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

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit::: Lawyer Richard Dearden accuses defendant of anarchism and atheism, using Facebook

In the latest in a suit of motions against defendant Dr. Denis Rancourt, Richard Dearden for his client Prof. Joanne St. Lewis moved (MOTION-3; served October 5, 2011, heard October 7, 2011) to strike Rancourt's Notice of Examination for discovery on the basis of a conflict with a previous motion (MOTION-1; served August 18, 2011) to bar discovery until a forced Mandatory Mediation is held.

The public-record plaintiff's Motion Record in the motion to strike the discovery-request states in affidavit (affidavit-point-2, nominal-page-8, HERE):

"The Defendant's Facebook page (attached as Exhibit "A") states that he is an anarchist, his activities are anarchy and that his religious views are atheist."

A copy of the Facebook page was provided in evidence: Exhibit "A", nominal-page-14, HERE.

In addition, Dearden introduced the two motions heard consecutively in court on October 7, 2011, by first stating to the Judge that according to Facebook the defendant is an anarchist. (The part about atheism was left out in Dearden's oral presentation.)

Defendant Rancourt argued that he had a procedural right to discovery, that nothing in the Rules of Procedure allow Mandatory Mediation to interfere with discovery, that discovery can be helpful to mediation, that the Rules of Procedure foresee seven days between serving and hearing a motion whereas he was given only two days, and that he had insufficient time to prepare. (It was on the record that he had been in court all-day one of the two days, on October 6, 2011.)

The Judge ruled to strike the defendant's Notice of Examination for discovery and ordered legal costs of the motion to be paid forthwith by the defendant.

The main motion (Motion-1) was ordered scheduled for a full-day of trial November 15, 2011, to be heard on its merits, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Elgin Street courthouse, Ottawa.

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.

1 comment:

Wilfrid said...

Thanks for the update Mr. Rancourt. If any of your readers are interested in looking at the judgment of the Court, I have managed to find a copy online. It can be found here: