweighs the principle of keeping things open.”
" "They're covering up," said Amir Attaran, a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at University of Ottawa. "It is a cynical abuse of privacy law, to shield a callous and incompetent agency from disclosing how many Ontarians its inattention and bad management have killed. Simple as that." "
The Student Federation of the University of Ottawa says it has seen many cases where the university has 'failed to provide adequate accommodations.' (CBC)
That student – who spoke on the condition that her name not be published – shared with Metro a detailed complaint she emailed to the university about the same man identified by Morin.
The woman sent the complaint on Nov. 30 using her university email account to a member of the school’s Protection Services unit, which investigates crimes that happen on campus.
"While two decades old, the distortion of the Rwandan tragedy continues to have political impacts today. It has given ideological cover to dictator Paul Kagame’s repeated invasions of the Congo and domestic repression. In addition, this foreign policy myth has been used to justify foreign military intervention as is the case with the current political crisis in Burundi. The myth of Dallaire in Rwanda is also cited to rationalize the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, when, in factm the true story illustrates the inevitable duplicitousness of foreign interventions."
“In its application APUO alleges that these raises are illegal under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, which the Ontario government passed in 2010,” the association said in a news release. “This law stipulates that compensation paid to senior administrators such as Dr. Nemer and Dr. Bradwejn ‘cannot be increased’.”
The APUO represents 1,250 full-time faculty and librarians at the University of Ottawa. It’s the first time the association has taken the university to court, Dekker said. The university was served with the papers Thursday and the application is expected to be filed in court on Monday, Dekker said.
“The university insists that faculty have to prepare for cuts to programs, teaching assistants, library services and so on — students are also paying among the highest tuition fees in the country,” she said. “So we are reasonably asking why the administrators are awarding themselves massive raises while the province has made it clear that administrators are not to receive pay increases.”
Interviewer: "Imagine the situation where... a young man who is intimidated by his classmates because he's Muslim, for example, in what way will the addition you are making to the Quebec Charter of Rights help him, will protect him?"
JF: "Technically, if it's one young man who gets intimidated because he's Muslim, that's already covered by the Charter -- you are quite right. It's when we have general statements -- general, hateful statements, inciting hatred, etc. -- where there is no particular, individual victim -- it's the group in general that is the victim -- that's what we're targeting with this addition."
The bill takes its inspiration from recommendations made public by the QHRC in November 2014. Jacques Frémont, the commission’s president, explained that he planned to use the requested powers to sue those critical of certain ideas, “people who would write against … the Islamic religion … on a website or on a Facebook page.”
Frémont is an unabashed legal activist, who sees the QHRC’s mandate as “provoking a social change” and “making the law.” ...
The details of Bill 59 are chilling. Article 6 would “give the QHRC the power to initiate legal proceedings before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal without having to wait for complaints from the public.” Article 3 allows members of an identifiable group as well as people outside the group to make complaints triggering suits for hate speech before the Quebec Human Rights Tribunal.
90 ... Air Canada failed to comply with an obligation that its customer service agent initially acknowledged existed, and instead acted as if some other form of compensation was appropriate for what had happened. It ignored, in other words, its own Tariff.
91 To add insult to injury it took the position that Mr Lachance was “mistaken” as to what flight he was on when he left Toronto for Vancouver. I think too I can take judicial notice of the fact that Air Canada presents itself to the public as a professional carrier which can be relied upon to provide positive travel experiences to its customers; to treat them with respect; and to honour their booked and confirmed itineraries to the extent possible. Air Canada recognized when it entered into its contract of carriage with Mr Lachance that a long and unexpected delay spent in an airport is neither a pleasant nor a happy experience, and that such a delay would cause some distress to him. (Indeed, this understanding is reflected in the fact that the compensatory damages payable under Rule 245AC increase with the length of the delay.) This then is an appropriate case for damages ...
 The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robinson's written notes were referred to "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student"
 Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.
 Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.
 The University referred to the "report" thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.
 Given the unique circumstances, paragraphs 3 - 13 are necessary and in keeping with Keeprite and Kingston Utilities, this affidavit evidence should be admitted on the judicial review to "show an absence of evidence on an essential point".
DEAN LALONDE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF STUDENTS P AND V
 It is difficult to separate the input of the evidence or lack of evidence of Ms. Robinson and the circumstances of her somewhat bizarre involvement in this matter, from the other areas of concern identified by the Applicant, APUO. [...]
|Fake picture for the false cyber identity "Nathalie Page" created by Maureen Robinson|
 In this order, I do not uphold the university's decision to withhold the records pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act, and I order it to release the records to the appellant.
 The university argues that the records contain commercial information supplied to it by third parties and are exempt pursuant to the mandatory third party information exemption at section 17(1) ...
 The university goes on to submit that disclosure would result in such information not being provided to the university again. It submits that, at the commencement of or during the relationship between the university and a third party, high level exchanges of communications will often take place between the third party and senior executives of the university, Including the President. The university submits that it is important to these discussions that third parties be able to share information freely, and that if they learn that information which they provide may be disclosed, they may not be willing to engage in similar high-level strategic discussions. As a result, the university will be prejudiced in its ability to negotiate new projects and undertakings with third parties.
 The appellant submits that these records do not relate to "informational assets". He points out that the subject of record 164 is "visit to country", and the subject of record 209 is "country". ...
 I conclude that the university has not discharged its onus and that there is no reasonable expectation of the harm identified by the university occurring if the records are disclosed. Therefore, section 17(1) does not apply to them. ...
I order the university to disclose records 143, 164, 209, 219, 270, 271 and 272 to the appellant ... This disclosure is to take place by November 20, 2015...
"First, I present the U of O’s behaviour in response to FOI requests using data obtained from statistics reports published annually by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and from publicly available adjudication decisions (“orders”) made by the IPC about the university. This is followed by a description of specific examples of tactics used by the university to deny access to information, and the impact this can have on researchers, activists, and others who seeks information from the university. The third section discusses why the U of O maintains bad FOI practices that contravene the purposes of the FIPPA. The final section considers what can be done to improve access at the U of O and in other public institutions across the province."
From: Allan Rock <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 8:50 AM
Subject: RE: Training regarding sexual violence on campus
To: Mireille Gervais <email@example.com>
Cc: Vice-recteur Etudes <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Mona Nemer <email@example.com>, Louis De Melo <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Marc Joyal <Marc.Joyal@uottawa.ca>, Diane Davidson <Diane.Davidson@uottawa.ca>, "Julien, Francois" <Julien@telfer.uottawa.ca>, Arts Dean <email@example.com>, Nathalie Des Rosiers <Nathalie.Desrosiers@uottawa.
ca>, Celine Levesque <Celine.Levesque@uottawa.ca>, DEDUC <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com, DEANGRAD <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Steve Perry (Dean, Science)" <email@example.com>, Marcel Merette <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Helene Perrault <Helene.Perrault@uottawa.ca>, Jacques Bradwejn <Jacques.Bradwejn@uottawa.ca>, APUOPRES <email@example.com>, "Coordonnateur.rice syndical.e Union Coordinator" <firstname.lastname@example.org>, APTPUO info <email@example.com>, PSUO President <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Vanessa Dorimain <email@example.com>, Anne-Marie Roy <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Maxime Goulet-Delorme <email@example.com>, Nadia Drissi El-Bouzaidi <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Ajà Besler <email@example.com>, Caroline Andrew <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Lucie Allaire <Lucie.Allaire@uottawa.ca>, Michael Orsini <email@example.com>, Julien de Bellefeuille <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Termeh Ataei <email@example.com>, Jordan Alexander <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Timothy Mott <email@example.com>, Cabinet du recteur - Office of the President <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Mireille,Thank you for your message. I would also thank you and the team at the Student Rights Centre for taking the time to complete the training on sexual violence offered by CALACS and ORCC.Your comments are certainly relevant and fair, and I would like to confirm that at the next AC/deans council meeting, on November 24, members of the University’s senior administration will receive the same two-hour training that has been offered to others on campus.In addition, once the new sexual violence protocol is approved, the Action Team and our Human Rights Office plan to hold an additional training session specifically on this topic for deans and members of the Administration Committee. Another training session will be held once the new policy on sexual violence is in place.In terms of the evaluation process, the Action Team has hired an external reviewer to conduct a full evaluation of the CALACS and ORCC pilot project, which includes training sessions and counselling services on campus by the two organizations. Part of this review will involve evaluating the relevance and suitability of the training provided with a view to ensuring, in particular, that:· Individuals who have completed the CALACS or ORCC training have a better understanding of the myths surrounding sexual assault and its various forms.· Individuals who have completed the CALACS or ORCC training have a better understanding of the notion of consent.· Training participants have developed the core competencies necessary to respond appropriately to a disclosure.· Training participants are familiar with the procedures and protocols in place at the University of Ottawa for cases of sexual assault and know where to refer members of the University community looking for support following an incident of sexual assault.In order to complete her evaluation, the reviewer will first send a survey to all training participants. She will then conduct individual interviews and hold group discussions with members of the groups that attended the sessions in order to evaluate the skills and knowledge they acquired during the training.I hope the information I have provided answers your questions. Please don’t hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss the matter further.Sincerely,Allan
From: Mireille Gervais <email@example.com>
Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:26 PM
Subject: Training regarding sexual violence on campus
Mr. Rock,On Tuesday, October 6, 2015, the staff at the Student Rights Centre of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SRC-SFUO) attended the training organized by the U of O regarding sexual violence on campus. As you know, this training, which was delivered by the Ottawa Rape Crisis Centre, was offered in an effort to implement some of the recommendations made in the Report of the Task Force on Respect and Equality: Ending Sexual Violence at the University of Ottawa (the Report). Specifically, the Report called for better leadership commitment, including mandatory training to all members of the senior administration:“We recommend that the University demonstrate its commitment to preventing sexual violence and promoting a culture of respect and equality by providing mandatory training to all members of the senior administration, including the deans, vice-deans and chief administrative officers of all ten faculties, on the nature and causes of, and solutions to, the issue of sexual violence, before the beginning of the 2015-2016 academic year” (section 6.2)The training we attended was scheduled for two hours, which in fact was not a sufficient amount of time to go through all the material that had been foreseen.I have been informed that you, however, along with the other members of the upper administration as well as the deans, intend to receive a shortened version of this training, to last one hour, in November.In my opinion, this does not illustrate better leadership commitment on the part of the university administration. This is particularly worrying considering that in many cases, it is the deans themselves who have the responsibility to investigate and/or discipline alleged perpetrators of sexual violence.The training stresses the importance of considering power differential when discussing sexual violence. Considering that the upper administration, including the deans, hold the most power within our hierarchical structure, in my view, your training should be twice as long rather than twice as short.In light of this, please confirm that the upper administration, including the deans, will receive, minimally, the same training that was foreseen for the rest of the university community.Furthermore, I am concerned that the short session that is planned will be a one-time occurrence that will not provide the necessary technical training to the deans. Sexual violence on campus is a serious and complex issue that demands ongoing discussion and education. In the interest of transparency, please provide the training plan for the upper administration beyond what might otherwise be seen as paying lip service to the recommendations made in the Report.Finally, please inform us of the evaluation methods that will be implemented to ensure that the key concepts of the training have been understood. Considering the importance of this issue for our campus, I believe it is essential to ensure that the training has met its intended goals.Sincerely,Mireille Gervais
Directrice, Centre des droits étudiants
Director, Student Rights Centre