St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Update on the Defendant's "champerty" motion

The last update on the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit on this blog was the February 24, 2012 post.

Justice Robert Smith, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, recently summarized the current status of the lawsuit this way (LINK):

[1] Denis Rancourt (“Rancourt”) is a former professor at the University of Ottawa who publishes a blog. He is being sued by the plaintiff, Joanne St. Lewis (“St. Lewis”), for libel for statements he made in his blog, criticizing the University of Ottawa.

[2] St. Lewis is also a professor at the University of Ottawa who prepared a report which concluded that there was no systemic racism in the University of Ottawa’s treatment of visible minority students. Her legal fees for her libel action against Rancourt are being paid by the University of Ottawa (“University”), which Rancourt alleges constitutes champerty.

[3] Rancourt seeks leave to appeal the decision of Beaudoin J., acting as a case management judge, wherein he refused to allow him to bring a motion (the open court motion) to allow members of the public to attend the cross‑examinations on affidavits that were filed in his champerty motion.

At this time, Rancourt has moved that the action be dismissed for abuse of process ("champerty" motion). That motion hearing will be on August 29, 2012, in open court. The reason alleged is that the University of Ottawa is funding the Plaintiff's entire legal costs with improper motive and stands to benefit from proceeds of the action.

Since the previous update, many events have occurred in the action, including:

• the motion for Leave to Appeal the Court's decision to deny Rancourt's Open Court motion to make cross-examinations public was heard and decided - Decision (LINK);
• a motion by student Joseph Hickey to intervene in the Leave to Appeal motion of Rancourt was heard and denied (no written decision was provided);
• legal costs were ordered against Rancourt for his Leave to Appeal motion - Costs Decision (LINK) 
• legal costs were ordered against student Hickey for his motion to intervene - Costs Decision (LINK)
• a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant was held;
• a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff's lawyer was held;
• the Chair of the U of O Board of Governors, Robert Giroux, was cross-examined as a witness by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the examination (LINK)
• the President of the U of O, Allan Rock, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK)
• the Plaintiff, U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Trancript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
• the Dean of the U of O common law faculty, Bruce Feldthusen, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK);
• a lawyer for the U of O (in the Rancourt dismissal arbitration case), Celine Delorme, was cross-examined for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
• Both the University and the Plaintiff declined to cross-examine the Defendant on his two affidavits in the "champerty" motion - First affidavit (LINK), Second affidavit (LINK);
• Rancourt filed a refusals and productions motion to seek orders compelling the witness and affiants to answer refused questions in the "champerty" motion examinations;
•  The first day of hearings for the refusals and productions motion in the "champerty" motion was held on June 20, 2012, continuing on July 24, 2012 in open court.

In cross-examination, U of O president Allan Rock testified under oath that he made the decision to entirely fund the Plaintiff's litigation without a cap (no spending limit) from the University's operating budget. This decision to fund, according to the Plaintiff's testimony, occurred before the Plaintiff researched or contacted her counsel for the action.

The chosen counsel had been suggested by the Plaintiff's Dean, Bruce Feldthusen, who, according to his testimony, made a strong appeal to Rock that the University had a responsibility to fund the litigation (to sue Rancourt).

The Chair of the Board of Governors provided sworn testimony establishing that Rock had never informed the Board about the fact that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim sought $125 thousand for a university scholarship fund (that St.Lewis had spearheaded). The Chair learned this fact for the first time at the April 18, 2012 examination of him by Rancourt.

All transcripts and many of the court documents are provided as links HERE.

Faculty of Ed student continues to sue U of O

April 18, 2012

Court rules students may sue universities, in some cases

Ontario Appeal Court decision could have wide repercussions.

by Judith Knelman

A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has effectively established a small, newly defined area in which universities no longer have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes with their students. Students seeking money as a remedy for consequences that impact on their academic situation will be able to use the precedent of the case of Manon Gauthier.

Ms. Gauthier was a doctoral student in education at the University of Ottawa who did not graduate because, she maintains, the university was negligent and in breach of contract in not providing her with adequate thesis supervision. >>>more>>>