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.
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
The University of Ottawa's poor record of systematically opposing access to information has been documented many times on this blog.
On October 15, 2015, the University of Ottawa lost another Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision (LINK to Student's-Eye View report). Seven (7) more Allan Rock emails were ordered disclosed: IPC Order PO-3540-F.
Here are excerpts from the decision:
[5] 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.
[8] 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) ...
[12] 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.
[14] 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". ...
[25] 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...
The Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, Joseph Hickey, has authored and published a report about the documented deplorable practices of the University of Ottawa in responding to access-to-information requests:
"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."
The report is well documented, with many records in appendix. (LINK) (PDF)
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 ORCCtraining have a better understanding of the notion of consent.
·Training participants have developed the core competencies necessary to respond appropriately to a disclosure.
·Training participantsare
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
Allan Rock Recteur et vice-chancelier | President and Vice-Chancellor Cabinet du recteur | Office of the President Université d'Ottawa | University of Ottawa Pavillon Tabaret | Tabaret Hall 550 Cumberland (212) Ottawa ON K1N 6N5 613-562-5809 | 1-888-uOttawa
We all remember the national media celebration of Rock's strategy apparently intended to avoid taking radical (to the root) steps to address sexual violence (LINK-CBC). And we recall student groups not being convinced of Rock's authenticity in this matter (LINK1)(LINK2)(LINK3). The student view of Rock is not surprising given his first-reaction hesitance and denial (LINK).
Well now the Director of the Student Rights Centre (of the Student Federation University of Ottawa) is holding Mr. Rock to account regarding what appears to have been an elaborate media and corporate-image management device?
This is the open letter that was sent to president Rock and to some twenty or so university executives and student media:
From: Mireille Gervais<director.src@sfuo.ca> Date: Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 12:26 PM Subject: Training regarding sexual violence on campus To: [many]
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 theReport 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
Update: Rancourt's union won the motion and won costs. The October 26, 2015, judicial decision of the Divisional Court is HERE.
Denis Rancourt at the courthouse on October 8, 2015
By Denis G. Rancourt
On October 8, 2015, there was the first hearing before the appellate court in the matter of the 2009 dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt, in Ottawa before Divisional Court Judge Robert Scott (who travelled from Belleville for the hearing).
The Divisional Court hearing was to decide a university’s motion to strike (remove, disallow) the union’s affidavit of evidence about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings, for which transcripts do not exist. After the hearing, Justice Scott said he would study the motion record further and provide his decision as soon as he can.
Justice Scott made interesting comments during the October 8th hearing, and the university’s tactics in the motion are also of note.
Brief history of the case
Tenured professor Denis Rancourt was fired by the Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa in 2009 over his grading of students in one advanced physics course. This TVO video interview from 2009 is a vivid summary of the academic dimension of the conflict:
A lengthy labour arbitration followed, in which it was shown that the university had employed a student spy (Maureen Robinson, using the false cyber identity “Nathalie Page”) who made extensive surveillance of professor Rancourt and of students and gave weekly reports to both the dean of science and University Counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK).
During the lengthy arbitration hearings, the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden spent most of the time presenting professor Rancourt’s political and professional views in a negative light. He went so far as to repeatedly suggest that professor Rancourt’s writings incited students to violence, and even showed this video at the hearing, since he had found it in one of the professor’s Playlists on YouTube:
On the central question, the arbitrator disregarded the hard evidence of grading (examination copies, and grading sheets), disregarded the dean’s admission that he had no evidence that any student did not deserve his or her grade, and upheld the dismissal in 2014.
The professors’ union announced in 2014 that it would appeal the arbitrator’s decision (LINK):
“While the decision not only upheld the Employer’s unjust dismissal decision, the arbitrator also made some troubling statements concerning Academic Freedom which can have a profoundly negative impact on academics everywhere.”
Happenings in the motion hearing
Following the union’s filing of its application for judicial review, the university brought a motion to strike the union’s affidavit about what occurred during the labour arbitration hearings. After much delay, the motion was finally heard on October 8, 2015.
Despite the fact that there is a large amount of documentary evidence (many exhibits) that Ms. Robinson was hired for surveillance and gave regular reports about her activities (including details about her use of a false cyber identity, and her misrepresentations in requesting information from third parties) (LINK),
and despite the labour arbitrator himself finding (LINK, see paragraph 58) “[a] report on Professor Rancourt’s address prepared by a University of Ottawa student and editor to the students newspaper (attending the talk with the purpose of monitoring the communication by Professor Rancourt), was entered into evidence”,
the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden argued at the hearing that the dean of science had hired Ms. Robinson solely to help him organize his office.
Justice Scott (J) expressed some reservation about this. His exchange with lawyer Lynn Harnden (H) went like this:
J: This is where I’m confused about Ms. Robinson – she’s the editor of a newspaper and she’s sent in to tidy up his office? H: That’s what Dean Lalonde testified he engaged her to do. He explained she also had another hat on as editor of student newspaper and took certain initiatives related to Professor Rancourt’s activities.
J: Any evidence how she was chosen, or just happened to be there? Seems a little unusual to me, that’s the only thing I noticed.
H: That she had this dual hat on? Not on the record how he chose her, but did take her on to organize this voluminous evidence and she took other steps.
J: There’s a reference somewhere in the materials to how she equated her role as a young woman trying to trap a pedophile?
H: There was reference in Prof R’s testimony of that allegation. She didn’t testify so we don’t have that. We …
J: Where did that reference come from then? She never said that? It’s not part of the record?
H: No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that or it’s said somewhere I’m not aware – she didn’t testify. […]
“No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that …” Here, Mr. Harnden appears to have forgotten about a lot of damning exhibits (LINK), including Ms. Robinson’s "pedophile email" report to the dean of science and to counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK), and appears to have also forgotten that the "pedophile email" was described in the union's factum for the very motion being heard (LINK, see paragraph 41(a)). This lapse of memory was acknowledged later in the hearing and corrected by the union’s lawyer.
Justice Scott was also somewhat baffled that the parties had allowed the labour arbitration to proceed without a recording or transcript of the lengthy hearings:
J: Let me stop you. I’m confused – in your affidavit material it indicates the nature of the hearing – you started off by giving us the breakdown on that – “28 days, 160 documents.... Rancourt there 13 days...” – doesn’t that fly in the face of the reason why arbitrations aren’t recorded? They’re recorded because they’re short, to the point, get done in reasonable time – but when you have a really complicated one such as this one, it would be necessary for anyone to make sense of it later on to have it recorded. Do you see what you’re faced with – or what I’m faced with – ultimately the Divisional Court faced with – how do you review, just take a look at it? Assume?
[…] My point was that technology is there that would allow for accurate recording. Might be helpful for someone sorting it out later. I also understand what this thing is built on.
Note that it is precisely because there is no transcript or recording that the union needed to file an affidavit about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings in order to appeal the labour arbitration decision, exactly the affidavit that the university wants to strike.
Put simply, if the university succeeds in convincing the motions judge to strike the affidavit, then the union will be deprived of its necessary evidence about what it affirms actually happened at the arbitration, and the appeal will be almost guaranteed to fail.
The test for allowing the affidavit is that the affidavit evidence is otherwise not available, and is necessary to attack the arbitration decision on allowed grounds for appeal. In common language, this "test" is called a “no-brainer”.
The actual arguments as to whether or not to strike the union’s affidavit were very interesting, in that they diverged somewhat from this test.
The union argued that the affidavit evidence was not otherwise available, was essential for its appeal, and that the stated grounds for appeal were legally allowed grounds for appeal.
Mr. Harnden, for the university, argued that the affidavit should not be accepted because the university will contradict evidence in the affidavit with its own affidavit, later in the actual judicial review hearing, and because to accept the evidence in the affidavit would amount to the court inferring that the arbitrator had “blundered”:
H: Let’s just think about the significance – she’s [the affiant is] telling this court that the decision maker heard all of those comments of Professor Rancourt. She’s making it clear that the Arbitrator heard those concerns from Professor Rancourt, then the Applicant would have the court that the expert Arbitrator disregarded those concerns, disregarded comments by APUO in closing submissions, and blundered. They’re asking this court to draw the inference from the fact that the Arbitrator didn’t go out of his way to state ‘look I’m referring to fact that Professor Rancourt conceded accuracy because that means I can rely on those portions of the documents’. Given how rare it should be that affidavit evidence is heard, it would not be appropriate to make that exception in a case where this court would have to find, in effect, that Mr. Foisy [the arbitrator] didn’t exercise the expertise that should be held by any competent decision maker with respect to a document that has not been identified by a witness, and which has been identified with respect to its potential failure many times in the proceeding. We know Mr. Foisy heard Professor Rancourt’s comments. The court should not be too quick to infer that he made the blunder that my friend suggests.
Basically, as I read it, the university's hired lawyer Lynn Harnden is saying that the affidavit should be blocked here and not be seen by the panel of three Divisional Court judges that will hear and decide the actual appeal itself that claims arbitrator errors because to allow the affidavit to pass would be equivalent to Justice Scott “inferring” that the arbitrator “blundered”.
In other words, the affidavit evidence is so damning of the arbitrator's decision that it should not be allowed to be considered by those judging the arbitrator's decision.
Despite Mr. Harnden's high intelligence and despite his well crafted argument, the word “circular” comes to mind.
Overall, in my opinion, Mr. Harnden very ably worked to “shift” the question before the motions judge away from the rational and practiced legal test for accepting affidavit evidence and towards questions that properly belong to the appeal itself: 1. What evidence about what occurred during the arbitration is reliable, if it is opposed by a university’s own affidavit?; and 2. Did the arbitrator make errors, and were these errors serious enough for his decision to be set aside?
The university’s court-filed factum (i.e., written argument) for the motion is HERE-LINK.
The union’s court-filed factum for the motion is HERE-LINK.
Today, in Question Period NDP MPP for London West Peggy Sattler called on the Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities to
close loopholes and cap executive salaries at post-secondary
institutions.
“[...] Now we are learning
about a 50% salary increase for a University of Ottawa VP, over the two
years since the public sector wage freeze took effect. Allan Rock, the
university president and former Liberal Cabinet Minister, is defending
the increase, saying that it was ‘compliant’ with provincial law.”
“Speaker, when it comes to post-secondary education, this
government has no problem allowing tuition fees to skyrocket, no problem
with poverty wages for teaching assistants and no problem replacing
full-time jobs with contract staff. But it is not willing to hold the
line on executive compensation.”
“Why is this
government refusing to take real action to rein in the salaries of
senior university administrators?” asked Sattler.
According to the Sunshine list, two executives at the
University of Ottawa have seen their salaries balloon in less than two
years. Sattler says students in Ontario pay the highest tuition in
Canada and that the government needs to act now and draw a hard line on
exorbitant salaries paid out to university executives.
“Speaker, Ontario university students pay the highest
tuition fees in Canada, and have seen tuition more than triple over the
past 20 years. Post-secondary students are among the fastest-growing
group of food bank users, while student tuition dollars are being used
to subsidize out-of-control executive salaries. The government talks
about compensation frameworks, but what we need are hard caps that
work.”
“When will the government close the loopholes, remove the
wiggle room, and finally put a hard cap on salaries for senior
university administrators?” Sattler asked.
The U of O School of Political Studies academic staff is outraged by the machinations of the Rock administration in refusing to appoint the duly chosen next director of the School.
The School's top administrative members have co-signed THIS OPEN LETTER (LINK) to Allan Rock (in French, dated October 5, 2015), outlining outright machinations to avoid appointing the duly selected new director.
The said duly selected candidate (92% approval within the School) just happens to be Professor Christian Rouillard, the recent president of the professor's union (2011-2015), who has been a needed bulwark against the transgressions of the Rock administration.
The Open Letter explicitly describes a litany of moves that would make Kafka uncomfortable, and expressly identifies conflicts of interest, and breaches of procedural and natural justice.
This (LINK) (PDF) is the Notice of Constitutional Question that was served to the attorneys general and to the respondent and filed at the Supreme Court of Canada, on October 7, 2015, in the application for leave to appeal, Court File Number 36653, in the case Rancourt v. St. Lewis.
The trial and appeal went very wrong and the attorney generals (of Ontario and Canada) need to intervene at the Supreme Court in order to protect the interests of Canadians and the integrity of the justice system.
Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney in May 2014 had already indicated how wrong things could go in this case (LINK). She was more than right.
There are five constitutional questions being put to the Supreme Court:
i. Constitutionality of the common-law “Astley test”:
Is the common-law “Astley test” used in ordering permanent injunctions against unknown expression following findings of defamation constitutional and consistent with Canada’s obligations pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and was the applicant’s right of freedom of expression thereby violated by the permanent injunction?
ii. Rights infringed or denied by selecting trial evidence in barring defences:
Under what conditions, if any, can a judge disregard evidence on the trial record because one party did not “call” or “introduce” it, in deciding whether to put defences to the jury, and were the applicant’s Charter rights of a fair trial and of freedom of expression thereby infringed or denied by the lower courts themselves?
iii. Freedom of expression infringed or denied by costs of defamation trial:
Under what conditions are costs of trial ordered against a defendant in a defamation action unconstitutional and incompatible with Canada’s obligations pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and did the lower courts themselves violate the applicant’s right of freedom of expression with costs?
iv. Constitutionality of the Canadian common law of judicial bias:
Is the Canadian common law test for reasonable apprehension of bias (judicial bias) unconstitutional by virtue of being a violation of Article 14(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and did the lower courts themselves thereby violate the applicant’s right to a fair trial?
v. French language Charter rights infringed or denied by the appellate court itself:
Did the appellate court itself violate the applicant’s equal-language Charter rights and privileges?
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association opposes the University of
Ottawa's funding of the legal costs of the plaintiff/respondent: HERE-LINK. A recent video-report about the case was published by Brave The World: HERE-LINK. A blog-article history of the case is HERE-LINK. All the court-filed documents in the case are HERE-LINK.
The University of Ottawa faculty association is asking the province to investigate a $132,000 raise given to a senior university vice-president, a raise that came, the association says, while the university was required by law to keep salaries frozen.
In a letter to Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Reza Moridi, the association urges a “transparent public investigation” into the raises given to vice-president of research Dr. Mona Nemer and to Dr. Jacques Bradwejn, dean of the School of Medicine, the person who approved the raise.
Nemer’s pay jumped to $392,058 in 2014, from $259,754 in 2012 according to Ontario’s sunshine salary disclosure list, an increase of 50 per cent in two years. The association complained about the increase to the university’s board of governors this summer.
The university says $120,000 of that increase comes from four years’ worth of a $30,000 annual stipend that was paid in a lump sum to Nemer for her work as a cardiovascular scientist and is not related to work as an administrator.
“The salaries provided to our executives remain compliant with provincial law,” university president Allan Rock said in a July 13th letter to the Board of Governors. [...]
If you called the general telephone number for the University of Ottawa,
Ottawa, Canada, on December 12, 2008, this is what you heard: President
Allan Rock personally asking how he can direct your call to "Canada's
university".
It went viral the old-fashion way, on the telephone... so it did not last long. Just another Allan Rock gaffe it would seem.
The recently announced Nobel Prize in physics is for a discovery (neutrino physics) done by physicists at Carleton University, and Queens University, and the National Research Counsel of Canada, excluding any physicists of the University of Ottawa.
Carleton University physicist authors on the article include: I. Blevis, F. Dalnoki-Veress, J. Farine, D. R. Grant, C. K. Hargrove, I. Levine, K. McFarlane, C. Mifflin, V. M. Novikov, M. O'Neill, M. Shatkay, and N. Starinsky.
National media had touted another researcher as the likely winner, who has done most of his career research at the National Research Council (in Ottawa) prior to moving to U of O: LINK.
But it was not to be.
Little Carleton University beat "Canada's university", as U of O likes to call itself (LINK).
Last month we learned that the U of O standing had collapsed by 66 spots (LINK), and we saw the university communications agent give blatantly false spin about the collapse (LINK).
As part of Rock not accepting responsibility for his record, the university shot back that it was in the top 200 in a separate ranking. Well, this week, that other ranking has released its 2015-2016 report... and guess what?
The U of O has dropped out of the top 200 list produced by Times Higher Education.
In response, Rock's communication front "blamed its decline in the rankings on Times Higher Education’s decision to double the number of universities it evaluated" (LINK).
It seems rather hard to swallow that on the one hand Rock has been claiming that U of O is in the top 200 universities, while on the other hand he now claims that if one considers more universities then it is not in the top 200 universities. Either the logical flaw here has escaped lawyer Rock, or Mr. Rock has intentionally been misleading the public. It's one or the other.
Furthermore, the new excuse given by Rock is not compatible with a reality in which the Times has explained "This is one of those cases where other institutions have simply improved more quickly." (LINK)
What is of even greater concern is that Rock's spin doctor has again given false spin to cover up Rock's record (LINK):
"In a statement Wednesday, the University of Ottawa noted it was still ranked eighth among universities in Canada".
Well, that is blatantly false. The Times 2015-2016 ranking, for Canadian universities, has U of O in twelfth place (LINK), behind U of T, UBC, McGill, McMaster, U of M, U of A, U of W, Western, U of C, Dalhousie, and Laval; and fifth in Ontario despite its size and being in Canada's capital.
That is twice now, in as many rankings, that the university administration has factually mislead the public in media interviews to cover up Rock's failure to increase the standing of the university. And Mr. Rock himself is personally being very silent on these reports.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed in posts and comments are those of the posting authors. Except if otherwise stated, the views and positions of UofOWatch are those of Denis G. Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Obviously, links and references to cited works do not imply agreement with or endorsement of the views expressed or information in the linked postings or cited works.
