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

Thursday, November 28, 2013

Crass language opportunism at uOttawa?

This recent media article, uOttawa cuts fees for international students studying in French, has two Francophone administrators of "Canada's university" -- Belgian Francophone Christian Detellier (VP-Academic) and Quebecois Francophone Gary Slater (Associate VP-International) -- explaining how the University of Ottawa has a statutory duty to help the Franco Ontarian population...

An Act respecting Université d'Ottawa: "to further bilingualism and biculturalism and to preserve and develop French culture in Ontario"

... and how the institution will accomplish this by lowering tuition fees to boost its numbers of international Francophone students... Which, we note, fits nicely into president Allan Rock's steadfast agenda to globalize the institution's mission, without doing anything for Franco Ontarians.

Meanwhile, there are virtually no professors of Franco Ontarian origin among the academic ranks, which the University has historically done little about. The institution has always chosen to import its French, rather than preserve and develop the French culture of Ontario, as it is mandated by the government to do.

The ideal policy assimilation tool of course is "official bilingualism", as is well understood in Quebec, and which has been another Allan Rock initiative for the University -- over which the former VP-Academic appears to have left the ship.

Then again, the Statute also directs "to further, in accordance with Christian principles, the intellectual, spiritual, moral, physical and social development of, as well as a community spirit among its undergraduates, graduates and teaching staff, and to promote the betterment of society."

Christian principles would have the University reduce tuition fees in accordance with financial need, not language or academic achievements, and certainly not to feed geoeconomic ambitions in Africa or elsewhere.

Such is the status of the assimilate (and globalize) versus protect debate at "Canada's university". It's a good name after all.

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Rancourt files Factum and Motion Record to appeal costs in the champerty motion

Rancourt has filed his Factum and Motion Record to the Court of Appeal for Ontario for a motion for leave to appeal the costs in the champerty motion.

Rancourt's arguments that the $105,700.00 costs should be dismissed or reduced and/or delayed are (from the Factum):

10. The Appellant submits that the test of fairness and reasonableness for leave to appeal costs is amply satisfied, and that the impugned costs decision contains palpable and overriding errors of fact and law, including:

(a) the motions judge exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding costs to the University, which does not have party status, although given leave to file material but not to be awarded costs;

(b) costs for preparation of and attendance at five case conferences were awarded, contrary to binding case law;

(c) partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiff, in the absence of a need to indemnify, and raising the prospect of double recovery of costs;

(d) the motions judge did not recognize and did not consider ample evidence for the Defendant’s impecuniosity;

(e) in the circumstances of the defamation action, the awarded costs are inconsistent with Charter principles regarding the right to free expression, and definitively restrict the Defendant’s access to justice; and

(f) the quantum of costs ($105,700.00) for the one-day motion is excessive and contrary to the policy of partial indemnity.

Background documents:::

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Ottawa Citizen characterizes champerty motion as an "attempt to derail the lawsuit"

In its latest of many articles about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit, the Ottawa Citizen newspaper has characterized Rancourt's champerty motion as an "attempt to derail the lawsuit", without reporting any of the arguments made by Rancourt in the champerty motion, or in the appeal of the champerty motion to the Court of Appeal for Ontario: LINK-to-Citizen-article.

The courts made no finding whatsoever that Rancourt's champerty motion was "an attempt to derail the lawsuit". Furthermore, the action is in case management by consent, which means that any unworthy motion is blocked from ever being filed.

The Ottawa Citizen has ventured into hyperbole based on a curt judgement by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, without reporting any of the facts or arguments, and without playing its role of critically assessing the court process. When this kind of media superficiality becomes the norm, there is no point having an open court system in Canada.

Background documents:::
  • 2013-05-09 Rancourt serves and files appeal to ONCA, to appeal the decision on the champerty motion: Factum and Appeal Book, HERE.
  • 2013-07-05 St. Lewis FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: StL-Factum-ONCA.
  • 2013-07-05 U of O FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: UofO-Factum-ONCA.

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Court of Appeal for Ontario finds no champerty: St. Lewis v. Rancourt

Osgoode Hall -- Court of Appeal for Ontario
The Court of Appeal for Ontario heard and decided the appeal of the champerty motion in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case on November 8, 2013.

The Court dismissed the appeal without wanting to hear the responding parties (St. Lewis and University of Ottawa), and ordered costs against the Appellant (Rancourt).

The responding parties asked for "partial indemnity" costs of $29,950.66 (St. Lewis) and $19,890.75 (U of O), almost $50,000.00. They got $20,000.00 and $15,000.00, respectively. The costs decision was made immediately after the endorsement (i.e., written decision/reasons) for dismissing the appeal was read by Justice Alexandra Hoy, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario.

Rancourt spoke in French, which was translated for the two responding lawyers, Richard Dearden (representing St. Lewis) and Peter Doody (representing the University of Ottawa).

During Rancourt's presentation to the Court, which lasted approximately 35 minutes, he made the following arguments, and other points.

A.    The University and St. Lewis have a champertous agreement, which is against the law in Ontario

[A champertous agreement is one where the maintaining party pays the legal costs of the plaintiff in order to share in the proceeds of the action.]

Key and undisputed facts are:
  1. The University is paying all the legal costs of the Plaintiff (St. Lewis).
  2. The Plaintiff has the written intention to give half of the punitive damages obtained from the action to the University.
 The Ontario statute An Act Respecting Champerty prescribes:
"All champertous agreements are forbidden, and invalid."

Therefore, lower court Justice Smith made an error contradicting the law, in being silent on Rancourt's request that the champertous maintenance be ordered terminated.

COURT: The Court found that there was not a champertous agreement since (the uncontradicted sworn evidence of the Plaintiff and of university president Allan Rock is that) the Plaintiff unilaterally decided to give punitive damages proceeds to the University.

B.    A lower court judicial bias complaint was never heard on its merits and is a ground for appeal

Rancourt sought to have a motion for reasonable apprehension of bias of lower court Justice Beaudoin judicially determined on its merits. The lower court circumvented this motion from ever being heard. A lower court leave to appeal to the Divisional Court was denied by leave judge Justice Annis.

Since the Supreme Court of Canada has determined that a bias complaint is heard either at the lower court when it is made, or on appeal, and since the champerty motion is tainted with bias, the reasonable apprehension of bias of Justice Beaudoin is a ground for appeal.

The enumerated evidence for reasonable apprehension of bias of Justice Beaudoin included (see affidavit of evidence HERE-LINK):
  1. A terms of reference contract between the judge and the University of Ottawa, for a scholarship fund in the name of the judge's son.
  2. A boardroom named after the judge's son at the BLG lawfirm, which represents the University.
  3. A media article, recognized by the judge on the court record, in which the judge expresses the personal and emotional importance that he attributes to the scholarship fund, and to the boardroom at BLG.
  4. The fact that the judge recused himself rather than accept his responsibility to determine the reasonable apprehension of bias question, by alleging bad behaviour of the Defendant (Rancourt), in the way the request to bring the bias complaint was made, without taking action to correct the alleged bad behaviour.
  5. The fact that the judge threatened the Defendant (Rancourt) with contempt of court (a criminal charge), if Rancourt continued to advance his request, his argument.
  6. The fact that at no time prior to the hearing at which the judge recused himself did the judge mention his ties to the University of Ottawa or the BLG lawfirm.
  7. Other affidavit evidence (LINK).
Therefore, Rancourt argued to the Court of Appeal: If it is permitted for a judge hearing a request for determination of a reasonable apprehension of bias to recuse himself without making the determination, and for the given reason of the behaviour of the requester in making the request, then we have crossed a line into a new and dangerous territory where the integrity of the court is threatened.

COURT: The Court of Appeal found that since the lower court leave judge, Justice Annis, had denied leave by finding in his reasons that this was not a case where reasonable apprehension of bias could possibly arise, the Court did not need to consider the ground of reasonable apprehension of bias.

C.    The Plaintiff decided to sue after she was granted the University's funding of her lawsuit

Rancourt presented several streams of evidence, which the lower court had denied as not admissible on incorrect technical grounds (and/or apparently ignored), showing, he argued, that the Plaintiff (St. Lewis) decided to sue only after the University funding was granted without limit and without conditions.

This is vital because, in establishing the abuse of maintenance, prior intent to sue is determinative, Rancourt argued, based on case law.

For example, Rancourt read a February 14, 2011 email from St. Lewis to university president Allan Rock, about the February 11, 2011 blogpost that is at the center of the defamation lawsuit (see Factum HERE-LINK):

Hi there Allan,
I make it a practice to delete the communications from Mr. Rancourt and have done that in this case. It has spared me a great deal of aggravation in the past.
Do let me know if you want me to do anything. I will happy to fit into whatever strategy you decide but until then I intend to make no comment.
Do take care,

COURT: The Court of Appeal found that the lower court judge had plenty/sufficient evidence to conclude that there was no maintenance and champerty. The Court did not state whether or not the denied evidence would have made a difference.

For more links to background documents (e.g., all Facta) go HERE-LINK.
For all the court-filed documents in the whole case go HERE-LINK.

Tuesday, November 5, 2013

Court of Appeal for Ontario November 8, 2013 hearing: St. Lewis v. Rancourt

Courtroom at the Court of Appeal for Ontario

The appeal hearing of Defendant/Appellant Denis Rancourt's "champerty motion" will be heard:

  • Starting at 10:30 am, scheduled for 50 minutes.
  • Friday, November 8, 2013
  • Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osgoode Hall), 130 Queen Street West, Toronto
  • Courtroom #1 (or as indicates under "St.Lewis v. Rancourt" on the bulletin board in the main entrance)

The three-judge panel will be composed of:
Justice Robert A. Blair
Justice Alexandra Hoy, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario
Justice Robert J. Sharpe

The "champerty motion" was a motion to end the $1 million private defamation lawsuit, on the grounds of abuse of process because the University of Ottawa is funding the Plaintiff/Respondent's private defamation lawsuit, while the Plaintiff plans to give half of any punitive damages awarded in the defamation lawsuit to a scholarship fund of the University of Ottawa.

The "champerty motion" was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario (lower court) in this judgement: 2013 ONSC 1564

The latter lower court judgement is now being appealed.

Court documents for the appeal are here:
  • 2013-05-09::: Rancourt serves and files appeal to ONCA, to appeal the decision on the champerty motion: Factum and Appeal Book, HERE.
  • 2013-07-05::: St. Lewis FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: StL-Factum-ONCA.
  • 2013-07-05::: U of O FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: UofO-Factum-ONCA.

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) objects to the funding by the University of Ottawa of the Plaintiff's private defamation lawsuit using public money: LINK-OCLA-page: "Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics".

Main AF.ca page about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case: HERE.

Monday, October 21, 2013

Saudi doctors lose appeal of dismissal of University of Ottawa lawsuit -- media article, judgement, and commentary

Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (left), and Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy

The Ottawa Citizen has reported this short story: HERE.

The actual Court of Appeal for Ontario judgement is HERE.

Well there you have it. The claimants were simply never allowed to be heard in the Ontario courts regarding how they were treated by University of Ottawa administrators. Plain and simple denial of access to justice. Straight up. Is anybody paying attention?

The "Neuroleaks" emails constitute a textbook example of evidence for bad faith, of the type that should be written up in law school curricula, yet the "Neuroleaks" evidence was not known by the claimants until after all the internal University tribunals were done, yet the Ontario courts "found" (that's the legal term) that all the evidence was considered by the internal University tribunals... Both the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario and the Court of Appeal for Ontario "found" (by some process that defies reality) that all the evidence had already been considered by the internal University tribunals. No it had not. Just look at the documents filed with the courts, or the fact that a motion was won by the claimants in judicial review at the Divisional Court to introduce the new "Neuroleaks" evidence after the internal University tribunals were done, or all of this chronologically reported in the media, the same media that do not hiccup at this latest October 18, 2013 Court of Appeal judgement:

[13] Finally, the appellants argued that the trial judge erred in finding that they are relying on the same facts as in the discipline proceedings. They pointed to certain emails that they say were either not before the tribunals or not taken into account by them because there was nothing the tribunals could use them for. This position was disputed by the respondent.

To this observer, this means that the courts can and do make up the facts. In addition, the media and legal researchers clearly don't scrutinize the courts! What's the point of having a so-called open court principle in Canada if no one dares to scrutinize the darn courts? Incredible.

Well, HERE, again, is a copy of some of these "Neuroleaks" emails. Judge for yourselves. Read the six emails at that link. If your hair does not stand on end, then you are pathologically cynical. How the judges could have overlooked such administrative misbehaviour (that is putting it very politely) which ended the careers of a star neurosurgeon (weeks from being certified) and of two interns in cardiology, is, well, not what one expects in a free and democratic society.

The behaviour of the courts in Ontario, in this case, has the effect of condoning the egregious behaviours of administrators at the University of Ottawa, and it produces a striking denial of access to justice in which claimants, whose careers were ruined, are simply never heard on the full evidence and on the merits of their arguments.

The claimants never had their day in court. We must ask the question: Is that because they are Saudi?


L'ancien professeur [Rancourt] condamné à payer 100 000 $ d'indemnités -- La Rotonde (French media)

L'ancien professeur condamné à payer 100 000 $ d'indemnités (LINK)
Marc-André Bonneau, La Rotonde, 21 octobre 2013


Un procès financé par l’argent public
Les frais juridiques de la plaignante sont assumés par l’Université. Allan Rock a alloué un budget sans limite au procès, situation que l’Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario (ALCO) a dénoncée. L’ALCO a lancé une campagne publique intitulée « Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics », qui a dénoncé qu’il « n’est pas éthique d’un point de vue de la liberté académique, que l’Université s’engage à protéger » le fait que l’administration finance cette poursuite pour diffamation contre M. Rancourt. [...] [article entié ici]

Wednesday, October 16, 2013

Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs article discusses defamation law in our society

Keeping criticism honest and civil (LINK)

By Professor Mark Mercer, CCEPA blog, On October 16, 2013

Extract from the article:
I think that the mechanism by which to keep comment and criticism honest and civil is comment and criticism itself. When someone speaks a falsehood about one, speak the truth back. Expose the other’s shoddy evidence or reasoning. When insulted, note that an insult isn’t evidence or argument against one, or even a criticism.

If it is false that [six words removed on June 9, 2014, pursuant to COURT ORDER], explain to the world that you didn’t. If you are upset by a phrase or a tone, criticise publicly the use of that phrase or tone. If you didn’t lie, expose the lie that you did. This all can be done easily and effectively without employing a single lawyer.

There are at least two worries about the strength of this mechanism. One is that people are credulous and won’t respond to the truth, especially if they like the falsehood or it gets repeated. The other is that not many people have access to a medium through which to tell their side of the story.

Saturday, October 12, 2013

University of Ottawa spirals down world university rankings -- media report

University of Ottawa spirals down world university rankings (LINK)
By Don Butler, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 3, 2013

U of O Watch comment: In two years the U of O has fallen 14 places from 171st to 185th towards the 200 mark cutoff. It is now only 15 places from falling out of the top-university ranking. This ranking system puts emphasis on "international outlook", rather than prioritizing student experience.

The U of O ranks 10th out of 15 in Canada in its category according the the Macleans 2013 ranking (same rank as last year). The Macleans ranking puts emphasis on factors relating to student experience.

This blogger thinks the U of O should mind its business at home and concentrate on taking care of its students rather than peddle an "international outlook", which has been the focus of the Rock administration, while student satisfaction remains unacceptably low and unchanging.

Latest legal turn in the U of O "Neuroleaks" saga: Lower court costs decision reported in the media

Saudi doctors who sued University of Ottawa ordered to pay $90,000 in legal costs (LINK)
By Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen October 7, 2013

OTTAWA — Three Saudi doctors whose lawsuit seeking $156 million in damages from the University of Ottawa was thrown out earlier this year have been ordered to pay the university and 10 other defendants $90,000 plus GST in legal costs. (Continue reading...)

The "Neuroleaks" e-mails from the Chairman of Neurosurgery, Richard Moulton, and others conspiring to dismiss Dr. AlGhaithy for making a previous complaint are stored here: LINK. These emails were in evidence in the case. They are worth the read!

Former prof Denis Rancourt ordered to pay $100,000 legal cost in libel case -- Ottawa Citizen

Former prof Denis Rancourt ordered to pay $100,000 legal cost in libel case (LINK)
By Don Butler, OTTAWA CITIZEN October 8, 2013

OTTAWA — Former University of Ottawa professor Denis Rancourt must pay about $100,000 in legal costs after his motion to halt a $1-million libel suit filed against him by another professor was dismissed earlier this year. (Continue reading...)

Wednesday, September 25, 2013

Carleton University and the University of Ottawa are the worst universities in Canada for free expression -- JCCF 2013 Report

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) released its annual report "The State of campus Free Speech in 2013" (the "2013 Report") on September 24, 2013. JCCF President John Carpay presented the report and its key findings at a public press conference held in Ottawa last night, at the National Archives of Canada building on Wellington Street.

Out of 45 public universities in Canada studied, Carleton University and the University of Ottawa stand out in the 2013 Report as the two worst universities in Canada for free expression (see JCCF News Release).

The individual assessment about the University of Ottawa is on pages 173-180 of the 251-page 2013 Report. The main incidents described in the 2013 Report and which led to the U of O's failing grade (F) for its practices relevant to free expression are:
  • the 2010 Ann Coulter fiasco managed behind the scenes by Allan Rock (link) (link)
  • the 2009 banning by the Rock administration of a student Israeli Apartheid Week poster (link)
  • the 2008 Rock administration's refusal to continue hosting Cinema Politica on campus (link)
  • the 2007 administration's interferences with Canadian Friends of Burma campus event (link)
The grading criteria used were objective and are explained in the 2013 Report.

The 2013 Report also points to a plethora of regressive U of O university policies affecting free expression, for which a grade of "D" was attributed.

The student union at U of O (the SFUO) obtained a grade of "D" but was not cited as one of the worst student unions in Canada.

Thursday, August 29, 2013

OCLA calls on U of O to end its financing of a private defamation lawsuit

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has posted a position statement on its website, entitled:

Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics
University of Ottawa must end its financing of a private defamation lawsuit  (LINK)

As part of its campaign, OCLA has written to Allan Rock (link), and to Nathalie Des Rosiers (link).

Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy want an R2P war in Syria

Commentary on -- Looking back at Kosovo can move the Syria conflict forward, By Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock, Special to The Globe and Mail, Aug. 26 2013

Allan Rock has the pet project, among other such pet projects, to use his position as president of the University of Ottawa, to promote the "doctrine" of Responsibility to Protect (R2P) as a preferred pretext for geopolitical wars.

His latest enthusiastic call, with Lloyd Axworthy, for an illegal war in Syria is sickening. Is the Globe and Mail looking to be part of a Liberal Machine come back?

You have to read this stuff to believe it:

What strengthens the hand of the President ["the President", not "the US President"?] and others who must plan these steps is that in 2005, subsequent to the Kosovo intervention, UN member states unanimously adopted the principle of Responsibility to Protect or “R2P”, establishing the basis for international action to prevent or stop the wholesale murder of innocent people by their governments. The principle that holds that military action, as a last resort, is justified to protect civilian populations from mass murder, provided that the force used is proportionate to the threat, likely to succeed and unlikely to cause more harm than good. R2P has been reaffirmed more than once since 2005 by the General Assembly and continues to enjoy wide-spread support. It was the basis for the successful UN/NATO intervention in Libya. ["successful"? As in all-out war and total destruction of an advanced society?]

R2P can and should be used as the basis for action in Syria. Although the 2005 agreement contemplated a Security Council resolution authorizing military intervention, member states surely did not intend that urgent humanitarian responses would be hostage to vetoes unreasonably exercised out of self-interest by one or more of the permanent five Council members. The very purpose of R2P is that we should all protect innocent lives without reference to purely national interests or crass political gamesmanship. [Wow. Mr. Rock is giving us a lesson on "crass political gamesmanship", and using the allegation to circumvent UN checks on war. It's just amazing.]

Just this summer, a blue ribbon group of Americans co-chaired by Madeleine Albright, former Secretary of State, and Richard Williamson, former Sudan envoy under President George W. Bush, urged the inclusion of R2P as a key element in American foreign policy. Their bipartisan recommendation, based on rigorous analysis [of the kind displayed in this article?], answers those who advocate inaction because mass atrocities abroad “do not engage America’s national interests”. Albright’s proposal, like R2P itself, puts our response ["our" response? US = Canada?] to mass suffering and killing on a higher plane than conventional power politics.

I'm all for putting "mass suffering and killing on a higher plane than conventional power politics", but, forgive me for saying so, I just don't think that trillion-dollar war machines controlled by "power politics", freed from the nuisance of UN constraints, are instruments that can help achieve this "higher plane".

I'm also having some trouble taking Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Rock seriously here. I mean their logic is impeccable as always, but maybe some university-funded independent research on the "cause more harm than good" idea in actual war zones would be in order? After all, there are enough field areas to study. 

The final words in the article are about "our" war against Syria:

President Obama is right in looking to Kosovo as a model in Syria. It's now up to friends, allies, and all those who seek a world of justice to urge him on, and to offer their support.

When the students wanted to get faculty approval for an activism course at the University of Ottawa, they proposed the course code "SCI 1984". The course code was not allowed, and the course was only allowed to be given a single time in 2006, but it now seems the proposed course code was foreshadowing the immediate future of the institution, as it was about to embark in the Allan Rock experiment.

The Globe and Mail published some critical responses to the Axworthy-Rock piece, such as (LINK):

Here we go again. An atrocity is rashly and prematurely blamed on a sovereign government, forming the pretext for a “humanitarian” intervention, violating international law, so the West can illegally and one-sidedly intervene in a civil war to replace the “rogue” government with a more “Western-friendly” one. Do Western leaders honestly think we are this naive?

Michael Pravica, Henderson, Nev.


Lloyd Axworthy and Allan Rock only remember Responsiblity to Protect when it seems likely to contribute to regime change desired by the Western powers, and when UN-supported intervention is unlikely (Intervene In Syria? Look To The Kosovo Model – Aug. 27). To the credit of our own government, Canada has not supplied arms to either side. The goal should be a negotiated peace, not exacerbation of the bloodletting.

Edwin Daniel, Victoria


The use of R2P requires UN Security Council agreement before military intervention can be authorized. Mr. Axworthy and Mr. Rock dismiss this requirement by suggesting that UN member states “did not intend” that urgent humanitarian responses be held hostage to vetoes by a member of the Security Council. But, of course, this is precisely what the UN’s founders did want, otherwise there would not have been a UN.

They go on to argue that the bombing of Serbia in 1999 is the model to be followed for resolving the Syrian dilemma. Yet NATO’s unilateral intervention in Serbia was done in clear violation of the UN Charter and a violation of international law. It is now clear that intervention had little to do with humanitarian concerns and everything to do with giving NATO a reason to exist.

James Bissett, Ottawa, former Canadian ambassador to Yugoslavia

Monday, August 26, 2013

U of O law professor Amir Attaran calls on law society to discipline Peter MacKay

Peter MacKay Misleading Canadians By Saying Trudeau Broke Law, Professor Says (link)

"It is unprofessional for any lawyer — and reprehensible when the lawyer is also the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada — to mislead the public about the state of Parliament’s laws," Attaran wrote.

How many law professors have the guts to do that? Not many. This is the kind of independent thinking and action that can only improve the reputation of the school. Hopefully, graduates will follow the example. (Attaran's example! Not Trudeau's, not MacKay's.)

Saturday, August 24, 2013

University of Ottawa professor criminal charges dismissed

University of Ottawa professor acquitted of threatening to kill director (link)

My comment to this, based only on the article, is that this sounds like an obscene over-reaction by a departmental chairman, to hearsay, that the university administration was happy to capitalize on. My guess is that the university wants to get rid of this professor, or at least is exploring how doable that would be.

Call me paranoid, but there is no way this small stuff should ever get this far. Cancelling classes and barring a professor from campus based on such nonsense. Waaa. And why was there even an interest in prosecuting with a criminal charge?

Welcome to Allan Rock's world. The university could have informed the prosecutor that it was of the position that there was no public benefit to pursue the charges, as it has done in the past (link).

Monday, August 19, 2013

Worth of uOttawa journalism degree, university Senate intervenes

The University of Ottawa suspended admission to its journalism program this fall after an internal report to the university’s senate in May 2012, found the program to be ‘profoundly troubled’ and even damaging to the reputation of the university.
University of Ottawa suspends admission to journalism program

By Elizabeth Payne and Meghan Hurley, OTTAWA CITIZEN, August 14, 2013

 By Natascia Lypny, OTTAWA CITIZEN, August 14, 2013

Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Profs at the University of Ottawa vote 82% in favor of strike mandate

From the professors' union web site, regarding today's strike vote:


Members have voted 82% in favour of authorizing the Executive Committee to call a strike if necessary. 691 ballots were cast, 563 voted “Yes,” 127 voted “No,” with one spoiled ballot.

The APUO remains committed to negotiating a fair deal that promotes the quality of education and fair working conditions at the university. Mediation is scheduled for August 3rd and 4th.

We sincerely thank our members, our union partners on campus, and student associations for this strong show of support.

The Executive Committee

Profs' union at U of O files application to the Ministry of Labour: Seeks an order and award of damages

The University of Ottawa is arguably experiencing its most tense labour relations circumstances in its institutional history. The professors' union finds itself forced to sue the institution in order to recover the rule of law...

On July 29, 2013, the professors' union (APUO) had this to say to its members:

Dear APUO members,

Throughout these negotiations, the APUO believes that the employer has acted in many ways that contravene both the spirit and the letter the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Such actions have included stating false information; refusing to share data they are legally obligated to release; communicating in ways that constitute attempts to negotiate directly with the membership; and now, seeking to intimidate members in order to influence the strike mandate vote planned for July 31.

Since the beginning of this process, it has been clear to the APUO that the employer has been using its vast institutional resources to wage a battle against members and the APUO. Up to this point, the APUO has assumed that members would prefer that we focus on negotiations rather than use the legal system to respond to the employer’s unacceptable actions. We had also hoped that, even if the employer continued its dishonourable actions, it would have at least ceased the ones we believe to be unlawful.

As you all know by now, this has not been the case. With its communications on Thursday and Friday of last week, the APUO can no longer ignore the issue. Peter Simpson (one of CAUT’s most seasoned advisers with more than 20 years experience) said that the employer’s communication was “unprecedented” in his experience, and that “it is hard to read it as something other than an attempt to interfere in the union’s credibility and its communications with its members ahead of a strike vote”.

Therefore, this morning the APUO has responded in the only way possible under the Ontario labour law. We have filed an application to the Ministry of Labour requesting that it (a) investigate the employer’s violations of the Ontario Labour Relations Act; (b) force the employer to disclose information required by the APUO for bargaining and insist that the employer respect the law regarding its communications; and (c) award the APUO damages to compensate for the employer’s illegal activity. You can find more detailed information about this in the Bargaining Bulletin #9.
and continued HERE.

Sunday, July 21, 2013

U of O linked to a benefactor with neo-Nazi ties

In 2009, following a series of show panels personally organized and hosted by university president Allan Rock, there was to be a comprehensive "donor recognition" policy at the University of Ottawa. The President's promise went like this:

"Diane Davidson, our Vice-President, Governance, will be preparing a draft policy and sending it out for consultation and reactions in the weeks to come. We will be looking for your opinion and suggestions, so that we can develop and adopt a policy that is in the best interests of the University."(LINK)

To our knowledge, no such policy was ever brought to the university community for "consultation and reactions". Instead, the President's entire originally public web-site (http://www.president.uottawa.ca) is now locked and only accessible via a password.

Here it was, as reported on October 14, 2009, by the student newspaper The Fulcrum:

U of O President Allan Rock mentioned that a committee will be created to address the issue. It will be in charge of coming up with guidelines on how to deal with recognition and encouraging transparency through student and community involvement. [really?]

According to Rock, a donation needs to be extremely generous for the amount of time a name is kept on a building. [umm humm, and how generous does it need to be to be an anonymous donation...?]

In an email to the Fulcrum, Beaulière [elected graduate student executive member] reinforced his thoughts on donor recognition.

“One thing was clear at the end of the panel discussion: it is high time the University of Ottawa adopts a policy that will render the naming process transparent, truly collegial, as well as representative of the values of its community.” [Comments by UofOWatch]

Not only was a proper policy for donors and benefactors not transparently developed and adopted, but, instead, all this was followed, in 2010, by a "U of O anonymous research chair for ethical management", no less.

Now, recently, it has come to light in a CBC media report that the University of Ottawa, under President Allan Rock's watch, has a benefactor who allegedly had intimate ties with a large US neo-Nazi organization:

American neo-Nazi group to get part of Ottawa exhibit (link)
CBCNews, June 29, 2013

Indeed, the benefactor willed a $1 million collection housed in the University of Ottawa classical antiquity museum to the said neo-Nazi organization, which theorizes about creating an all-white society without Jews and non-whites.

Following the media disclosure, according to the CBC video, the University stated that "the collection can be packed up and removed whenever [the lawyer executing the will] wants".

President Rock had a good initiative back in 2009, to create a donor policy with ethical guidelines and transparency, then he suddenly abandoned this important consultation, and then his president's web site and his personal "Rock Talk" blog went into hiding, it would seem? (The contents of these sites can no longer be accessed by the public.)

The end result for U of O is no policy and no transparency. More and more it looks like any money will do, with any degree of secrecy wanted.

Would it not be time for a thorough independent and transparent review of donors, benefactors, and partners of the University of Ottawa? The public, alumni, staff, and students are entitled to know all the contracts, terms of reference, and deals that tie the publicly funded institution to outside money. No?

Along those lines, what is the "University of Ottawa Foundation" and what does it do? How is its mission linked to the University's statutory obligations? Where are its annual audit reports on the U of O web site?

Why did Mr. Rock decide in 2009 to change his course and instead to gamble with the institution's reputation by not transparently developing an ethical donor and benefactor policy, which the entire University community (including himself?) wanted? What's up with that?

Monday, June 10, 2013

On-going story of an application to the Supreme Court of Canada

When is it OK in a democratic society for a court to ignore a complaint of bias of the court? Is it acceptable for the rules of the court to permit circumventing a bias complaint? Can a judge refuse to hear and determine a complaint about his/her own apparent bias? Is being heard on a bias question in order to overturn decisions of a judge a Charter right? Will the Supreme Court of Canada find these questions of sufficient importance to hear the appeal?

At least the last of these questions will be answered in the coming months. Here is how the story has unfolded to date:
  • 2013-01-07::: Rancourt's Application for Leave to Appeal filed to the Supreme Court of Canada, to appeal from the November 29, 2012 decision of Justice Peter Annis to not grant an appeal regarding the defendant's complaints about reasonable apprehension of bias. Full-Application-SCC.
  • 2013-02-13::: Motion to a Judge, filed to the Supreme Court of Canada, motion to set aside Registrar's January 25, 2013 order. Full-Motion-SCC.
  • 2013-02-14::: Letter of St. Lewis via Richard Dearden to SCC Registrar, asking that Registrar "not accept" Rancourt's Motion to a Judge. 2013-02-14-Dearden-to-Registrar.
  • 2013-02-22::: Letter of U of O via Peter Doody to SCC Registrar, echoing Dearden's request to "not accept" Rancourt's Motion to a Judge. 2013-02-22-Doody-to-Registrar.
  • 2013-03-04::: Ontario Civil Liberties Association's letter to the Chief Justice of Canada, about SCC Registrar's conduct. LINK. Followed by THIS, and then THIS.
Stuff happens in the corridors at the Supreme Court...?
  • 2013-04-08::: Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada changes his mind, accepts to file Rancourt's Application for leave to appeal: Registrar's letter.
  • 2013-04-09::: Rancourt re-files his Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: Full-Application-SCC.
  • 2013-04-11::: Supreme Court of Canada Registry letter to Rancourt -- Materials filed, File Number assigned: Registry's letter
  • 2013-04-19::: Supreme Court of Canada responds to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association about Registrar's conduct: SCC-letter-OCLA.*
  • 2013-05-09::: U of O submissions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: UofO-Mem-Arg-SCC.
  • 2013-05-09::: St. Lewis's submissions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: StL-Mem-Arg-SCC.
  • 2013-05-21::: Rancourt's REPLY for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: DGR-Reply-SCC.
*This bullet was added on June 20, 2013.

Sunday, June 9, 2013

Another dubious distinction for U of O: No easy access to information

University of Ottawa again topped list of formal requests for information last year (LINK)
By Neco Cockburn, OTTAWA CITIZEN June 7, 2013

The University's spin is poor:

No mention of how the U of O routinely claims that access to information requests are made in bad faith, only to be ordered or otherwise convinced to comply: PO-3121, PO-2974.

Or of how often the U of O simply disregards the access to information law and must be ordered to produce a response:  PO-3043, PO-2671, PO-2698.

The only case where the University's claim that a request is made in bad faith was upheld is the case mentioned by the spin doctor: PO-3188.

Wednesday, May 29, 2013

Some U of O students shut down the BOG over tuition fees: So very lame

Video reports about the recent student action to shut down a meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa are HERE, and HERE.

This student action was so lame. Let me explain how and why it was lame.

The "action" is solely a complaint, nothing more. Students were passively asking to be oppressed fairly. There was no hint of wanting to take over to better manage the institution. There was no offense in the tactic. Instead, it was purely a complaint about the quantum of fees.

Meanwhile administrative costs and executive globalization projects are skyrocketing...

Hey students! Here is a hint: Make a graph of total executive and executive support staff salaries (on the y axis) versus time (on the x-axis), for the last 15 years or so. Express y as a fraction of the total operating budget if you like, to account for student population and overall budget growth. Oh, and get your own numbers, not any spin from the corporate spin doctors.

Have you noticed the growth of the media relations and communications offices in recent decades...? Or just look at the president's salary for the last 20 years... That's quite a historic break!

Now I know that most of you are only around for 4 years or so, but you can research what happened before you arrived...

Corperatization and globalization are not solely about vanity buildings and brand name coffee.  They are about the institution being taken over by corporate and global interests and being run by those interests. This includes:
  • the massive drives to recruit foreign students paying large tuition fees (diploma mill economics)
  • the president's trips around the globe (notice how he's always out when something happens?)
  • top-down academic exchange programs with Israel (why Israel?)
  • "responsibility to protect" talks on campus (whose ideology?)
  • increasing "security" (cameras, lock downs, campus police...)
  • the institution's image propaganda machine (resource allocation for brand maintenance...)
  • technology and buildings being more important than quality teaching (do you like Power Point?)
  • blotted salaries of upper tier research professors (do the math)
  • poverty wages for everyone else (temp staff, undergraduate students)
  • loss of participatory collegial governance (you don't even know what that is, right?)
  • centralized control of all resource allocations (try getting a room for a student event...)
  • centralized control of all messaging (try putting up a poster)
  • costs of centralized control...
  • skyrocketing institutional legal fees (discontent students and employees sue... more lawsuits and grievances than you can count)
The list goes on.

If professors were made responsible to educate or took that responsibility, instead of being buried in or hiding behind their high-paying assembly line jobs, then you could have an education at a small fraction of the present cost, if you cared to take it.

And, um, did you consider that you are adults being forced to finance your productive work for society...? I mean does that ever cross your mind, that if you are going to be institutionalized into forced work, then you should at least be salaried?

Negotiate a salary, and impose student governance leverage on the actual management of the outfit. Grow up.

Lame. Access...? Lame.

Friday, May 24, 2013

The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt continues: Blog articles and student spy report introduced into evidence

Maureen Robinson -- student spy hired by the U of O, active 2007-2008
The public tribunal hearings into the 2009 firing of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa are on-going this May and June 2013.

These hearings will determine if the dismissal of the professor was (1) justified, and (2) whether it was done in bad faith for reasons other than the alleged pretexts given.

The main alleged reason given by the University of Ottawa for firing the professor is that he would have assigned fraudulent grades to 23 students in an advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008, grades that are alleged to have no relation to the students' actual performances and progress in the course.

A recent ruling by the Arbitrator has allowed the university to cross-examine Rancourt on his radical blogs "U of O Watch" and "Activist Teacher", and on any broad question to impeach Rancourt's "credibility" and/or fitness to be a university professor.

Rancourt's union had argued that such questions should not be permitted (HERE and HERE). The University had argued that such questions are proper cross-examination questions (HERE and HERE).

The Arbitrator explained that allowing the cross-examination questions is a distinct step from a determination of the relevance of the questions and answers, and cited the factors for determining admissibility of the thus gathered evidence.

The questions about the blogs appear to be aimed at establishing that Rancourt cannot be allowed back on campus because he incites and/or condones violence (link), because he is an anarchist, because he attacks University administrators with no regard for their feelings (link), because he uses his blogs for vengeance against any University executive associated with the dismissal (link), because he celebrates burning cop cars at G20 (link), because he promotes academic squatting (link), and so on.

On May 23, 2013, the University was allowed to put into evidence a report covertly prepared by a hired student spy about a talk Rancourt gave on another campus in 2007. Rancourt requested that he be provided a complete document rather than an incomplete report, and requested that the source of the report be identified and documented on the record, prior to answering questions about the report. Rancourt's requests were not granted. The Arbitrator ordered Rancourt to answer questions about the report. Rancourt was then cross-examined about the report.

The union will introduce a new witness when the hearings resume on June 5, 2013. The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt will then continue after the new witness is cross-examined and re-examined.

Wednesday, May 15, 2013

Start stop cross-examination of Professor Denis Rancourt at dismissal case tribunal

Lawyer for the University of Ottawa Lynn Harnden spent the whole morning cross-examining Professor Denis Rancourt today.

The very first question was (from memory) "Do you agree with the Maclean's magazine description of you as a self-described anarchist?"

[I should have answered: "Did you know that Mahatma Gandhi was a self-described anarchist?" or "I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party." Sheez. What century are we in?]

That set the tone for the morning's questions which were all about Professor Rancourt allegedly using his U of O Watch blog and emails for vengeance and to inflict emotional hurt.

Finally, lead counsel for the union objected to the entire line of questioning as being irrelevant to the issues before the Arbitrator.

The Arbitrator asked for written legal submissions from both sides in order to decide if these broad questions will be allowed to continue. The Arbitrator will provide his decision by Tuesday May 21st when the hearings will resume, with or without the broad questions.

The purely legal arguments will be part of the public record.

Rancourt has blogged critically and with sting about his colleagues and the University administration since 2007, years before he was dismissed. Yet the University never reprimanded him for his blog reports or asked him to stop. Now it is using the blog to justify itself in the dismissal case.

By contrast, the University had to ask one certain Chairman of Chemistry "that he refrain from making such comments aimed towards you...": LINK.

General background document: HERE.

Tuesday, May 14, 2013

Final hearings in the dismissal case of Professor Denis Rancourt

In May and June 2013 are the final hearings in the binding labour arbitration tribunal in the case of the dismissal of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

The schedule for the 14 final hearing days is:
May 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, June 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26 2013 at 9:30am.
Hotel Indigo Ottawa (Indigo Room), 123 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa.

Arbitrator: Claude Foisy
Lead counsel University: Lynn Harnden
Lead counsel union: Sean McGee

Professor Rancourt finished his testimony in chief on May 14th. He will be cross-examined starting on May 15th.

In the course of the first days of testimony, the University has abandoned its discipline of Professor Rancourt for refusing to produce the final examinations of his students. This is no longer one of the causes for discipline.

The remaining alleged causes for discipline include:
  • using improper speakers in his Fall 2006 SCI 1101 "Science in Society" course;
  • giving anomalously high grades (too many A's) in his Winter 2007 PHY 1722 "Principes de Physique II" course; and
  • assigning fraudulent A+ grades to 23 students in his Winter 2008 PHY 4385/5100 "Solid State Physics" course.
The University is also charging that Professor Rancourt incites violence and should therefore not be allowed back on campus even if his dismissal was not warranted.

Background document: HERE.

Monday, March 18, 2013

On technology in the classroom at U of O, and on paternalism

Drop the iPad and get back to basics, says University of Ottawa professor Cameron Montgomery
--Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2013

U of O Granting Program Gives $80 000 / year for Clickers, etc.
--Student's-Eye-View, December 20, 2011

On the sacred space of the university classroom
--Activist Teacher, October 3, 2009

"The University of Ottawa is till fine-tuning their new online policy, and expects to release their findings by the end of the year." --Sun article, March 17, 2013

Findings? Some profs want to close in-class student laptops on demand, as in paternalistic control of in-class behaviour of adult students who are suppose to have the academic freedom to optimize their own learning as they see fit...

U of O Watch looks forward to the U of O's "findings" on this delicate question of student adaptation to dreadfully boring classes delivered by PowerPoint slides.

The student union has been waiting for the University's "findings" for a full year:
Student union letter
--SFUO, April 2, 2012

Tuesday, March 12, 2013

Allan Rock refuses to pay legal fees to protect academic freedom, while funding a controversial defamation lawsuit against a critic of the university

The arbitrary nature of Allan Rock's decisions regarding using the University's public moneys to fund lawsuits is highlighted by two recent cases:

(1) Search warrants against criminology university professors: LINK

(2) St. Lewis "private" defamation lawsuit against Rancourt: LINK

In addition, Rock is refusing to answer student Hazel Gashoka on whether the University will fund a new defamation lawsuit against her: LINK.

Friday, March 8, 2013

Richard Dearden trashes OCLA to Chief Justice of Canada

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has posted the recent letter of lawyer Richard Dearden of the Gowlings law firm to Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. The letter is here: LINK. Dearden argues that "The OCLA has no evidentiary or legal basis for accusing the Registrar of having an apprehension of bias (sic) regarding the two letters he wrote Mr. Rancourt and no investigation is warranted."

Following Mr. Dearden, the Chief Justice should not investigate the conduct of the Registrar in dealing with self-represented litigants, as requested by the OCLA.

Tuesday, March 5, 2013

OCLA asks Chief Justice Berverly McLachlin to investigate the conduct of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada

The Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association has written a public letter to the Right Honourable Beverly McLachlin, Chief Justice of Canada, asking her to investigate the conduct of the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The concerns expressed by OCLA include the recent actions of the Registrar in "not accepting" both an application and a motion submitted by Denis Rancourt to the Court, as reported on this blog.

The letter, in part, reads:
"We are particularly concerned by the Registrar shielding his own decision from review by not placing a motion pursuant to Rule 78 before a judge of the Court, but rather returning the motion record to the unrepresented party. Even if the Registrar is correct in stating that Rule 78 “is not applicable,” it was inappropriate for him to get involved with a matter seeking to review his own decision, and it creates an apprehension of bias."

Monday, March 4, 2013

L'U d'O prend ses distances (St. Lewis v. Rancourt) -- La Rotonde

...and reported in English on Student's-Eye-View: LINK

“U of O insisted that it would not fund a potential lawsuit by Ms. St. Lewis against Ms. Gashoka. Recall that U of O has recognized that it is reimbursing Ms. St. Lewis’s legal fees without limit in in her pursuit against Mr. Rancourt in the name of a moral obligation and of the fact that Ms. St. Lewis was attacked for work she did as an employee. It is impossible for us to see how it would be different in Ms. Gashoka’s case, since she has been threatened with a lawsuit for having repeated and somewhat developed the ideas of Mr. Rancourt.”
(free translation) – Hamdi Souissi, La Rotonde, March 4, 2013

L'Apartheid et Allan Rock, une grande histoire d'amour -- La Rotonde (in French)

Thursday, February 28, 2013

Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau refuses to accept a Motion to a Judge to review the Registrar's own decision

On February 13, 2013 Rancourt served and filed THIS Motion to a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to review Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau's earlier decision to not accept Rancourt's Application for Leave to Appeal a lower court decision to deny Rancourt of a judicial determination of apparent bias of lower court judge Robert Beaudoin.

Today, Rancourt received the Registrar's February 22, 2013 decision (LINK) to not accept to file Rancourt's Motion to a Judge to review the Registrar's own decision.

The original Application for Leave to Appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada is HERE.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

U of O president Allan Rock and law professor Joanne St. Lewis must not sue student Hazel Gashoka

Threat of lawsuit against YouTube video

By Denis Rancourt

Hazel Gashoka earned an Honours B.A. in psychology from the University of Ottawa in 2012 and is now a graduate student in Community Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University.  As an undergraduate at the U of O, she was an activist for social justice, and in her graduating year was elected to represent students on the University Senate.

In 2008, while Gashoka was an undergraduate, the student union reported systemic racism at the University of Ottawa.  The report drew a lot of public attention and was an embarrassment to the university.  In response, the university asked U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis to publicly "assess" the student report.  In just a few days' time, St. Lewis issued a public report questioning the validity of the student charges.

Gashoka recently made a six-minute YouTube video (imbedded below) analyzing St. Lewis's role in helping the university deflect the students' charge of racism.  (St. Lewis and Gashoka are black, and this writer is white.)

After the video was posted, St. Lewis, through a big-name lawyer hired for her by the university, sent Gashoka a notice of libel, which is a threat to sue for defamation.

St. Lewis is already suing former U of O physics professor Denis Rancourt for $1 million for expressing a similar view on his “U of O Watch” blog.  That defamation lawsuit, which began in 2011, is funded by the university and pursued by the same lawyer who is threatening Gashoka -- Richard Dearden of the large corporate law firm Gowlings.  University president Allan Rock testified under oath that his funding of the lawsuit against Rancourt is without a spending limit, “without a cap.”

Gashoka made public the threat that she received, and she publicly called upon Rock to “Please confirm that the University of Ottawa will not be funding a defamation lawsuit against me [her].”

In this writer’s opinion, it is morally wrong for the University of Ottawa and St. Lewis to try to silence Gashoka.  Using public funds and student tuition money to fund repressive litigation against her would be ironic, as the university claims to promote discourse and debate on matters of public interest.

Gashoka has the right to interpret the facts any way that she wants in this or any other matter of public importance.  Public controversy and debate on societal issues can be a rough trade and can involve terms that sting, but the law accommodates its requirements.  St. Lewis should not expect to be immune from criticism for the role that she played.

I call on president Allan Rock to state publicly, without further delay, that the university will not fund a lawsuit against Hazel Gashoka for her video, and to clarify the university’s criteria for funding lawsuits against its critics.

See all related posts HERE.

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Lawyer Richard Dearden asks Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau to not accept motion to a judge

Regarding THIS recent motion to a judge filed to the Supreme Court of Canada by Rancourt in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case, St. Lewis' lawyer Richard Dearden sent THIS February 14, 2013 letter to Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau.

In the letter, Mr. Dearden is asking Mr. Bilodeau to not accept a motion to the Court to have Mr. Bilodeau's own decision set aside.

Mr. Dearden is explaining to Mr. Bilodeau how the rules of the Court work, and how it is that Mr. Bilodeau should not accept a motion to a judge which would set aside Mr. Bilodeau's prior decision to not accept Rancourt's recent application for leave to appeal (without allowing the application to be considered and determined by the Court).

It would seem from Mr. Dearden's letter that Mr. Dearden is under the impression that Mr. Bilodeau is maybe not familiar with the rules of the Court or with the responsibilities of his own function?