This is how it works -- Court costs arguments against student

UofO and Professor St. Lewis File Costs Replies (link)

Thierry Giordano honoured for his 2007 viscious verbal attack against a graduate student

This year's Student Appeal Centre's annual award for the "most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students" administrator goes to science vice-dean Thierry Giordano for a private-office verbal intimation and threats he perpetrated against graduate student Philippe Marchand in 2007.

A long-overdue Iron Fist Award for Thierry Giordano, Vice-Dean Governance and Secretary, Faculty of Science (link)

The episode was recorded by the student and the sound tracks are available at the latter link.

More public demands that Rock and St. Lewis drop their legal cost demands against student

Striking Quebec Students Denounce Joanne St. Lewis’ Legal Fee Demands (link)


uOttawa Students to Joanne St. Lewis: “Outrageous and Unjust” (link)


Student Appeal Centre Protests uOttawa’s Demand for Lawyer’s Fees from Student (link)

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

GSAED tells Allan Rock to Drop Lawyer’s Fees Against Students

The graduate student union (GSAED) at the University of Ottawa has written to president Allan Rock to request that the University drop their legal fee submission against graduate physics student and University Senate member Joseph Hickey (GSAED letter is in French; lettre en francais):

GSAED tells Allan Rock to Drop Lawyer’s Fees Against Students (link)

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Students co-sign a letter asking law prof St. Lewis to abandon her legal costs demand against co-student

Twenty three students and community members have co-signed a letter to law professor Joanne St. Lewis asking that she abandon her cost submission to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against physics graduate student Joseph Hickey:

Petition to Social Justice Prof. Joanne St. Lewis to Drop Legal Fees (link)

Hickey sought to have public and media access to the live testimony of public official Allan Rock regarding his use of public funds and student-tuition money to fund a private matter.

The claimed legal costs are for Hickey's court motion to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear an open court motion that requested that public attendance be allowed at the out-of-court cross-examinations of the evidence of U of O president Allan Rock and others in a "maintenance and champerty motion" in which Rock has stated that it was his decision that the university is entirely funding a private libel litigation of St. Lewis as the plaintiff.

Hickey's stated only interest was to have his say on the open court question of public and media attendance at the cross-examinations. Hickey had attended previous such cross-examinations and the Court had barred the public from a re-examination at that time.

For Hickey to have his say in court would probably have taken 15 minutes, as allowed by the judge for an intervener in this case. Instead, the St. Lewis and U of O lawyers argued during half-a-day before the judge against Hickey having his say. The judge then ruled that Hickey would not be allowed to make his statements or bring his evidence and received costs submissions from both St. Lewis and the U of O.

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Gashoka publicly scolds Rock on accountability

Allan Rock, “Why do you refuse to answer?” (link)

Two recent posts about the open court matter in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation

Two elected members of the Senate of the University of Ottawa have sent open letters posted at the Student's-Eye-View blog:


Letter to Prof. Joanne St. Lewis from Kilamanjaro Black Student Association President: “A Travesty of Justice” (link)



Professor Joanne St. Lewis Maintains Demand for Legal Fees from Student (link)

Allan Rock's 2011 income

In 2011 U of O president Allan Rock had a university income of $396,292.

Presumably we can add his estimated parliamentary pension of $63,000., which he is allowed to receive even when being paid with university public funds in a full-time job.

This gives a 2011 income of approximately $459,000.

This income from public and student tuition money is the largest president's income by far far far, adjusted for inflation, of any president of the institution.

It's only fair to ask what Mr. Rock has done and is doing for Canada's university.

What have been the accomplishments beyond the unavoidable population-growth-driven buildings and facilities? And beyond the image marketing?

What are the indicators that matter? Student satisfaction... Reputation of graduates... Societal progress beyond cancer research and the like...

What are students entitled to demand as real improvements?

Student pursued with punitive court costs by U of O for arguing transparency

On March 29-30, 2012 University of Ottawa Senate Member and physics graduate student Joseph Hickey posted these reports on his Student's-Eye-View blog:

• Ottawa Judge Robert J. Smith Excludes Student Media Reporter from Court Transparency Issue

• UofO and Professor Joanne St. Lewis want $5,500 in Legal Fees from Student

Hickey made a motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 28, 2012 to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear a motion to allow public and media access at the cross-examinations of public officials U of O president Allan Rock, U of O chair of the Board of Governors Robert Giroux, and others.

Hickey argued that he has a Charter right to attend the cross-examinations in order to blog-report about the sessions which are held under Court supervision at a private court reporter's offices.

Hickey had attended two previous such cross-examinations in the same St. Lewis v. Rancourt action and had blogged his observations and opinions. Hickey and other members of the public had then been barred by court order to not attend two specific re-examinations in the same action.

This had been followed by an "open court motion" served by the defendant (Rancourt) which was barred from being heard on its merits, leading to Rancourt's motion for leave to appeal, at which Hickey sought to intervene.

It seemed clear to this observer, that Hickey had standing to intervene as both a member of the public and as a member of the media seeking access to a court process, but the judge sided with the plaintiff (St. Lewis) and the U of O.

The U of O had not moved to intervene in the motion for leave to appeal or in Hickey's motion to intervene but was given "automatic" leave to intervene in both motions in the "private" action and used this intervener status to argue (in the person of lawyer Peter Doody) against Hickey and then to claim costs against Hickey for having forced it to argue against Hickey.

St. Lewis (via her lawyer Richard Dearden), whose legal costs are entirely paid by the University of Ottawa, also seeks costs against Hickey, at a punitive level, for having forced her to argue against Hickey's request to have his say.

Justice Robert Smith ruled that Hickey did not satisfy the test to have his say on the matter of his (and public and media) access to court processes pursuant to the Charter. Justice Smith reasoned that Hickey's contribution to the "private" libel action would not serve justice.

“I do not find that Mr. Hickey has an interest or perspective different from the Defendant’s. The nature of the case is also a factor to be considered, and in this case it is a libel action between two individuals. I do not find that Mr. Hickey would make any useful contribution to the resolution of the dispute between Mr. Rancourt and Ms. St. Lewis, or make a useful contribution towards resolving the question of whether or not Leave to Appeal should be granted of Justice Beaudoin’s order or Master MacLeod’s order.”

“I also find that Mr. Hickey would not be adversely affected by the judgement in favour of either Ms. St. Lewis or the Defendant, Mr. Rancourt since this is a private dispute between two individuals.”
– Smith J, March 28, 2012

Justice Smith also explained to Hickey, regarding costs, that an individual who attempts to intervene in a lawsuit must expect a certain financial risk which counters the costs imposed on the opposing parties.

St. Lewis and the university seek to hit the student with one third of his annual salary for asking to have his say about public access to a court process, as a citizen directly affected.

The university has a duty, enshrined in jurisprudence, to defend academic freedom.

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.
.