U OF O WATCH

Rock administration ordered to follow the law: Must give access to President's emails

2012-02-01T16:25:00.006-05:00

From A Student's-Eye View: HERE.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario has ruled on January 25, 2012 (IPC Order PO-3043) that the University of Ottawa has shown unacceptable disregard for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in refusing to respond to a University Senator's request for internal communications between President Allan Rock and his (former) Chief of Staff Stephane Emard-Chabot.

The University had flippantly and incorrectly rejected the access-to-information request by claiming that the request was not sufficiently clear. The IPC rebuffed the University and ordered it to perform the search for the emails and provide an access decision.

This illustrates the University's bold disrespect for Ontario's transparency law. The University of Ottawa receives among the highest numbers of IPC orders against it of all universities in Ontario.

Wow

2012-01-30T20:15:00.011-05:00

I never thought I would see the day soon when the student media at the U of O would find its voice in the needed criticism of the university administration...

Wow.

The French student newspaper La Rotonde is on fire with being brushed aside by the Rock administration.

Its latest razor sharp editorial is HERE.
An English translation is provided by student senator Joseph Hickey HERE.

The editorial focuses on the internal administrative meltdown that is occurring with five major and sudden departures in the last 12 months or less:

chief of media relations Andre Dumulon,
main media mouthpiece,
chief of staff of the president,
VP-Academic (second in command) Francois Houle,
VP-Resources Victor Simon,
dean of science Andre E. Lalonde,

not to mention the departures since Rock's arrival on campus ... :

VP-Academic Robert Major,
Legal Counsel Michel Flaherty,
VP-Governance Pamela Harrod,
VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers,
VP-External,
President Gilles Patry (in mid-career),
VP-Research Howard Alper,
Chair of the BOG Marc Jolicoeur, ...

Will The Fulcrum wake up and participate in this revolution in accountability?

PRESS RELEASE::: International MDs sue U of O for conspiracy to injure -- $120 million claim made public

2012-01-30T10:10:00.015-05:00

(OTTAWA, January 30, 2012) – Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.

Discrimination, conspiracy to injure, malfeasance in public office, breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, breach of contract, and negligence are claimed against the University and several of its officials.

Among the individual defendants are Dr. Jacques Bradwejn – Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. James Worthington – Ottawa Hospital’s Vice-President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety, Dr. Paul Bragg – Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education, Dr. Eric Poulin – Chair of the Department of Surgery, Dr. Therry Mesana – Chair of the Cardiac Surgery Division, Dr. Richard Moulton – Chair of the Neurosurgery Division, Dr. Fraser Rubens – Cardiac Surgery Program Director, and Dr. John Sinclair – former Neurosurgery Program Director.

The claim casts a spotlight on the state of medical training of foreign medical residents at both provincial and national levels in Canadian universities and illustrates some of the hurdles faced by foreign doctors at the U of O.

The plaintiffs’ case had garnered media attention in the Spring of 2011 when they held a press conference to announce that they had filed a Human Rights Complaint against the University of Ottawa.

They are represented by lawyers Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka.

For more details please follow the link to the statement of claim: Aba-AlKhail et al. v. University of Ottawa et al. CV-11-440336.

- 30 -

For more information please contact:

Mireille Gervais, LL.L.
Director, Student Appeal Centre
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
Email: case.cresac@sfuo.ca

Khalid Aba-AlKhail, MD
Cardiac Surgery Program
University of Ottawa

All related posts about this case and the Faculty of Medicine are HERE.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Inside view of court hearing on two motions

2012-01-29T11:41:00.013-05:00

On October 7, 2011, two motions in the matter of Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt were heard before The Honourable Mr. Justice McKinnon at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Ottawa, Elgin Street courthouse).

The plaintiff was represented by attorney Richard Dearden and his Gowlings team. The defendant was self-represented.

Given the open court principle in our society, the public is entitled to know exactly all that was said in court and the ruling of the judge.

This way, the public can judge the degree to which the courts and justice system behave fairly.

You can follow the October 7, 2011 in-court action via this accurate official transcript of the proceedings: PART-1, PART-2.

The rulings on the two motions are here: Motion-1, Motion-3.

Mr. Dearden stated in court that he intends to use the hearing transcript itself as evidence of malice against the defendant in the main defamation action. He also made it clear that he intended to get the defendant to pay costs: "you should not in any way be swayed by the submissions that he has been unemployed [...] but regardless, he's got a house and he's in litigation [...]"

This transcript gives a representation of the nature of the plaintiff's lawsuit being funded by the University of Ottawa, and of the Court's reaction to the litigation even in these procedural motions.

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Canadian university presidents concerned about human rights choose their battles

2012-01-29T10:31:00.010-05:00

At a time when Israel, backed by the US and Canada's power elite, is calling for all-out war to destroy Iran; even having a US Zionist pundit call-out in the media for US president Obama to be assassinated by Israel if he won’t attack Iran (Globe and Mail LINK)...

At a time when a major regional war is threatened to satisfy Israeli regime ambitions...

What better time for two university presidents, two champions of Canadian-government-sanctioned human rights advocacy, Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy, to point out (LINK, LINK) Iran's human rights violations against Iranian Baha'i educators who had their University of Ottawa degrees stripped from them by the Iranian government?

It is heartening to see these men of principle call out for the protection of human rights irrespective of the political circumstances.

In their own words: "Those who support human rights, who believe in access to education and who deplore repressive governments are increasingly speaking out ..."

Does this mean that we can soon expect our two academic champions of human rights to jointly and publicly denounce the lack of access to higher education for the occupied Palestinians of Gaza, mainly due to Israel bombing the schools, hospitals, and public health infrastructure...?

I hope so. But somehow I fear this will not occur soon.

[Note: This author does not minimize the human rights abuses of Iran or of any state, Canada included. But it seems to this author that influential citizens should be first concerned with the human rights abuses of their own nation and nation's allies, since that is where these concerned actors have the greatest potential influence and responsibility.]

EN FRANCAIS::: L'U d'O oppose le bilinguisme devant les tribunaux

2012-01-27T16:52:00.012-05:00

Le professeur titulaire de physique Denis Rancourt a été limogé en 2009 sous prétexte d’avoir attribué des notes frauduleuses aux vingt-trois étudiant(e)s dans un cours de fin de cycle à l’Université d’Ottawa, dans une affaire majeure de liberté universitaire. Son syndicat le soutient dans un procès en cour. En plus l’université finance une poursuite judiciaire de $1 million contre lui pour diffamation, suite à sont traitement d'une professeure de droit d'avoir agit en “reine nègre” pour la position de cette professeure contre un rapport étudiant qui accusait l’institution de racisme systémique.

Récemment (les 24 et 26 janvier) le professeur Rancourt, qui est franco-Ontarien, a décidé de faire valoir ses droits de représentation en français à la fois au tribunal pour le travail et à la Cour supérieure de l’Ontario. Cela a causé des plaintes aigues des avocats unilingues anglophones retenus par l’université. Maitre Richard Dearden, en particulier, a indiqué à la cour qu’il chercherait à imposer des frais punitifs contre le professeur pour « abus de procédure » quand ce dernier devant un refus de la cour se mit simplement à adresser les intervenants en français lors d’une séance juridique, après avoir signalé les règles du Procureur général pour l’Ontario vis-à-vis du bilinguisme devant les tribunaux.

Le professeur de physique tient son blogue anglophone critiquant l’Université d’Ottawa « U of O Watch » depuis 2007. Dans le passé, l’université a menacé deux autres poursuites judiciaires contre le blogue.

"Bilingual" U of O hires English-only lawyers -- University Senator reports

2012-01-27T09:24:00.017-05:00

When it comes to justice at the University of Ottawa, it appears that its lawyers speak only English:::

English-only Monolingualism of U of O Lawyers Delays Academic Freedom Cases (LINK)

In both cases, there was systematic balking and reprimand for the defendant to use his mother tongue of French.

In the labour arbitration case hearing on January 24, 2012, English-speaking lawyer Lynn Harnden complained profusely to the Tribunal against the defendant's (Rancourt's) demand to give evidence in French even though he had already confirmed that the University's main witness, former dean of science Andre E. Lalonde, would give his evidence in French.

In the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit case, on January 26, 2012, English-speaking lawyer Richard Dearden indicated to the Court that he would seek punitive (abuse of process) costs against the defendant (Rancourt) for demanding a bilingual proceeding. Intervening University hired lawyer Peter Doody informed the Court that he was not bilingual.

Examples of the institution's true language behaviour!?

Ibrahim Said wrongly dismissed - Medicine Dean Jacques Bradwejn biased against foreign doctor - Judge rules

2012-01-16T10:20:00.012-05:00

(Jacques Bradwajn, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, U of O)

On December 30, 2011, a judge ruled (link HERE) in yet another case of wrongful bias and wrongful dismissal in "Canada's university's" (aka U of O) Faculty of Medicine. The national media reported on the ruling early this month:

National Post article HERE.

This time the target was foreign-trained Dr. Ibrahim Said who was denied the certification to continue practicing medicine rather than being promoted to Associate Professor despite an excellent performance evaluation.

The judge is reported to have found that the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Jacques Bradwejn, acted with bias against Said. In my view, the circumstances were also not duly ascertained by the Faculty committee responsible to make the recommendation, which found it acceptable to go along with the Dean.

In recent years, at least five non-white doctors have been targeted by the Faculty of Medicine, with devastating career consequences. These are only the known cases that have led to court or tribunal processes.

The Rock administration has not yet seen fit to investigate or intervene but instead is in denial and funds extravagant legal defences against the plaintiffs or complainants. Not to mention the School of Nursing racial discrimination problems, HERE.

All U of O Watch links about the Faculty of Medicine are HERE.

Dean of Health Sciences Denis Prud'homme stands up to Rock administration

2012-01-14T10:54:00.011-05:00

In the present U of O climate of obedience a la political party discipline it is breaking news whenever any dean actually acts like a dean!

Here is the only example known to U of O Watch of a dean publicly opposing the Allan Rock administration.

Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences Dr. Denis Prud'homme is punishing Rock with media exposure for breaking a promise to nursing students to provide adequate space resources. Prud'homme has even compiled an extensive media list about the conflict on the Faculty's web page:

This provides accountability via public exposure.

The University is spending a lot of public money fighting its own students in courts and tribunals, fighting against access to information disclosures, suing a former professor, ..., including fighting to quash or minimize a Faculty of Health Science's Nursing students' Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint for racist discrimination (see below).

It also pays Allan Rock an unprecedented president's salary, in addition to his generous publicly funded MP's pension. (The pension itself is more than most full-time untenured teachers earn.)

It also spends unprecedented amounts for "media relations" and "academic programs marketing", including a two-for-one law degree scam with Israel (and here, here, here).

It also spends a far larger fraction of its budget for "administration" (not teaching or research or community service) than at any previous time in its institutional history.

It seems to this commentator that it could fund a proper 5-story building for the Faculty of Health Sciences. Is the Faculty too francophone? Too independent thinking? Too community oriented? What is the problem? And why break an explicit Allan Rock in-writing promise to Nursing students (HERE)?

After this is fixed (or before) maybe dean Prud'homme could get personally involved in examining how the Rock administration's legal team is treating the Nursing students' Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint for racist discrimination (HERE and HERE)...? And maybe look into the systemic racism in his faculty?

In the news (EN FRANCAIS)::: Marie-Josée Berger in hot water?

2012-01-12T11:00:00.009-05:00

(Note that the University of Moncton has its short-list candidates for president give public addresses to the university community as part of the selection process. What a concept! Maybe "Canada's university" could take a lesson in democracy here? Would Allan Rock have survived his past, HERE?)

.

capacadie.com (Moncton, NB)
le mercredi 11 janvier, 2012

DIEPPE - Alors que l’Université de Moncton a annoncé, ce mardi, les deux finalistes dans la course pour briguer le poste de recteur de l’établissement, la Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes de l’Université de Moncton (FÉÉCUM) s’inquiète d’une possible nomination de Marie-Josée Berger. Cette dernière a, en effet, été élue l’an passé doyenne la plus inefficace par la Fédération étudiante de l’Université d’Ottawa (FÉUO).

«À première vue, c’est inquiétant, mais il faut donner la chance à la candidate d’apporter sa version des faits», indique ainsi Ghislain LeBlanc, président de la FÉÉCUM.

Intimidation d’une élève lors d’une rencontre privée, menace envers une étudiante qui souhaitait changer de superviseur, non-respect du devoir de répondre aux plaintes des élèves contre certains professeurs... Les accusations portées à l’encontre de Marie-Josée Berger, doyenne de la Faculté d’éducation par le Centre de recours de l’Université d’Ottawa sont lourdes.

Pour toutes ces allégations, ce service proposé par la FÉUO afin d’offrir de l’aide aux étudiants qui désirent faire appel d’une décision administrative de l’université a donc décidé de nommer Mme Berger, Prix du bras de fer 2011.

Cette distinction a pour but de dénoncer l’administrateur de l’université qui a le plus attiré l’attention des agents de recours étudiant par son attitude impitoyable ou injuste et par son manque de respect.

«Je suis en poste depuis 2007 et j’ai donc eu la possibilité d’observer la manière dont la faculté a été gérée par Marie-Josée Berger. Lorsque nous avons créé le prix, il n’y a pas eu d’hésitation. Marie-José Berger a été élue l’Administrateur qui a eu le comportement le plus inacceptable», critique Mireille Gervais, directrice du centre.

De plus, la doyenne de la Faculté d’éducation aurait quelques soucis relationnels avec certains professeurs du département.

«Lorsque l’on a désigné Mme Berger pour ce prix, un membre d’une association de professeurs est venu nous féliciter», explique, ainsi, Mireille Gervais.

Cette dernière nous a également fait parvenir les résultats d’une étude interne établie par l’Université d’Ottawa en 2007. Cette enquête, conduite auprès du personnel de l’établissement, révélait que les professeurs de la Faculté d’éducation étaient parmi les plus mécontents (seconde position) par la gestion de leur département.

De même, plus de la moitié d’entre eux, parmi ceux qui avaient répondu à l’enquête, ne se sentaient pas traités avec respect.

Malgré tout, il convient de relativiser la portée de cette étude dans la mesure où moins de 12 professeurs sur les 75 que compte le corps professoral de la faculté avaient répondu au questionnaire.

De même, il faut prendre avec précaution les plaintes reçues par le bureau du Centre de recours puisqu’aucune n’a été suivie d’effet.

«Les étudiants ont eu peur des représailles», a néanmoins justifié Mireille Gervais.

L’Acadie Nouvelle aurait souhaité parler de toute cette affaire avec Mme Berger, mais cette dernière, en déplacement professionnel, n’a pu nous répondre. Elle aura tout le loisir de s’expliquer lors des consultations publiques auprès de la communauté universitaire de Moncton, qui auront lieu dans les prochaines semaines.

All U of O Watch posts about Marie-Josée Berger: HERE.

Remember this? UofOWatch time machine to 2007

2012-01-11T16:11:00.004-05:00

Massive U of O survey of staff reveals widespread discontent

Ottawa Citizen report, October 9, 2007

"But the study also flags the stress of mounting workloads and tensions between professors and deans. Those conflicts appear sharpest in the faculties of education and medicine, which consistently reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction."

The faculties of medicine and education have also been those most flagged at UofOWatch.

U of O in the news::: Houle, Berger

2012-01-11T09:11:00.003-05:00

VP-Academic Francois Houle is being escorted out by Allan Rock:

François Houle quitte l'Ud'O

The VP-Academic represented institutional memory under the Rock outside administration. The move is sudden and rather quiet (no press release, no party). Who will Rock name to replace Houle?

Dean of Education Marie-Josee Berger is on the short-list of two to be the next president of the University of Moncton (New Brunswick):

Nouveau recteur de l'U de M: deux candidats en lice

EN FRANCAIS::: L'affaire Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt -- Radio Coop media de Montreal

2012-01-06T18:37:00.006-05:00

L'article

La bande sonore
.

Clickers for teaching, nothing for learning

2011-12-20T20:39:00.006-05:00

Senator Joseph Hickey has exposed another administrative scam at the University of Ottawa (LINK).

The admin wants to tailor classroom practice towards more mindless technology that prevents or substitutes human interactions with technological gadgetry. And of course they want to media market the fact that they are doing this, as though it were a good thing.

The best way to manage the behaviours of professors is to offer research money and gold stars of funding for their annual reports...

Meanwhile the disease of PowerPoint has spread to epidemic proportions:

On the sacred space of the university classroom (link)

without any hope in sight.

Societal engineering of the sterile classroom...

GSAED out to get a student University Senate member for ... ?

2011-12-19T11:41:00.004-05:00

"WTF" seems like the natural response to this craziness:

GSAED Councillors Wish to Discipline Student Senator over Pay Equity Request (link)

How a disgruntled physics student could get this far against another physics student using the graduate student union is, well, difficult to understand. Are the GSAED Council members eager to participate in mindless mobbing and why?

We might conclude that the brilliant administration of the university has inspired high quality student governance. Oiyoiyoi.

Remember this? UofOWatch time machine to 1997

2011-12-14T20:14:00.007-05:00

It is difficult to know what is most surprising about this 1997 story: That the Fulcrum would write a biting story critical of the administration or that a judge would side with a student against the university...? The legal decision is HERE.

The University of Ottawa was found to disregard a student complaint and to aide a School of Management professor (Jimming Lin) in stealing a student's (Paul Boudreau) intellectual property. Really nice stuff.

This is stunning in view of the University's stated and demonstrated dedication to protect its intellectual property in certain other circumstances... HERE, HERE, HERE and THIS video!

It would be interesting to know if the notorious professor Lin was ever disciplined for his academic fraud? After all, the author of the instant blog was suspended without pay by the University of Ottawa for the picture of Tabaret Hall that you see here on the front page (VIDEO).

I bet not. (Just a wild guess.)

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Motion follows mediation attempt

2011-12-12T17:37:00.008-05:00

This is an update in the matter of the $1 million defamation lawsuit of plaintiff law professor Joanne St. Lewis, funded by the University of Ottawa, against defendant former physics professor Denis Rancourt.

The parties attempted mediation on December 6, 2011. The mediation attempt lasted almost three hours. The mediator was Deidre Powell (link). The mediation resulted from the defendant's Offer to Settle (link).

The plaintiff is a lawyer and was accompanied at mediation by four more lawyers from the Gowlings law firm:

Richard Dearden
Wendy Wagner
Ryan Kennedy
Anastasia Semenova

The plaintiff did not allow the defendant (who is self-represented) to bring an accompanying person.

The parties did not settle any issues in the case.

Immediately after leaving the mediation a Gowlings lawyer served the defendant with a new motion. The new motion is for case management leading to a plaintiff's motion for Summary Judgement.

The case management motion is scheduled to be heard on January 26, 2012 (which may change). The Summary Judgement hearing would be arranged following a schedule that is to be determined.

As a rough definition: A Summary Judgement is a kind of "trial on paper" where the evidence is presented in documentary form and only legal arguments from counsels are heard at the public court hearing.

***

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

"Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog" -- Student's-Eye View

2011-12-10T10:03:00.007-05:00

As a recent development in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt matter, University of Ottawa student university-senate member Joseph Hickey reports "Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog" and has posted an email exchange with counsel for St. Lewis Richard Dearden, initiated by a Notice of Libel sent to Hickey, on the blog "Student-s-Eye View":

Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

U of O's latest stunt in the wrongful dismissal case of Denis Rancourt

2011-12-05T20:43:00.027-05:00

"We can't follow the Adjudicator's Order because it's in English"
-- University of Ottawa, "Canada's largest bilingual university"

When it comes to dealing with their wrongly fired physics professor Denis Rancourt, the University of Ottawa Allan Rock administration's disposition for legalistic stunts is unbounded.

For example, in the on-going wrongful dismissal tribunal hearings, the university administration has embarrassingly instructed its hired lawyers from the prestigious Ottawa law firm Emond-Harnden:

to argue that the professor's "post-dismissal behaviour" (read U of O Watch blog) should be allowed as (future) evidence to justify the (past) dismissal, in a sad display of "see, we told you we were right to have fired him, see, see..." (LINK-with-video)
to argue that there are reasons that Rancourt's U of O Watch blog needs to be silenced during the tribunal hearings but that these reasons should not be disclosed to the public in the public tribunal... (LINK-with-video)
to argue that Rancourt's pre-dismissal suggestion to a student to invite the rapper Immortal Technique onto campus was an incitement to violence (yes) now requiring a special investigation (even though the rapper suggestion, with copied lyrics, was sent to the entire senior university administration without causing so much as a ripple at the time)... (LINK)
to argue that the pedagogical developments used by Rancourt were "experiments on human subjects" and that therefore it now (in mid-tribunal hearings) needed to be researched if a research ethics committee approval had been obtained and whether this constituted an additional cause for discipline... (LINK)

It could almost be called the "Emond-Harnden zoo of legal stunts, sponsored by the Allan Rock administration" and here is the latest instalment...

On the one hand, Lynn Harnden solemnly stated to the labour Arbitrator that the University is seriously (in the "zoo" sense?) committed to providing disclosure of "all arguably relevant documents" (on the same day that obviously incomplete and superficial "disclosures" were handed over - LINK), while on the other hand the same law firm has been hired by the University to now additionally generate stunts to block Rancourt's access to information (ATI) requests for his own personal information in the matter, in appeals with Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicators.

And here is the latest of these:

IPC orders (IPC Order PO-2009-F) University to search, obtain, and hand over documents to Rancourt from all its professors...
Emond-Harnden's Steven Williams argues to IPC that it ("Canada's largest 'bilingual' university") cannot because the Order is in English...
IPC Adjudicator responds to the University to get itself a translation if it needs one and gives it an extra month to accomplish this difficult task... (see Adjudicator's letter to the University HERE).

The IPC Adjudicator seems, understandably, exasperated (link). Layers and layers of unboolivable... A world where legal stunts are the norm, in the service of a university administration, "Canada's university"!

Relevant media commentary by Rancourt about ATI and university professors:

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

"Suit with racial tones to mediation" -- The Lawyers Weekly

2011-12-02T20:25:00.003-05:00

Latest media report in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit:

Christopher Guly, "Suit with racial tones to mediation", The Lawyers Weekly, 2 December 2011. (Alt-Link-page-1, Alt-Link-page-2)

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

U of O senate member launches discussion forum website about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit

2011-12-02T17:13:00.008-05:00

University of Ottawa Senate member Joseph Hickey has started the new website:

"Forum for dicussion and debate on the lawsuit, University of Ottawa -- Joanne St. Lewis vs. Denis Rancourt"

The instant U of O Watch post gives the relevant link for information, in following all substantive developments in the lawsuit. It does not imply endorsement or agreement.

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

"Author Jeff Schmidt apologizes to Professor Joanne St. Lewis" -- U of O student senator reports

2011-11-23T08:09:00.005-05:00

Following his PREVIOUS REPORT, University of Ottawa student senator Joseph Hickey has reported a latest development related to the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit (link):

Author Jeff Schmidt apologizes to Professor Joanne St. Lewis

Note: U of O Watch reports all prima facie significant developments in the on-going St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit, from all sources, and posts all identified and non-trivial comments relevant to the given post. Such reports do not imply agreement with or endorsement of the linked items.

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamtion lawsuit slated for court-imposed mediation

2011-11-21T21:52:00.008-05:00

Mediator -- Deidre S. Powell

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice imposes Mandatory Mediation within six months of filing a first defence.

An earlier post explained some of the circumstances that led to scheduling a mediation attempt: HERE.

Shortly after the pleadings were closed (see chronology HERE), plaintiff St. Lewis filed a motion to block all discovery of documents, force immediate Mandatory Mediation and impose her choice of mediator. This additionally led to three secondary motions filed by the plaintiff.

As the six-month court deadline approached defendant Rancourt sent the plaintiff an offer to settle the first motion. The offer was accepted. An expected December mediation was reported in the media (here). Barring unforeseen changes:

The mediation will be held on December 6, 2011.

The mutually agreed mediator will be:

Deidre S. Powell, LLB, LLM

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

"Author Jeff Schmidt campaigns for just treatment of Professor Joanne St. Lewis" -- Student senator reports

2011-11-21T21:17:00.004-05:00

University of Ottawa student senator Joseph Hickey has reported this development related to the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit:

Author Jeff Schmidt campaigns for just treatment of Professor Joanne St. Lewis

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Woaaa. U of O president Allan Rock frantically waves off student at university senate -- video

2011-11-18T11:33:00.007-05:00

The closing moments of the University Senate meeting of November 7, 2011, provided a frantic outburst by embattled arm-waving and finger-pointing senate-chair and president Allan Rock who refused to be transparent when asked to disclose the guest list at a "university function" that he hosted at his home while skipping out of his statutory senate responsibilities.

The University of Ottawa is a public university in Canada's capital.

Rock compares himself to student senator and administration-critic Joseph Hickey, based on his recollections of his 1970s days in student governance at the institution, but draws the important distinction that Mr. Hickey's queries are not "relevant" to senate or to student interests; "relevance" of course being defined by his administration.

Transparency and academic freedom co-degraded at U of O -- IPC Order sets bad precedent

2011-11-13T17:03:00.005-05:00

A recent (November 7, 2011) Ontario Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) rulings on an access request at the University of Ottawa fails on transparency and misuses academic freedom.

The ruling is critiqued HERE.

Dr. Steven E. Noble reporting on the Rancourt wrongful dismissal hearings -- November 1st hearing

2011-11-12T15:35:00.005-05:00

Critical pedagogue Dr. Steven E. Noble has been reporting on the binding arbitration tribunal hearings into the wrongful dismissal case of Denis Rancourt. His reports are HERE.

Concluding highlights of Dr. Noble's report about the most recent November 1, 2011, hearing day are as follows.

The points raised by the University group were unbelievable and showed how completely unarmed this side is. The first point regarding Dr. Rancourt somehow engaging in ‘radical’ or ‘experimental’ pedagogy (remember, according to the university the hearing is not about pedagogy!) and therefore comes under the purview of the University Ethics Review Process is completely and utterly absurd. Further, it shows that the University group are not even in the realm of being academics. I come from within Faculties of Education (University of BC and University of Ottawa) – and those faculties have at their core exploring and experimenting with pedagogical approaches and never, over my 15 years of teaching have I ever had to submit an ethics review form along with my syllabus or daily lessons…. With over 100 professors and instructors in the U of O Faculty of Education imagine the amount of ethics review processing that would have to go on every term?! Ignorant, ignorant, ignorant. And it’s not just the Faculty of Education – I know other faculties are, heaven forbid, experimenting and playing with pedagogical approaches and I am 99% sure none of them are submitting ethics review forms either! And further, the University side has had two and a half years to consider that Dr. Rancourt was introducing innovative teaching in an experimental or exploratory way – as he had done years prior to his dismissal. Further, the University characterizes the pedagogy of grading all students similarly as something approaching academic fraud. Really? Faculties of Education and others have been (the University of BC does this routinely) invoking “pass/fail” courses for year whereby if student complete work satisfactorily, they receive a pass and if not they receive a fail. I know at UBC the grade equivalent to a “pass” is B+ so everyone receiving above that level of work passes. How is this different from everyone completing A level work receiving an A? Also, critical pedagogy, which is the approach Dr. Rancourt was exploring has been around since Paulo Freire, in Brazil, created this approach – that’s almost 50 years ago! The K-12 system has dabbled with it for decades; community groups work with it and colleges/universities have explored it for decades… but all of a sudden because Dr. Rancourt is experimenting with it in physics that it must be something novel and new…. Please.

My experience, thus far, of the University side is that it is so focussed on Dr. Rancourt and the narrow context of what he was doing that it is not checking what the broader academic landscape is and the hypocrisy it regularly commits; so, to me, they come off as a complete ignoramuses and buffoons. On top of this, the University side continually highlights how retrograde the institution is without realizing it.

... Through the three days of preliminary motions I have been completed unimpressed by the University side. Highly reactionary , whiny, emotional, petulant – I’m still waiting to hear some serious facts. We didn’t hear a whole lot from the APUO today because much of it was the University and its continued stalling. The APUO is raring to go so they’re spinning their wheels as the University side continues its amateur hour. I’m left wondering how much in tax payer dollars and tuition money is being spent on all of this? How many profs could be hired, how many library books and journal subscriptions and software programs could be bought, how many bursaries could be awarded with all this money?

We, now have to await until January 23, 2012 for – hopefully – the main hearing to start – barring any further caterwauling, stalling, temper tantrums from the University.

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit::: Ottawa Black Law Students’ Association Public Statement

2011-11-10T22:19:00.008-05:00

Black Law Students’ Association Public Statement
Thursday, November 10, 2011

We, the Black Law Students’ Association of the University of Ottawa (BLSA Ottawa), are a network of students devoted to excellence and substantive equality. We belong to a national student federation, the Black Law Students’ Association of Canada (BLSAC), committed to advancing the academic and professional interests of black law students across the country. We are charged with the responsibility of actively creating an environment in which black law students, our colleagues, friends and mentors are supported when subject to oppressive and racially discriminatory conduct.

Consequently, we take this opportunity to address publicly the statements made by Denis Rancourt, a former physics professor at the University of Ottawa, who, on his blog U of O Watch, wrote that Faculty of Law Professor Joanne St. Lewis acted like a “house negro” in response to her assessment of a report done by the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) in 2008 at the University of Ottawa.

Historically, “house negro” was a term used to denote a black slave in the United States and Canada who worked within the home of a slave master and who severed ties with his or her cultural-racial heritage. It was a term used to describe a black person who supported the continued marginalization and enslavement of black people. In the opening lines of his blog post Rancourt writes, “February is Black History Month in Canada and the US. U of O Watch believes that it is the right time not only to honour Black Americans who fought for social justice against masters but also to out Black Americans who were and continue to be house negroes to masters.” Not only does U of O Watch not acknowledge African Canadian identities, it claims to “out” black Americans who are still “house negro” to masters. Black Canadians have a distinctive and complex history that is different to that of the United States. We are not “house negroes” because we actively fight for and continue to rigorously advocate for equality and the advancement of black people.

The SAC Report entitled, “Mistreatment of Students, Unfair Practices and Systemic Racism at the University of Ottawa” documented a finding of systemic racism using undefined data and an unrepresentative sampling of the population. In her assessment Professor St. Lewis stated, “the fact that the report did not succeed in its methodological attempts does not mean that there is not a problem that should be addressed.” She further stated, “when the pool of subjects to be examined is so small it is critically important that the data is evaluated cautiously and evaluated carefully…this does not appear to have been the case here.”

Professor St. Lewis has never stated that there is no racism at the University of Ottawa. The very first recommendation in her evaluation report calls for an independent assessment to determine whether systemic racism plays any part in the Academic Fraud process. As we understand it, her point is that the SAC Report is methodologically flawed and misses the opportunity to meaningfully address structural racial discrimination at the university. As Professor St. Lewis asked in her first recommendation, we support the call for an independent assessment of the academic fraud process to “determine whether systematic racism plays any part in the Academic Fraud process” and an account of what actions SAC has taken since its report was released.

We, BLSA Ottawa, know racism to be a multi-dimensional and nuanced subject area. We firmly plant our roots in anti-racist politics. However, this does not mean that a report that is wanting of substance is to be endorsed because we are people of colour. Students would benefit from an in-depth investigative process to lend credibility to any claim of systemic racism. To declare that the only black female English Common Law professor acted like a “house negro” for merely pointing this out is reprehensible; and we condemn it in the strongest possible terms. Professor St. Lewis has been the strongest and longest-standing mentor available to black law students from Vancouver to Halifax, including here in the National Capital (Region) for over 20 years.

The United Nations declared 2011 to be the International Year for People of African Descent. We, BLSA Ottawa, stand in full solidarity with Professor Joanne St. Lewis, and call on all law students, lawyers and community members to stand united with the black community in our collective effort to oppose all instances of racial discrimination.

UofOWatch: Since the original post does not allow comments, please feel free to comment here.

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Irregular U of O selection of Michaelle Jean as Chancellor -- Student Senator report

2011-11-10T19:34:00.005-05:00

Interference in Selection of Michaelle Jean as Chancellor by Senate Chair Allan Rock

Will the new Chancellor-to-be intervene as requested?

Related post on Michaelle Jean about systemic racism at U of O: HERE.

Canada's university presidents discover a new variety of academic freedom

2011-11-08T19:55:00.011-05:00

Well there you have it.

The geniuses that administer our public universities have decided to re-define academic freedom without reference to the last hundred years of jurisprudence and academic workplace practice.

Why not. What the hell. Let's just make it up.

They have done this via their association -- the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC). Whereas their last (1988) statement on academic freedom was palatable and consistent with reality, the new and improved version launched in 2011 is a manifesto to eliminate the concept altogether.

It is a an excretion of administratium aimed at arming executives against their critics and all those students and professors who may wish to entertain notions of collegial governance, professional independence, and intra-institutional critique.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) has rightly seen fit to condemn the new AUCC policy document in an open letter, thanks to an institutional memory that goes beyond the last few years.

It's all very telling.

This means at least two things:

(1) Our "leaders" loathe academics who cherish critical scholarship and fear communities of independent thinkers; and

(2) Our "leaders" correctly judge that they can pollute the policy environment with such rubbish without risking ridicule and significant backlash, showing that academic freedom truly has been eroded.

Sad, sad, sad.

Integrating Empire relies on us being brain-dead and the educational system is the best way to achieve intellectual mindocide (ref). The presidents are just doing their job. And they will continue to do their job as long as we continue to sleep through it all.

Rancourt wrongful dismissal hearings::: Full disclosure is required

2011-11-05T12:54:00.013-05:00

(see video commentary below)

In the matter of the on-going binding arbitration tribunal into the wrongful dismissal case of physics professor Denis Rancourt, the University of Ottawa has made a legal undertaking to disclose everything that is "arguably relevant" to all the issues before the arbitrator.

The union (APUO) has established in the tribunal that the issues include that the firing was made in bad faith, under a false pretext, with the goal of silencing and removing Rancourt.

In the words of renowned academic workplace researcher Professor Kenneth Westhues, the Rancourt firing was an "administrative mobbing."

The University provided its disclosures six months after the May 2, 2011, start of the hearings.

These University disclosures were reported by the union to the tribunal on November 1, 2011, as being "superficial" and "incomplete", in what can only be characterized as an understatement.

Hired-lawyer Lynn Harnden for the University on November 1, 2011, undertook to "verify" the completeness of the University's disclosures, which contain virtually no documents about any of the particulars of bad faith which the union has submitted.

The latter union-advanced particulars include:

The University's 2006-2008 covert information-gathering campaign against Rancourt and other University employees and students

The University's 2007 unjustified barring of Rancourt from all first-year-level courses

The University's 2008 unjustified barring of Rancourt from all teaching

The University's November-2008 lock-out of Rancourt and all his graduate students from their laboratory and the removal of essential laboratory materials

The University's December-2008 banning of Rancourt from campus except with police escort, including his campus radio show and his cinema discussion series

The University's 2009 refusals to consider duly submitted documents in its decision to fire Rancourt

The University's 2011 funding of a private lawsuit against Rancourt, now used as evidence for "post-dismissal conduct to support the decision to dismiss"

Such apparent disregard of an undertaking to disclose, if not corrected, is an egregious breach of natural justice. For the arbitration to be allowed to proceed under these conditions, if not substantively corrected, would be a fatal flaw in the tribunal process.

Here is professor Rancourt's reaction in a video interview made on November 1, 2011:

Message to U of O:
Full disclosure is required

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

Rancourt wrongful dismissal hearings::: Invitation to students to engage with institutions

2011-11-05T10:27:00.005-05:00

"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."
-- Michel Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

In this video, fired physics professor Denis Rancourt invites students do consider Foucault's position and to positively engage with the powerful institutions that constrain education and their lives:

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

Rancourt wrongful dismissal hearings::: Student media intimidates and harasses University representatives -- video

2011-11-03T19:47:00.008-05:00

Youtube video shows misbehaviour of student video reporter which was disallowed by the Arbitrator who found it to be harassment and intimidation:

http://youtu.be/S_MibU1y8r0

These events occurred on October 31, 2011, and November 1, 2011, at hearings into the wrongful dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa. The next hearing date is January 23, 2012.

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

Do democracy and a Rock mix?

2011-11-03T09:12:00.004-05:00

It would seem not.

Allan Rock Admin Wants Unspecified Closed Session: Nov. 7 Senate Meeting

But there is always hope:
Senate Will Correct SFUO Election Scam
.

Student union slaps hard to get president Allan Rock to follow his own policies

2011-11-02T22:15:00.007-05:00

University Senate camera must stay on.

SFUO Stands Up for Senate Video Transparency: Letter to President Rock

Letter is HERE.

FAIR examples of academia in trouble in our troubled times

2011-11-02T18:35:00.003-05:00

York University fires whistleblower

York University has fired one of its key investigators who turned into a whistleblower of possible fraud at the school that eventually led to a police investigation.

Code of Silence: legal threats silence Canadians

In 2008, Les Éditions Écosociété, a tiny Montreal publishing house, released a 348-page treatise on human rights and environmental violations by Canadian mining companies overseas.

DAY-4 hearing into wrongful dismissal of Rancourt::: You could not make this up...

2011-11-01T13:43:00.008-05:00

In another zoo-like episode, University hired lawyer Lynn Harnden came in this morning and announced to the Arbitrator, to the union and to the public that the University of Ottawa has just come to the realization that fired physics professor Denis Rancourt's innovative pedagogical advances constitute experimentation on human subjects.

And that, therefore, obviously, this opens a whole area that the University needs to research. Were the necessary experimental protocols approved? Was the ethics committee for experimentation on human subjects consulted?

This was introduced as new grounds for the dismissal of Rancourt and the hearing needed to be adjourned to give the University time to research these newly discovered violations...

Union lawyer Sean McGee responded that the idea that professor Rancourt's innovative teaching should be compared to testing an unknown vaccine "defies belief".

Harnden then dropped this but presented another reason that the hearing needed to be adjourned:

Despite the University having all the relevant Rancourt emails and blog posts for years and despite the University being in possession of Rancourt's office computer since the 2009 firing, the University now proclaimed that its own opening statements of yesterday newly established that the Rancourt office computer hard-drive now needed to be searched...

It argued a search of this computer was needed before the hearing could be continued.

The Arbitrator accepted the latter argument but insisted that the University must be ready to roll by the next hearing day (January 23, 2012). In looking at Mr. Harnden the Arbitrator explained "you will both have your spin but the evidence is the evidence..." Mr. Harnden smiled in agreement.

Then McGee made a final point: The University disclosure of documents (provided only yesterday) appears incomplete.

Harnden undertook to verify the completeness of the University disclosure and to advise accordingly at some later time.

As a last point, Harnden tried to get the Arbitrator to "clarify" his order to exclude video cameras to also exclude cameras outside of the hearing room. The Arbitrator explained his ruling that inside was inside and outside was outside. Mr. Harnden seemed satisfied with that.

The whole thing took under one hour and another day of hearings was again thus wasted. The count so far is: One of four days of hearings has been properly used as intended when first scheduled.

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

U of O witch-hunt against Rancourt in full swing -- DAY-3 of arbitration trial

2011-10-31T19:22:00.011-05:00

Today was DAY-3 of the binding labour arbitration hearing into the wrongful dismissal case of physics professor Denis Rancourt. Following a rough start (link to all posts about hearings), it was up to the University, in the person of union-busting lawyer Lynn Harnden, to make the opening statements.

The opening statement did not disappoint. It was over-the-top with partial and undated extracts from blog posts, media articles, emails from unidentified sources; including lyrics from Immortal Technique, a reference to the Ottawa bank firebombing, allegations of inciting violence (evidenced by not inciting violence), and more.

Harnden distributed paper copies of his 19-page statement to the media and public: HERE.

The public and the union were stunned, as was the grievor.

The union, in the person of labour lawyer Sean McGee, patiently responded orally in an almost two-hour presentation. Here are highlights:

"His ideas are so dangerous that he is not allowed on campus without a police escort."

"Can a professor challenge the established order and entrenched patterns of thought? Can a professor adopt a methodology in his teaching and defend and protect that methodology ... without fear of the capital punishment of termination?"

"The University is offended, inconvenienced, and students criticize ... his methods are unpopular and unconventional ... but what is this case about?"

"The University's portrait of a Mansonesque figure is such a distortion of the facts."

"The allegation of 'frivolous grading' is just not true. Nothing of the sort. This was a studied, carefully considered attempt to improve the way physics is taught and learned."

"Calling this 'academic fraud' is shocking hyperbole from an institution of higher learning. The University alleges 'frivolous', 'fraudulent', 'selfish' ... there is nothing to suggest selfish. In fact, quite the contrary ..."

"Case in point, the use of Immortal Technique to show how demonic professor Rancourt is and to allege his desperation in his desire to lure students ... is reminiscent of Catholic nuns in Ottawa urging young girls to stay away from Elvis Presley's concert and his lewd and gyrating hips... and this now in the 21st century."

"Professor Rancourt was made to be increasingly limited to a smaller and smaller sphere of activity: from no teaching in 1st year, to no teaching, to being locked out of his laboratory, to blocking his cinema series, to blocking access to his campus radio show, to no campus access without police escort, to termination."

"This is significant evidence that the University wanted to cut off his efforts to communicate his ideas."

"We are going to ask you to conclude that professor Rancourt does not incite people to violence -- does not, has not, and will not incite anyone to violence. For the University to cite the law about risks of violent acts -- raising that in this context - is - difficult - to - understand - ..."

"The University is funding the defamation lawsuit [St. Lewis v. Rancourt] it now uses as evidence for professor Rancourt's dismissal..."

"In the end, this is a bad faith attempt to get rid of him at all costs."

"Regardless of what you think of professor Rancourt, we will ask you to find that there were no grounds for dismissal."

Tomorrow is DAY-4. The University wants a discovery order to dig into the Immortal Technique connection... Meanwhile, it has supplied none of the emails of the upper administration's known "war room" meetings in firing Rancourt.

Following public submissions (LINK), the Arbitrator had released his decision to ban all video and audio recordings of the hearings, which are done without an official court transcript -- see ruling HERE. The University's on-record repeated attempts (E.G.) to block the grievor's UofOWatch blog during the hearings fell flat and was not mentioned or retained in the Arbitrator's decision.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

Wires crossed in the U of O St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation...?

2011-10-30T14:03:00.019-05:00

"... it is a personal libel action and has nothing to do with it being a SLAPP suit at all."

-- Richard G. Dearden, Gowlings-firm-lawyer paid by U of O (link)

"Her efforts were not personal, but in the interests of the University."

-- David W. Scott, BLG-national-Co-Chair lawyer paid by the U of O (link)

"I have been asked ... to provide an independent evaluation..."

-- Joanne St. Lewis, U of O law professor and plaintiff (link)

"The University has received and will make public this week an evaluation, by an independent assessor, of the report of the Student Appeals Centre."

-- Robert Major, Former U of O VP-Academic and Provost (link)

"... work which she undertook at the request of the University and in the course of her duties and responsibilities as an employee. Her efforts were not personal, but in the interests of the University."

-- David W. Scott, BLG-national-Co-Chair lawyer paid by the U of O (link)

Oh, and this by the incomparable president Allan Rock (link):

From: Allan Rock
Sent: Monday November 17, 2008 11:25 AM
To: Robert Major, Victor Simon, Mona Nemer, Nathalie Des Rosiers, Andre Dumulon, Julie Cafley
Subjet: RE: NEWS RELEASE -- Student Appeal Centre report

Robert:

I think the report is very well done. My only concern is with the first recommendation, the wording of which seems to assume that there is some racism present already. Since Professor St. Lewis has already concluded that there is no evidence of it, such wording is wrong and inconsistent with her own report.

Apart from that, the report looks very sound. I assume any press release will say that we are going to study the recommendations, since we have to consult the Senate and other interested parties before committing to the time limits and other recommended changes.

One last point. I would like Robert to be the only point of contact for us with Professor St. Lewis. Although her report is excellent, it may be criticized as not being "independent" from the administration. So far, our dealings with her have been through Robert and have been scrupulously objective. We have simply sought her view, and have imposed no limitations, contraints or conditions. She has been entirely free to say anything she wants. In order to maintain this professional and objective relationship with her, I want Robert to be the only one in communication with her. Robert can simply observe that the first recommendation seems inconsitent with her findings. It will then be up to professor St. Lewis to decide whether to make a change. If a number of people all send emails and call, we will lose that focus of professionalism and independence.

I will take this matter up with CA at noon today. Robert, will you be able to plug in by phone?

Allan
[In response to Robert asking all to quickly give him their feedback on St. Lewis' draft report...]

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Gowlings-firm-lawyer Richard Dearden reaction to U of O disclosing its funding of St. Lewis lawsuit

2011-10-29T10:33:00.008-05:00

Following THIS, as per a recent media article (HERE):

“I would think that the defamatory statements that he has made about Professor St. Lewis show that it is a personal libel action and has nothing to do with it being a SLAPP suit at all,” Dearden said.

“It has everything to do with protecting your reputation.”

Dearden, who often acts for The Citizen, said the blog comes up as the second result in a Google search of St. Lewis’s name.

“It has to come down. That’s our position,” Dearden said, adding that financial arrangements with his client are privileged and he would not discuss them.

***

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Gowlings-firm-lawyer Richard Dearden on Rules and on conflict of interest

2011-10-27T10:24:00.024-05:00

An inside view of the St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation

Now that the University of Ottawa was forced to admit (HERE) its funding of the on-going legal attack against fired physics professor Denis Rancourt, questions remain about president Allan Rock's direct involvement in the decision to fund the litigation. And there now can be no doubt that this a public matter.

If the action is in-part effectively a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation), then the behaviour of plaintiff's counsel (who is a part-time law professor at the University of Ottawa) in managing the action is a matter of public concern.

The following email exchange between Gowlings-firm-lawyer Richard Dearden and defendant Rancourt gives an inside view of the nature of the interactions in the litigation.

One sees a counsel for the plaintiff, under instructions for the plaintiff who is a law professor, who disregards the most basic Rules of Procedure and who attempted to create a situation of obvious conflict of interest in establishing the conditions for a mandatory mediation.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:40 PM, Dearden, Richard ; wrote:

Mr. Rancourt - fyi, I will be filing another motion to compel you to answer questions you refused to answer on October 14th. It is my understanding that the earliest date available is October 27th. The motion will be before a Judge on October 27th at 10am.

On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 2:22 PM, Denis Rancourt ; wrote:

Mr. Dearden,
I received the Motion Record today.
I will not contest your Motion and I will answer your additional questions by email under my continued affirmation by October 28th.
DGR

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Dearden, Richard ; wrote:

Mr. Rancourt. I acknowledge that you will be answering the questions you refused to answer on your continued cross-examination. Unfortunately and unnecessarily you required us to incur the costs of the preparation of a Motion Record and the service and filing of the motion record.
I gave you notice during the cross-examination that I would be seeking costs against you if I was required to file a motion to obtain an Order compelling you to answer the questions you refused to answer.
To avoid an appearance before a Judge on October 27th to deal with the issue of costs, I am offering that you pay $350 in costs within the next 10 days. If you accept this offer, we will send for your signature a Consent to an Order that will state you will pay $350 in costs and that you will answer the refusals that you have now agreed to answer. Please let me know your position on the $350 costs no later than Tuesday October 25th.

On Sat, Oct 22, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Denis Rancourt ; wrote:

Mr. Dearden,

1. Thank you for your message.

2. You refer to a notice about cost you allege to have given to me (you did not) during the cross-examination of October 14th and you have used the full transcript of the October 14th cross examinations in your work to prepare the Motion Record but you have not provided me with a full copy of the transcript. You have up to now disregarded Rule 39.02(4)(a) and my deadline to file a responding motion record using your motion date was Friday. Therefore, please immediately send me a copy of the full transcripts of the October 14th cross examinations, which are due irrespective of whether we go to hearing or not:

Rule 39.02(4)(a) states:

(4) On a motion other than a motion for summary judgment or a contempt order, a party who cross-examines on an affidavit,
(a) shall, where the party orders a transcript of the examination, purchase and serve a copy on every adverse party on the motion, free of charge;

3. You did not ask me to comply before needlessly going ahead and preparing a Motion Record, contrary to what you have always done in the past (all previous three motions) and as I would have expected. That is the unfortunate thing. In the future, to avoid this situation, please always first simply ask and I may be able to agree without any need to further expend resources.

4. Given these circumstances, please (i) drop the cost request and (ii) send me the copies of the transcripts which are due under Rule 39.02(4)(a).

5. Also, you have continued to disregard Rule 37.10.1(1)(a) in always refusing to confer with me before setting dates for motions, now the fourth motion. In this case, I am not available Thursday October 27th, but that is irrelevant when we can agree on the outstanding matters.

Rule 37.10.1(1)(a) states:

37.10.1 (1) A party who makes a motion on notice to another party shall,
(a) confer or attempt to confer with the other party;

6. Please send me the Consent with no costs and send me the transcripts.

DGR

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 10:49 AM, Dearden, Richard ; wrote:

Mr. Rancourt
1. Your demands for a copy of the entire transcript are based on the false premise that I am in possession of the full transcript. The only copy of the transcript that I had in preparing the Motion Record are the pages that I served on you in the Motion Record.

2. The first available date to get before a Judge next week for a 30 minute motion was October 27th. You fail to appreciate that the mandatory mediation motion is scheduled for November 15th and accordingly time is of the essence to complete my cross-examination of you. You have informed the Court that you are not employed and therefore you should have no problem attending Court on October 27th to deal with how much costs you should pay for refusing to answer relevant questions and unnecessarily requiring me to file another refusals motion. You also have the choice to retain counsel to appear on your behalf on October 27th.

3. Please note that on October 27th I will be seeking costs against you in an amount higher than the $350 I offered you as well as costs for the attendance before the Court on October 27th. The offer of $350 costs remains open until 2pm on October 24th.

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 3:51 PM, Denis Rancourt ; wrote:

Mr. Dearden,

1. Thank you for your continued offer about cost which I continue to consider.

2. I understand that you are not presently in possession of a copy of the entire transcripts, as you assert. My request for copies of the entire transcripts is based on Rule 39.02(4)(a) which states "where the party orders a transcript of the examination". I was personally present when you ordered the transcripts and insisted on knowing the time it would take from the Court Reporter. Otherwise, you are very talented if you can select specific parts for a partial transcript for use in a Motion Record without you or your associates using or knowing the full transcript? Please comply with Rule 39.02(4) and instruct the Court Reporter to send me the complete transcripts.

3. I am not available on Thursday 27th. I would have informed you of this had you conferred with me about the date as you were required to do following Rule 37.10.1(1)(a). My next available date at 10am is Thursday November 3rd. Recall that this would likely be dealing only with the matter of cost, a point that you appear to not appreciate in citing the November 15th main motion hearing date.

4. You did not ask me to comply before needlessly going ahead and preparing a Motion Record, contrary to what you have always done in the past (all previous three motions) and as I would have expected. In the future, to avoid this situation, please always first simply ask and I may be able to agree without any need to further expend resources.

5. Do you accept the attached Offer to Settle the main motion? If so, you will agree that the outstanding refusals and undertaking are moot and that answers are therefore not required. This would greatly simplify the overall proceedings and I hope that you can accept the Offer.

DGR

On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 7:46 PM, Dearden, Richard ; wrote:

Mr. Rancourt

1. further to para 5 (and the attachment) to the email below, Professor St. Lewis accepts your offer to settle the mandatory mediation motion and selects Ellen Zweibel as the mediator. I will email Professor Zweibel (and cc you) to ask if she can conduct the mediation on November 15th.

2. We will cancel the refusals motion scheduled for October 27th and cancel the mandatory mediation motion scheduled for November 15th.

3. I will respond to the other paragraphs in your email below later this week.

From: Dearden, Richard ;
Date: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 9:38 PM
Subject: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: Ellen Zweibel
Cc: Denis Rancourt

Good evening Professor Zweibel. I act for Professor Joanne St. Lewis in a libel action she has commenced against Mr. Rancourt, a former physics Professor at the University of Ottawa. Mr. Rancourt has proposed you as a mediator for the mandatory mediation in this action and Professor St. Lewis is in agreement with that proposal. I appreciate this may be short notice but are you available to be the mediator in a mandatory mediation on in this action on November 15th in Ottawa?

From: Denis Rancourt ;
Date: Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: Ellen Zweibel
Cc: "Dearden, Richard" <>

Good evening Professor Zweibel,

I would like to clarify a few points following Mr. Dearden's email:

(1) This would be an assignment under the Ontario Roster mediator program for Mandatory Mediation.

(2) As I would with any mediator, I would like to briefly meet you one-on-one before the mediation date (as soon as possible) only to ask you questions which are consistent with the section entitled "What should parties consider in choosing a mediator?" in the Ministry of the Attorney General's "Fact Sheet: Mandatory Mediation, Effective January 1, 2010".

(3) Frankly, I did not realize when today I made my proposal to use a Roster mediator for Mandatory Mediation (and gave three Ottawa-based names in inverse-alphabetical order) that you are in the Common Law Faculty and therefore are a colleague of both Mr. Dearden and Professor St. Lewis. I now note from a brief web search that you are an eminently qualified mediator. If in your professional opinion and following our short introductory meeting, you conclude that there is not a conflict of interest, then I will accept your judgment and look forward to a productive mediation.

Sincerely,
Dr. Denis Rancourt

From: Dearden, Richard ;
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:55 AM
Subject: RE: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: Denis Rancourt ;, Ellen Zweibel
Cc: "Wagner, Wendy"

Mr. Rancourt - further to paragraph 2 of your email below to Professor Zweibel, I have previously informed you that you will not be meeting with the mediator one on one prior to the commencement of the mediation. We have accepted your choice of Professor Zweibel as the mediator whose mediations skills are renown. Our next steps are to confirm the date of the mediation (we ahve asked Professor Zweibel if she is available November 15th) , sign a mediation agreement and once we book a mediation date we will decide on the date that we provide Professsor Zweibel with our Mediation Briefs.

From: Denis Rancourt ;
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 9:14 AM
Subject: Re: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: "Dearden, Richard" ;
Cc: Ellen Zweibel, "Wagner, Wendy" ;

Mr. Dearden,

The next steps are:

(1) For Professor Zweibel to answer whether she is able to accept the mediation assignment, given both the time constraints and my question about conflict of interest. This should be answered as soon as possible.

(2) If no, to choose another mediator by mutual consent.

Denis Rancourt

From: Ellen Zweibel ;
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:33 AM
Subject: RE: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: Denis Rancourt <>, "Dearden, Richard" ;
Cc: "Wagner, Wendy" ;

Good morning Mr Rancourt and Mr Dearden

I must decline the request to act as the mediator in this matter. Professor St. Lewis is a colleague on my faculty. I have been a member of the APUO grievance committee and have heard requests by Mr Rancourt on one or two grievances matters.

Thank you for considering me for this.

Very truly yours,

Ellen B. Zweibel, Professor

From: Denis Rancourt ;
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: Professor St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt
To: Ellen Zweibel ;
Cc: "Dearden, Richard" ;, "Wagner, Wendy" ;

Professor Zweibel,

Thank you for the rapid answer.

Just to clarify: I do not recall your presence at one or two grievance committee meetings and even your web photo did not help my memory. Also, there have been many such grievance committee meetings with many different committee members and I do not receive minutes from these meetings. Very sorry for the confusion.

Sincerely,
Dr. Denis Rancourt

From: Renzo Catana ;
Date: Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 1:13 PM
Subject: Transcript - WORD
To: "Richard G. Dearden" ;
Cc: Denis Rancourt ;

Gentlemen,

Please find attached the Continued Cross-Examinations of Mr. Rancourt and Mr. Lamontagne of October 14, 2011 in WORD format.

The hard copies will be delivered later today by courier.

Renzo Catana
CORNELL CATANA REPORTING SERVICES

U of O admits funding "private lawsuit" against fired professor

2011-10-26T13:20:00.016-05:00

David W. Scott, BLG Co-Chair

The high-profile case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt involves law professor Joanne St. Lewis, represented by part-time-law-professor and Gowlings-firm-lawyer Richard Dearden, and former physics professor Denis Rancourt, all at the University of Ottawa.

St. Lewis' defamation lawsuit is for a blog post by Rancourt critical of St. Lewis' role in minimizing a student report about systemic racism at the school, via an "evaluation report" of the student report. Both St. Lewis and the University administration characterized the St. Lewis "evaluation report" as an "independent" assessment.

The lawsuit claims damages of $1 million and would provide $125 thousand directly to the University for a scholarship fund.

There is uncontested public record evidence of the litigation being aggressive, and a barrage of four motions have already been filed against the self-represented and unemployed defendant since pleadings were closed on August 5, 2011, HERE.

Case law in Ontario has established that publicly funded corporations such as school boards and municipalities cannot sue individuals for defamation related to any criticisms, in that the asymmetry of resources negates the individual's Charter rights.

Not to mention the other obvious problems related to using public funds and student tuition money in this way if an accredited university were to fund a "private" litigation aimed at silencing one of its critics.

Questions therefore arise: Is this effectively a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation)? Is public and student money being used for one professor to sue a former professor over criticism with sting and name-calling? Is this an individual exercising her right to protect her reputation or an institution attacking one of its vocal critics?

Is the University funding the lawsuit?

It has taken two months to extract an answer from the University. The efforts to get an answer have included:

Persistent and repeated requests to president Allan Rock and his administration, HERE.
An access to information (ATI) request, rebuked as "frivolous", HERE.
A formal motion at University Senate, HERE.
A direct and unanswered question to Dearden in a Court hearing (October 6, 2011).

Finally, an answer came one-day after the October 24, 2011, deadline set by Rancourt. The answer is provided by a national firm Co-Chair of BLG, the largest law firm in Canada, Mr. David W. Scott (link to letter):

Dear Dr. Rancourt

We represent the University of Ottawa and are responding to your communication of August 28.

Of the many questions which you have posed, I am instructed to answer only the first. The remaining questions suggest an agenda and are beyond any requirement to respond.

Indeed, the University of Ottawa is reimbursing Professor St. Lewis for her legal fees incurred in her defamation proceeding in the Courts against you. Your defamatory remarks about Professor St. Lewis were occasioned by work which she undertook at the request of the University and in the course of her duties and responsibilities as an employee. Her efforts were not personal, but in the interests of the University. Furthermore, your outrageously racist attack upon her takes this case out of the ordinary and, in the view of the University, alone creates a moral obligation to provide support for her in defence of her reputation.

For the future, any questions which you choose to pose in respect of which there is no legal obligation to respond will be not answered.

Yours very truly
Borden Ladner Gervais LLP
David W. Scott

When Mr. Scott was elected Chair of Pro Bono Law Ontario in 2007, he graciously stated (link):

"In my opinion, the single most important issue facing those charged with responsibility for the administration of justice is access to the courts by ordinary citizens. That's what Pro Bono Law Ontario is all about. It's great to be part of such a wonderful organization."

I guess this is Mr. Scott's way to help ensure that law professor St. Lewis has access to justice?

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Submissions on video transparency to Arbitrator Foisy in Rancourt wrongful dismissal case

2011-10-21T09:37:00.019-05:00

Following the latest hearing day of October 12, 2011, in the wrongful dismissal case of physics professor Denis Rancourt, the Arbitrator invited written submissions about video recording of the sessions, with a submission deadline of October 18, 2011.

A report about the October 12, 2011, arbitration session is HERE. Public records of the hearings are HERE. Nasty things done to Prof. Rancourt are listed HERE.

Two written submissions about video access were received by Arbitrator Claude Foisy, from Dr. Steve E. Noble and from the griever Dr. Denis Rancourt; HERE and HERE.

Excerpts from the submissions of Dr. Noble are as follows.

From the Summary:

"This is the first case of its kind in Canada – the (wrongful) dismissal of a tenured full professor because of academic reasons (which flies in the face of implicit full academic freedoms professors are supposed to enjoy within university settings). It is a landmark case that has national and arguably international repercussions for the Academy, more broadly."

"I demand that these hearings must be audio-visually recorded and that an air of openness, transparency, public accountability be presumed over that of confidentiality and restricting public access. This shouldn’t even be some belaboured discussion."

From the main text:

"... Yet, here we have an arbitration that was immediately cloaked in secrecy despite the public nature of the issue and the institution involved."

"... hiding this public good behind a constructed mantel of pervasive corporate managerialism undermines democracy, while disavowing the overwhelmingly public nature of “ownership” of these institutions."

"Priority – and the default - should be for openness, transparency, public accountability – because this relates to the running of a public institution, paid for by taxpayers and, increasingly through student tuition/ancillary fees: a university."

"University administrators, including legal counsel and President Rock are not shareholders, nor corporate owners; they are caretakers or custodians of the public good and investment in education paid for by citizens. And as caretakers, they should be operating with the presumption that everything they do, or documents they produce, will and should come under public scrutiny."

"Students are learners and stakeholders, not clientswho should not be privy to confidential commercial information and interests. Increasingly, university elites act like autocratic parents to increasingly infantilized students, rendered relatively powerless: unseen and unheard. Muzzling the recording of these hearings would be an extension of knowing what’s best for the academic community."

"The default position must be that these hearings must be audio-visually recorded because it’s in the public’s interest to do so. And that’s the first interest that should be protected."

"I find it deeply troubling that the union, for instance, has agreed that none of the hearings be transcribed. [...] To remove a layer of public record makes me very suspicious as to why this is being requested and why this is being agreed to."

"Publicly firing a 20+ year professor who is fully tenured under questionable processes is directly relevant to the broader Academic, Educational and General communities. This episode within the University of Ottawa will have direct effect upon academic freedom, freedoms of expression and tenure policy for years to come. Students and professors alike need to have all material arising from these hearings available to them to engage in debate and discourse as part of the much larger educational project."

-- Dr. Steve E. Noble

Dr. Rancourt's submissions are HERE.

The next hearing dates and places are listed HERE.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit::: St. Lewis wins motion to compel answers

2011-10-19T15:14:00.011-05:00

Part of the suit of motions discussed in the previous post was a motion to compel answers to questions in cross-examination of defendant Denis Rancourt on an affidavit on the main motion.

In English this means that there was a first (main) motion. Evidence for the main motion was filed in the form of affidavits (sworn or affirmed statements) with exhibits. The defendant was then cross-examined on his affidavits by the plaintiff's lawyer Richard Dearden.

Present at this September 6, 2011, cross-examination were plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis and her two lawyers Richard Dearden and Wendy Wagner (both with the Gowlings law firm), the defendant, and three members of the public who came to observe.

Following refusals by the defendant to answer several questions in cross-examination, on the basis of constituting premature discovery and/or relevancy, the plaintiff filed a motion to compel answers and to re-examine the defendant in a second cross-examination session.

The motion to compel answers was heard in court before Master ("judge") MacLeod on October 6, 2011, and took all day. The ruling is HERE.

In response to the motion to compel answers, the defendant filed evidence about the aggressive nature of the cross-examination, HERE.

Observer Joseph Hickey blogged about the cross-examination (HERE) and the SLAW Canadian law website re-posted some of Mr. Hickey's statements HERE.

The SLAW article also emphasized a law-setting element of the Master's Decision (paragraph-20) regarding the open court principle in out-of-court cross-examinations. These aspects were critiqued on the Activist Teacher blog HERE.

On the main point of the motion, Master Macleod found that four of the fifteen refusal questions were "overly intrusive" and did not need to be answered by the defendant (paragraph-17, HERE). On the questions requiring answers, Master MacLeod ordered a new cross-examination allowing "reasonable follow-up questions".

As a result of the re-examination, the plaintiff was allowed to learn the exact financial and real-estate holdings of the defendant (RRSPs, house, pension), all the communications with expert Claude Lamontagne, about letters of support from U of O professors in the Rancourt dismissal case, and information about the defendant's intentions in suing the University of Ottawa for insurance coverage in the litigation and about his home insurance policy.

Master MacLeod remarked on the possible University of Ottawa involvement as (par-23, in part):

"On the other hand, of course, he [the defendant] will be submitting to the judge on the main motion that the entire motion – and therefore all of the costs – is improper and misguided. In the event that the judge agrees with this, it might not be reasonable for the defendant to be saddled with the costs of a motion within that motion. Of course he also argues that in the action as a whole he is the person being wronged because the action is simply an improper – and indeed unconstitutional – attempt by the University of Ottawa to muzzle free speech and criticism."

The Court's Decision was followed by an attempt by Mr. Dearden to obtain "clarification" that would have changed one aspect of the order. This was settled in favour of the defendant: Dearden to Master Oct.11th, Rancourt to Master Oct.13th, Dearden to Master Oct.13th, Dearden to Master Oct.13th again, Master MacLeod's Order Oct.17th.

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

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

2011-10-18T16:18:00.024-05:00

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Rancourt wrongful dismissal case::: Report on DAY-2 of hearings

2011-10-15T15:56:00.020-05:00

"First dismissal of a tenured university professor in Canada, over an academic matter."

The second day of binding labour law arbitration hearings into the University of Ottawa wrongful dismissal case of physics professor Denis Rancourt before Arbitrator Claude Foisy was held on October 12, 2011.

In addition to four lawyers/advisers on each side, the griever and the Arbitrator, there were approximately twenty student and academic supporters and representatives from the media and civil society present.

Two preliminary motions were argued, following written submissions from both sides (HERE-Oct.3rd and HERE-Oct.7th).

Despite the five-month period between the first day of arbitration (DAY-1: May 2, 2011) and the second day of arbitration (DAY-2: October 12th) and despite the Arbitrator's instructions to provide the submissions early to allow his early decisions on all preliminary matters before DAY-2, the University did not provide its written motion submissions until October 3rd.

This was followed by the Union (APUO) reply submissions on October 7th.

Following the posting of two Youtube videos about DAY-1 (VIDEO-1, VIDEO-2), the University has:

dropped its request for a media ban (its so-called "enriched exclusion"),
abandoned using the griever's so-called "post-dismissal behaviour" (code for "UofOWatch blogging") to bar media access, and
stopped pondering legal advances to prevent its written submissions from being public.

Instead, the University (Oct.3rd submissions) argued for single-camera video recording, tentatively suggested blocking UofOWatch blog reporting of the hearings, and argued to bar the griever (Rancourt) from free access to the discovery/disclosure documents (the evidence).

The Union responded (Oct.7th submissions) that student and alternative media video cameras should be allowed, that Rancourt needed full access to all discovery/disclosure documents, and that Rancourt's UofOWath blog was part of his academic freedom.

This was all followed by a surprise weekend call from the Arbitrator, presumably after viewing the Youtube videos, telling the two sides that he was not in favour a priori of video cameras but that he would hear submissions from the public and media on video access.

The first matter at the actual DAY-2 hearing was the question of barring griever Rancourt from free access to discovery documents. On this question, it is not an exaggeration to say that the University, represented by lawyer Lynn Harnden, bombed. Their argument for barring the griever from free access to the evidence was technical and tenuous.

Lawyer for the Union Sean McGee put a document shredder on the desk in front of him, plugged it in, took the university submissions and shredded them, then walked over and poured the shreddings on Lynn Harnden's desk, to the amazement of all present, figuratively.

At this point, the University asked for a short recess, walked out, and came back to say with a brave face that they no longer had concerns about the griever's free access to the evidence against him.

Next was the question of video access to the hearing.

Oral submission were heard (all off camera) from the griever and from several members of the media, a government scientist, academics, and civil society (accredited NGO Canadians for Accountability). Further written submissions were invited until October 18th, to be sent to both Harnden and McGee.

The Arbitrator took detailed hand-written notes of all the oral submissions and promised to answer all submission points in his final public decision on video access.

It is expected that the Arbitrator will have ruled on all outstanding preliminary matters before DAY-3 which is scheduled for October 31st.

The place of the DAY-3 hearing is to be announced. The Arbitrator expressed his desire to accommodate the student complaints about physical access to the hearings by requesting that a venue be found which is more accessible from campus.

DAY-3 (October 31st) should see the opening arguments of the University, giving their statements as to why they fired Rancourt.

Hearings schedule and background links are HERE.

U of O student senator concerned about any university funding in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit

2011-10-09T12:55:00.007-05:00

University of Ottawa student senator Joseph Hickey has followed the recent court appearances in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit and reports his concern about possible University funding of the litigation:

Gowlings Partner Richard Dearden Suggests the U. of O. is Paying for the “House Negro” Case: St. Lewis v. Rancourt

A highly related recent post is this one:
University Senate motion would require president to answer university involvement in Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Student-won senate transparency being challenged by Rock administration

2011-10-08T17:04:00.003-05:00

Hickey standing strong:

Student Senator Demands Apology for Vice-Dean Denis Bachand’s Aggression, University of Ottawa

Highly related::: Remember THIS?
.

U of O president Allan Rock has left the country

2011-10-04T21:36:00.011-05:00

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock has left the country, was absent from chairing the monthly university senate meeting for the sixth time in a row on October 3rd, and his vice-presidents (VP-Governance, VP-Academic, and VP-Resources) don't know where he is:::

Allan Rock’s Senate Absence Continues: Francois Houle Shuts Off Senate Camera

All concerned members of the university community are asked to help locate president Allan Rock and to report on the business that is keeping him from his statutory responsibilities at senate.

The last entry on his blog was September 8, 2011.

Where has the president gone and what is he doing?

Rancourt wrongful dismissal case::: University's opening arguments expected on October 12th

2011-10-01T10:20:00.022-05:00

The case of the University of Ottawa's wrongful dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt is now in binding arbitration in labour-law-tribunal hearings.

The public hearings will be on-going well into 2012 and the hearing schedule of dates and places is posted HERE.

The second hearing date is October 12, 2011, at which the University is expected to make its opening arguments characterizing Rancourt's actions both as a professor in his teaching and in what the University has called "post-dismissal behaviour":

Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Conference Centre, 200 Coventry Road, Ottawa
9:30 am start

-open to the public and to the media-
-cameras-allowed-

Rancourt was fired in 2009 under the pretext of fraudulent grading in one course, for attributing high grades to all 23 students in an advanced (final-year and graduate) physics course.

President Allan Rock has publicly broadcast (university press releases and emails to community members) that he endorses the decision to fire Rancourt

--the first-ever firing of a tenured professor in Canada over a question of teaching methods.

Rancourt's chronology of the academic freedom conflict since 2005 is posted HERE.

The main TV report (TVO, The Agenda, April 2009) is HERE.

Compilations of links to past media reports and media commentary are HERE, HERE and HERE.

A video report of Rancourt's press conference statement at the start of the hearings (May 2, 2011) is HERE.

All UofOWatch posts about the hearings are HERE.

A video of commentators at the first day of hearings (May 2, 2011) is here:

Allan Rock submits to student scolding about delinquency at university senate

2011-09-29T22:30:00.006-05:00

HERE

.
.
.
(See analysis in comments to post.)

University's lawyer Lynn Harnden wants to ban the reasons for a ban in hearings of the Rancourt dismissal case -- video

2011-09-26T21:22:00.011-05:00

Have you ever noticed that every time a lawyer makes an argument for some crazy thing he always starts by saying that he doesn't want the crazy thing?

In this video, University of Ottawa's hired lawyer Lynn Harnden provides a brilliant example, at the May 2, 2011, first day of labour arbitration hearings into the wrongful dismissal case of Denis Rancourt.

Lawyering 101: "He doesn't want a publication ban on the hearings."

Just a ban until the hearings are done and a decision is rendered, two years or more say, since he agrees this is of public interest... ah humm. Oh, and he doesn't want to show his arguments as to why such an "enriched exclusion" is necessary...

This passes for reasonable arguments in this world.

See another video of Lynn Harnden in action HERE.

See all UofOWatch posts about the arbitration hearings HERE.

See links and details about the arbitration hearings at academicfreedom.ca HERE.

Student demands $7,110.68 per year salary for work on university senate - Canada's university

2011-09-26T17:05:00.004-05:00

An obvious case of discrimination...

Pay equity for students at the University of Ottawa...

Collegial governance has a price...

Joseph Hickey wants $7,110.68 per year and back pay now.

Here is the link:

Pay Equity::: Discrimination of Student Senators Must End

University Senate motion would require president to answer university involvement in Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit

2011-09-23T11:22:00.009-05:00

Senator Joseph Hickey has posted a motion submission on his university senate blog.

The motion would require president Allan Rock to answer about any University involvement in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit over posts on Rancourt's U of O Watch blog.

The posted motion submission is here:

Motion on Academic Freedom — University of Ottawa’s Involvement in the Civil Litigation between Joanne St. Lewis and Denis Rancourt

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

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

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Science dean Andre E. Lalonde's office barricade rescinded

2011-09-19T21:14:00.008-05:00

Science dean Andre E. Lalonde was recently replaced by interim dean Steve F. Perry.

Lalonde had installed a sophisticated protection against walk-in students or staff members at the dean's office.

Recall this video:

Well now the locks are gone and sanity has returned. Fear has been replaced with an open-door concept. What a novel idea for a university faculty.

Here is the memo:

Subject: Open door at the Office of the Dean
From: "Louise Hotte"
Date: Mon, 19 September, 2011 2:24 pm
To: science graduate students
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hello everyone,

It is with pleasure that I announce that the entrance door to the Office of the Dean has been unlocked as of now, no need to ring the doorbell anymore. It will be my pleasure to welcome you as usual.

Thank you
Louise
Louise Hotte
Secrétaire du doyen / Secretary to the Dean
Faculté des sciences / Faculty of Science
Pavillon Marion / Marion Hall
140 Louis Pasteur
Tél: 613-562-5985
Télécopieur: 613-562-5193.

University Senate member decries alleged malfeasance at the University of Ottawa -- Three latest posts at Student-s-Eye-View

2011-09-12T16:19:00.009-05:00

One of the few University of Ottawa senate members to consistently practice collegial governance by opposing the president Allan Rock "executive rule" era is physics graduate student Joseph Hickey.

Hickey documents his efforts to impose ethical behaviour on the Rock administration on his blog about senate: "A Student's-Eye View".

His three latest (September 11, 2011) blog posts are particularly hard hitting:::

Lawyer Richard Dearden attacks Self-represented Witness: Case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt

Canada-wide study of Anti-racism policies points finger at university Administration

Diane Davidson bars student Senator from VP Resources Selection Committee

Executive rule v. collegial governance... It's like there is too much stuff...! More bloggers are needed.

Global News Reporter's File::: State of academic freedom in Canada's capital -- video

2011-09-11T10:20:00.005-05:00

The Press-TV Global News report of September 8, 2011 (4:30pm GMT) contained this segment about the state academic freedom in Canada, and in Canada's capital Ottawa in particular.

The Press TV video report features:

James Turk (Executive Director, Canadian Association of University Teachers),
Yavar Hameed (human rights lawyer),
Joseph Hickey (student representative on the Senate, University of Ottawa),
Ian Bron (Managing Director, Canadians for Accountability),
Denis Rancourt (wrongfully dismissed Full Professor with tenure, University of Ottawa), and
activist students being wrongfully arrested for free expression on the campus of Carleton University (Ottawa).

Labour law tribunal hearings into the wrongful dismissal of Denis Rancourt are on-going and can be followed HERE.

Original Link:
Press TV Global News Reporter's File of September 8, 2011

Related posts:
Israel lobby influence at the University of Ottawa (all UofOWatch posts)

Related analysis:
The Canadian Zionism Question
All "Israel" posts at Activist Teacher blog

Natural justice as foreign concept::: U of O's dismissal of Denis Rancourt (Video)

2011-08-30T20:37:00.012-05:00

"The employer will be relying upon post-dismissal conduct and events... first of all to support the decision to dismiss..."
-- Lynn Harnden, hired lawyer for U of O

"The state will be relying upon post-incarceration conduct of the prisoner... first of all to support the sentence of guilty..."
-- Crown prosecutor on appeal, Fascist dystopia

You decide.

This is a video extract from the first day (May 2, 2011) of binding arbitration hearings in the academic freedom case of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa, Canada.

The hearing dates are scheduled well into 2012.

Links to key relevant background are HERE.

Read THIS chronology!
.

St. Lewis files motion to force Mandatory Mediation, Rancourt files response to motion

2011-08-29T12:06:00.016-05:00

Re: Update in the $1 million lawsuit of law professor Joanne St. Lewis against former physics professor Denis Rancourt.

As background, all related posts on the matter are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents are HERE.

"House Negro" Not Racist, Expert Opinion (LINK)

On August 18, 2011, Joanne St. Lewis' counsel Richard Dearden filed a Motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in the on-going action. The Motion document is HERE.

The Motion is intended to force immediate Mandatory Mediation under plaintiff-defined circumstances.

Rancourt filed his response to the Motion today (including Factum): PART-1of4, PART-2of4, PART-3of4, PART-4of4.

Rancourt's Motion Record (reply) includes an expert opinion (pages 28-29) that the term "house negro" used as intended does not in itself constitute a racist communication: LINK-to-expert-opinion.

Law Times covers the legal case, today's report: HERE.
...

UPDATE::: Video news reports about student Mahdi Darius Nazemtoaya in danger in Libya

2011-08-23T22:20:00.007-05:00

Background article: The Truth About the Situation in Libya

UPDATE::: Student Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya in danger in Tripoli

2011-08-23T18:54:00.004-05:00

Background article: The Truth About the Situation in Libya

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya <>
Date: Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 7:44 PM
Subject: RE: IOM Boat
To: darcy.mcfarlane@international.gc.ca

Please do your best. I am afraid I will be executed in cold blood

Subject: IOM Boat
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2011 20:24:03 +0100
From: Darcy.McFarlane@international.gc.ca
To: mahdi_nazemroaya@hotmail.com

Mr. Nazemroaya,

I am the Consular officer in Tunis, Tunisia. You may, or may not, be aware that the IOM has sent a boat to Tripoli to evacuate migrants. They recently confirmed that it has not yet docked due to local security concerns. I also note that it may not be safe to get to the docks but wanted to ensure you were made aware of this possibility. Below is the link for their site on which you could monitor for updates.
http://www.iom.int/jahia/Jahia/media/press-briefing-notes/pbnAF/cache/offonce/lang/en?entryId=30403

Best regards,

Darcy McFarlane
Premier Secrétaire et Consul
Ambassade du Canada
Tunis, Tunisie
Lot 24 Cité des Pins, les Berges du Lac 2
1035 Tunis-Belvédère
71 268 080

U of O student Mahdi Darius Nazemroya in life-threatening danger in Tripoli -- PRESS RELEASE

2011-08-22T12:38:00.004-05:00

Background article: The Truth About the Situation in Libya

Ottawa – August 22, 2011 :
University of Ottawa student and independent journalist currently in Tripoli fears for his life

At 11:27am today, Mireille Gervais, Director of the Student Appeal Centre (Student Federation of the University of Ottawa) received a phone call from Mahdi Darius Nazemroya, a Canadian citizen and independent journalist who indicated that he was currently hiding in the Tripoli hotel Rixos Al Nasr, fearing for his life. Mr. Nazemroya, a client of the Student Appeal Centre, asked Mrs. Gervais to do everything in her power to “get me out of here”. He feared that he may be dead at any moment and asked that Canadian Foreign Affairs intervene to save his life.

Mr. Nazemroya further indicated that he had not slept in three days and was hiding in the hotel with other journalists.

The Student Appeal Centre calls on federal authorities to do everything in their power to obtain the safety of the un-imbedded journalists and humanitarian observers who have sought refuge in the Rixos Al Nasr hotel in Tripoli.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroya studies political science and anthropology and he is a past Ombudsman of the Englissh-language student newspaper. He has been a dedicated contributor to student and alternative media for many years.

For further information:
Mireille Gervais
Director, Student Appeal Centre (SFUO)
case.cresac@sfuo.ca

U of O arbitrary deadline on harassment policy repudiated

2011-08-18T14:52:00.006-05:00

And again... Once again all the unions and associations of students and professional workers at the University of Ottawa have judged it necessary to call the university administration on one of its half-baked and ill-motivated plans...

See the letter posted on the Student's Eye View blog: LETTER HERE.

The letter is signed by eight unions and associations representing all the university community members except the executive officers.

It says:

Stop imposing arbitrary deadlines without reason which harm the democratic collegial governance process of the university. Back off and take a deep breath and tell us that you will actually have a fair and open process...

Will the administrative culture of "Canada's university" be perturbed by yet another reasoned request for reason?

Rock admin backs down on subverting Senate authority

2011-08-12T09:17:00.007-05:00

University of Ottawa senate member Joseph Hickey reports (HERE) that the Allan Rock administration has now backed down in its attempt to subvert senate authority to elect its own representatives to the selection committee for the next VP-Resources. (See previous post in this matter here.)

This retraction of the administration's firmly repeated position that the Executive Committee would select the senate representatives comes after Hickey made a public request that the democratic process must be respected and exposed the move as unnecessary and questionable.

The latter email exchange between Hickey and the university administration was posted by Hickey HERE.

Despite the strength of Hickey's arguments the administration has been know to simply plow ahead in other such cases, or to pull a last minute unannounced reversal at senate itself in order to avert further public exposure.

Therefore, this is good news and a sign that Allan Rock may be learning something new about democracy from students.

St. Lewis files Reply to Rancourt's Statement of Defence in $1 million defamation lawsuit

2011-08-11T12:35:00.007-05:00

As background, all related posts on the matter are HERE.

Plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis' lawyer Richard G. Dearden filed a Reply to defendant Rancourt's Statement of Defence with the Ontario Supreme Court of Justice on August 5, 2011: LINK-Reply.

All pleadings (Statement of Claim, Statement of Defence, and Reply) are a matter of public record.

Labour Board retains Allan Rock as a responding party and asks for final submissions, again

2011-08-03T18:41:00.009-05:00

Former physics professor Denis Rancourt's on-going adventure with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to force the Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa to recognize several of his outstanding labour law grievances is document HERE.

(The broader overall context of Rancourt's struggle is described HERE.)

Allan Rock argued (HERE) that he should not be a responding party. The OLRB in its most recent Decision (Decision 2567-10-U) retained Allan Rock as a responding party and decided to first consider Rock's motion as a preliminary motion to dismiss Rancourt's OLRB Application.

The University of Ottawa and the professor's union (APUO) have been added as responding parties and all parties were invited to submit final submissions on the motion by strict deadlines (Decision 2567-10-U).

Rancourt's July 26, 2011, submission is HERE.

Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa, and the APUO have since chosen to not submit submission pursuant to the OLRB Decision 2567-10-U and have informed the Board accordingly.

We now await yet another (final?) OLRB Decision about the motion to dismiss Rancourt's OLRB Application.

Rock admin erodes democracy, again -- Senator reports

2011-08-03T17:30:00.005-05:00

University of Ottawa university senate member Joseph Hickey reports how the Allan Rock administration is attempting to thwart democracy at Senate, again, in an apparent effort to manipulate the selection committee for the next VP-Resources:

See senator's report HERE.

For some reason VP-Resources Victor Simon is stepping down.

Rancourt files Statement of Defence in Joanne St. Lewis $1 million defamation lawsuit

2011-07-22T14:30:00.008-05:00

The Statement of Claim of University of Ottawa law professor Plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis has been posted and linked on several legal profession and other blogs and has been quoted in the mainstream media.

Today former University of Ottawa physics professor Defendant Denis Rancourt filed his Statement of Defence, following a 10-day extension, with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice: LINK-SOD.

Rancourt is self-represented.

The casual reader should note that several words such as "malice", "frivolous" and "vexatious", for example, have legal meanings determined by case law.

As background, all related posts on the matter are HERE.

This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like at "Canada's university"

2011-06-28T09:38:00.005-05:00

Renowned workplace mobbing expert professor Kenneth Westhues concluded in a 2009 written report that the dismissal of full and tenured professor Denis Rancourt was an "administrative mobbing": LINK TO REPORT.

This week Rancourt posted a chronological list (2005-2009) of the attacks on his academic freedom that culminated in the University of Ottawa's dismissal of him, entitled "This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like in Canada":

LINK TO RANCOURT'S DOCUMENT

As pointed out by Westhues, Rancourt has generally meticulously documented and made public the available facts that support his statements (HERE).

Anonymous interview with uoLeaks, towards student union accountability?

2011-06-24T10:39:00.005-05:00

UofOWatch contacted uoLeaks in order to obtain this interview that was completed today.

(1) What is uoLeaks? Who is it? When did you start the blog?

uoLeaks is a website designed to bring accountability and transparency to the SFUO by allowing students to anonymously submit tips and comment on events and details that have been posted. The blog was started in February 2011, during the election period.

(2) What motivated you to start a disclosure blog about the SFUO? What were the key catalysts?

The past few years have been riddled with scandals, lawsuits, and a continuing growth of discontent. One of the major catalysts was the fraud and irregularities behind the SFUO elections this past year.

(3) What do you hope to accomplish? Why do this?

Knowledge. We hope that the students at the U of O become aware of what the SFUO is doing and take action. Another goal was to get people talking about the SFUO and news/rumours surrounding it, not just being a source of fact (that's for newspapers to do) but also getting people to think about rumours and to make their own opinions on it.

(4) Why do you insist on being anonymous? Would it not be more effective to be completely transparent and public about your concerns and efforts?

The anonymity allows students that send in tips and comments to have a risk-free way of providing information that may otherwise have them fired or punished.

(5) Regarding anonymity, what is the worst that you could suffer in terms of reprisals?

For some of us - there is no risk of reprisal. For others, their jobs.

(6) What has been your main scoop or disclosure or emphasis to date?

There hasn't necessarily been one main scoop. Instead, there has been many smaller stories. Everything from SFUO's lawyer's documents to irregular financial expenditures to breaches of contract has been disclosed.

(7) How do you gauge your support in the student population and what degree of support do you believe you might enjoy if more students were aware of your efforts and motives?

Overwhelming support was seen in the referendums for the Federated Bodies to leave the SFUO. Three or four student bodies held votes to see if the students wished to be disassociated with the SFUO, and the results ranged from 70-95% in favour of leaving. The support is not necessarily for uoLeaks, but for more accountability within the SFUO; there were also protests and lock-outs at the SFUO office that further showed this.

(8) How do you plan to get the word out that you exist and to create a buzz about your role on campus?

During the election period, we used a set of volunteers not associated with the blog to spread business cards around the crowded areas of campus and in election campaigning areas. To help, we've integrated Facebook and Twitter posts for each time a new post goes up on the blog.

(9) What are some issues or areas you plan to focus on in the coming academic year?

Progress. In what direction is the SFUO going? Has there been improvements or not?

(10) in your opinion, how did the SFUO develop such contempt for transparency and democracy? How does that work? How can you help get it back on track?

There is no one for the SFUO to be accountable to. The "board", which is the only power above them, consists mostly of themselves and (to be frank) their friends. The board directors, elected each year, have no accountability to the students who voted them in. There is no process of appeal, as the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC) has not existed for quite some time.

(11) The university administration loves the SFUO to be petty and ineffective. What role do you consider you have regarding the relationship between the SFUO and the Rock administration?

If we can show overwhelming support and demand for change, neither the SFUO nor administration can ignore that. At a time when the university is seeking increased enrollment, a poor reputation of student experience is the last thing that is needed.

(12) Leaving the SFUO aside for a moment, what would you say are the main problems with the university administration's conduct and outlook?

Although our mandate requests accountability from the SFUO and administration, we have not had much (if any) focus on the university administration to date.

U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis sues Rancourt for $1 million, will give half to a law student scholarship fund

2011-06-23T19:39:00.009-05:00

This is an update to the St. Lewis matter reported on this U of O Watch blog. As background, all related posts on the matter are HERE.

A Statement of Claim (SOC) was filed today with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice. The Court File No. for the SOC is 11-51657 and the SOC has been posted HERE (1.4 MB PDF file).

Law professor Joanne St. Lewis is suing former physics professor Denis Rancourt for $1 million dollars for the posts about St. Lewis on this blog.

It appears from the SOC that the claimed damages to St. Lewis have arisen from Google's placement of one of the U of O Watch blog articles?

Paragraph-60 of the SOC states:

"The Defendant's conduct and actions are reprehensible insulting, high-handed, spiteful, and outrageous. Such conduct warrants condemnation by this Court by means of an award of punitive damages. Professor St. Lewis will rely upon the entire conduct of the Defendant before and after the May 16, 2011 Notice to the date of judgment in this action. In the event that punitive damages are awarded against the Defendant, Professor St. Lewis will donate half of the award of punitive damages to the Danny Glover Routes To Freedom Graduate Law Student Scholarship Fund."

Another statement in the SOC (Par.51) is:

"The Defendant defamed Professor St. Lewis in furtherance of his personal animosity towards President Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa which terminated him as a Professor."

U of O president Allan Rock gets an A+ grade

2011-06-22T15:23:00.018-05:00

[Photo: Allan Rock at the UN, before becoming president of Canada's university.]

On the occasion of publishing its 200th post, U of O Watch has asked former professor Denis Rancourt, known for his precedent-setting pedagogical and grading methods, to grade president Allan Rock's performance since starting his mandate at the University of Ottawa, since the president's trip to Haifa, Israel, in June 2008.

The professor attributes an overall grade of A+ to Allan Rock's performance to date.

The grade arises from a student-centered evaluation based on effort and evidence of significant progress. Using these criteria, the president's performance is judged to be exceptional.

Professor Rancourt has made an extensive evaluation using all available audio-visual and documentary material, including records obtained via access to information (ATI) legislation and many student reports and recordings. Rancourt is confident in his final grade for Allan Rock's performance with 90% certainty 16 times out of 20.

It is not expected that the grade will be contested by a higher authority, given professor Rancourt's relevant expertize in critical pedagogy.

The reasons for the A+ grade are evidence for exceptional progress and for exceptional effort. These are largely attributed to the motivating pedagogical method in which the student was given a high degree of agency, freedom to make mistakes, and much feedback about his errors and successes. The student also benefited from a highly supportive environment including a high salary, adulation from a loyal staff, and a marketing department dedicated to presenting a positive image.

Moral lapses and past (pre-mandate) errors were not criteria in the evaluation since it is meant to be a measure of authentic effort and real progress.

Examples from the professor's detailed evaluation report are as follows.

Near the start of the president's mandate, documented incidents showed that the president could be overly aggressive towards students including: verbal intimidation in his office, trespassing registered students, pursuing criminal charges against students for participation at university Senate, and unilateral deregistrations of students from courses and study programs. The Ottawa Police were frequently seen on campus where they were not helpful.

Recently, there have been no reports of such abuses on campus. Indeed, protest expression has become common and completely tolerated at Senate. Students are no longer being trespassed for civil participation in campus life. And president Rock is even allowing "student motions" to be presented at Senate without the usual illegitimate administrative veto.

There remains a very aggressive tone at the Senate chaired by Allan Rock but this takes nothing away from his progress in other areas.

Another example is the Ann Coulter media relations fiasco caused by and managed by Allan Rock. Although Rock made all the wrong moves, showed an absence of principles, and inflicted the largest damage to the University's image in its history, detailed ATI records show the tremendous effort that Allan Rock was making to understand and manage the situation for the good of the institution.

Since the Allan Rock administration has not tried to censor anyone else recently, not even Students Against Israeli Apartheid (although he won't let them address Senate when invited by a Senator...?), Rancourt concludes that Allan Rock has shown an exceptional ability to learn from his mistakes, despite the adulation from his salaried subordinates.

There continues to be room for exceptional progress and exceptional effort. So Rancourt expects that Allan Rock will be a straight-A student right into his second mandate.

Final Grade: A+

U of O disregards access to information law, refuses to provide undisclosed records to Ontario adjudicator

2011-06-18T09:17:00.014-05:00

On April 21, 2008, then physics professor Denis Rancourt made an access to information (ATI) request to the University of Ottawa for "all records about me in the university president's office since November 30, 2006."

The university's first reaction was to refuse to respond as required by law -- the Freedom of Information and protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) of Ontario. The university had to be ordered by an Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator to follow the law. See IPC Order PO-2698 dated July 22, 2008. The IPC is the judiciary body that administers and enforces the FIPPA.

The university's ordered response was then appealed to the IPC by Rancourt as being incomplete.

Mostly due to IPC-imposed administrative delays, the required-by-law mediation step of the 2008 appeal (IPC Appeal No. PA08-159-2) was only completed on May 26, 2011.

The factual IPC Mediator's Report (HERE) states that the university has now refused to provide 56 undisclosed records (documents about Rancourt in the president's office) to the IPC Adjudicator for the appeal hearings.

This is a violation of the FIPPA. The rules of procedure for IPC adjudications of appeals require the institution (university) at mediation to provide all records not disclosed to the appellant (Rancourt) to the IPC for mediation and adjudication. The university has simply refused to do so (LINK):

"The mediator advised the University that only some of the records listed in the undisclosed index of records were provided to the IPC. Specifically, records 217 to 272 were not provided to the IPC."

Furthermore, the university states that it has lost its indexed records (undisclosed records) that it refuses to provide to the IPC:

"The University confirmed that it does not have a copy of records 217 to 272."

How can the University of Ottawa justify such disregard for legal procedures, disregard for fair access to personal information, and disregard for accountability and transparency?

The University's less-than-exemplary institutional behaviour regarding ATI and the FIPPA was also recently reported HERE.

U of O institutional independence for sale to the Israel lobby

2011-06-17T15:58:00.018-05:00

Canadian universities have institutional independence guaranteed by a Supreme Court of Canada ruling. This independence from governments and corporations was explicitly granted to universities in order to protect the academic freedoms of its professors and students.

At the University of Ottawa this established institutional independence is used to subvert lawsuits from mistreated students, and to shield the university from sanctions related to its own violations of its professors' academic freedoms. Such is the perversion of legalese in the service of unprincipled administrations.

In addition, observers have been concerned about the influence of private corporate donations; which are never made transparently and which go into the protected slush fund known as "University of Ottawa Foundation".

This becomes of direct concern when the private donations are overtly tied to specific research chairs, to new research themes, or to newly tailored academic programs.

This is why university senate (the highest institutional authority on all academic matters) recently questioned the university administration's unilateral campaign to create a two-for-one graduate degree in law (LL.M.) and exchange program with the University of Haifa, Israel. (See all posts on this matter HERE.)

In addition to being an obvious degree inflation scheme ("two distinct LL.M. degrees after only one year of studies") -- which is becoming too common as a marketing device at the university -- the Haifa deal came with a tied scholarship thanks to "generous support" from the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation.

It was therefore the duty of senate to examine any conditions tied to the Schwartz-Reisman scholarship that might harm academic integrity and institutional independence in view of any risks to academic freedom.

The only senator to act dutifully in this matter was student senator Joseph Hickey. His senate blog posts about the administration's Haifa campaign are HERE.

Hickey's research revealed that the Haifa two-for-one degree scheme was not born of an academic need expressed by students and professors via the university's collegial governance process. Instead, it was the result of an Israel Lobby organized and funded university president's trip to Israel in 2008 (June 24th to July 1st). President Allan Rock appears to have attempted to conceal this fact by vehemently and repeatedly stating "I was not in Israel in 2008 and I have never been to Haifa, Mr. Hickey". (LINK)

Hickey today (June 17th) made public his access to information (ATI) results (LINK) showing that former president Gilles Patry was the U of O president who went to Israel in 2008 and committed to the Haifa academic program long before it could be studied by senate.

More disturbingly, after much work at senate, Hickey has obtained the Terms of Reference for the Schwartz-Reisman "generous support". Hickey has posted the document HERE.

Although the document is written in legalese, it is clear that the Schwartz-Reisman Foundation has not provided an endowment but instead has only agreed to providing year to year payments of the scholarships, that can be stopped after any given year, subject to candidate approval by the Foundation, and that in a given year must be spent such as to "adhere as closely as possible to the [unstated] spirit of the fund and to the [again unstated] Schwartz/Reisman Foundation original intent."

Hickey continues to seek the denied ATI records that would clarify "the spirit of the fund" and the "original intent" but the university seems committed to preventing this transparency. (See index of almost eighty denied ATI records HERE.)

So there you have it. It seems unlikely (guaranteed) that many Palestinian students or any students critical of Israeli policies will be found qualified to receive this scholarship. This is an overt violation of student academic freedom.

Regarding the Haifa academic program scholarship, the university administration has effectively sold its statutory responsibility (University of Ottawa Act, 1965):

"[...] 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 [...]"

"The management, discipline and control of the University shall be free from the restrictions and control of any outside body [...] shall be based upon Christian principles."

to the Schwartz-Reisman Foundation. It is difficult to see how the Foundation can be expected to administer its scholarship year to year "in accordance with Christian principles". Although I am not a scholar of Christianity, I venture that Jesus would not substantively support a state that practices economic and physical apartheid and frequently militarily slaughters unarmed civilians.

What is needed maybe is a statutory challenge. The university executives do not have the authority to subvert the University of Ottawa Act, 1965. Indeed, the executives have a duty and a responsibility to uphold the Act. Does the former Minister of Justice agree?

RUMOR::: Minto Group Inc. concerned about U of O donor recognition

2011-06-16T22:41:00.003-05:00

UofOWatch would like to report the rumor that Minto Group Inc. is considering a recognized donation to the University of Ottawa but that it is concerned about the University's "donor recognition policy".

U of O equips itself to expel students with perceived mental health problems

2011-06-16T13:08:00.009-05:00

The present UofOWatch commentary is sourced in THIS TODAY'S POST at the Student's-Eye View blog of student senator Joseph Hickey.

The University of Ottawa has equipped itself with a legal opinion and "best practice" recommendations for expelling students judged to have mental health problem behaviours.

Given the historical record of psychiatry's contributions to public health policy (LINK, VIDEO), this move can only be considered as a chilling red flag of things to come under the continued Allan Rock administration, undeterred by the recent collapse of the Liberal Party of Canada.

The university makes no mention that it has sought similar legal and professional opinions regarding the uncanny presumed ability of some deans and VPs to make psychological assessments of professors and students on the fly, as documented HERE (all posts).

What is our warring nation marching towards?

Degree inflation and lost collegial governance at U of O in full swing

2011-06-07T09:56:00.020-05:00

The June 6, 2011, meeting of university senate at the University of Ottawa was remarkable in so many ways. Here are a few.

After a rather lengthy discussion on a motion about whether a correct degree program name in French should be "computer science" or "computer sciences" (plural), the dean of the Faculty of Science, Andre E. Lalonde, boldly displayed independent thinking by being one of only four to abstain from approving the singular version.

Following this and another equally important matter, there was the item of approving yet another two-for-one degree scheme. This one would provide the lucky tuition payer and job-equipped student with both a graduate degree in law (LLM) and a Ph.D. in science (physics was used as the discussion example).

Law professor John Currie had serious reservations and expressed that this plan had never been presented to law professors or to Law Faculty Council or department counsels.

This led student senator Joseph Hickey to state that collegial governance had not been followed. Acting chair of senate Francois Houle countered that collegial governance had been followed because the administration's rules allowed this non-consultation (wow!).

Dean of graduate studies Gary Slater chimed in that the deans of law had approved this and that the (unelected, administration-appointed) deans "represent" the faculty.

Not a single professor rose to the occasion to explaining what the legal term "collegial governance" actually means. Unbelievable.

Collegial governance is on a par with academic freedom as a foundational principle of the modern university in democratic societies and has statutory meaning thanks to decades of labour law precedents and international agreements yet not a single brilliant academic at senate on June 6, 2011, seemed to have any notion of what it means or any problem with completely disregarding it.

The only time collegial governance rights can be constrained is if the collegial body, via the full collegial process, formally agrees by policy to allow the administration to administer some component of collegial governance. The precedents are clear on this point.

It gets better.

Currie explained his reservations, while being apologetic that this might frustrate the administration's efforts.

Currie pointed out that this would be a new scenario in which a student would get a graduate degree in law (with crash courses and without writing a law thesis or research paper) without having an undergraduate degree in law. Currie questioned the value of this LLM compared to real LLM degrees that require an undergraduate law degree and a law research component.

Law professor Currie further pointed out that this would degrade the in-class learning environment where the real LLM students would share classes with the crash-course LLM students having no previous law credentials.

To this Lalonde answered that these new LLM students would be few in number such that the negative impact on the classroom should be minimal, apparently oblivious to the accepted pedagogical fact that a single unprepared student in a class represents a significant operational difficulty for all.

At this point student senator Hickey characterized the plan as "degree inflation". As soon as Hickey uttered these words, Houle cut him off and the motion was tabled until faculty councils could provide their inputs.

There is an obvious (and stated at Senate) push for degree inflation as a way of providing competitive consumer goods to a paying student population eager to dress their CVs for the work market.

Grades inflation was a way to increase student numbers over the last decade and more and these increases were crassly explained and questioned at senate (by biology professor David Currie, quoting previous president Gilles Patry) as the best way to increase the university's income "in order to provide better services for the minority French students"... (quotes as emphasis).

With the help of ace academic architect Slater, degree inflation (e.g., see the remarkable case of the Brand Israel two-for-one LLMs) is now in full swing at "Canada's university", for the usual corporate executive motive of increasing income and size. Size matters to this institution. Nothing else it appears?

Will the collegial body ever wake up?

Does Francois Houle know how to use English?

2011-06-06T20:25:00.012-05:00

As the present post shows, this is a fair question.

In a May 20, 2011, message to student university senate member Joseph Hickey University of Ottawa VP-Academic Francois Houle wrote:

"At this point in time, we expect that the draft policy, which was submitted to the University Community for consultation as of August 2010, will be presented for approval at the June meeting of the Board."

Hickey responded to Houle and all senators and made the exchange public on his blog about senate HERE.

Houle's sentence is in English and it is clear. It means that the draft policy submitted in August 2010 will be presented for approval.

Understandably, the many groups who had asked for changes to the draft were concerned than none of their studied and expert criticisms would be taken into account.

Then on June 2, 2011, as resistance mounted to the administration's rushed plan to push through a half-baked policy, Houle responded to Hickey:

"I do not understand why you concluded that the policy that will be submitted for approval will be identical to the August version."

Following this, at the June 6, 2011, meeting of Senate, Houle again went on about how he did not understand why so many emails were based on concluding that the administration was plowing ahead with the draft policy...

Well, it's called English...

Or is it a memory problem? Or a problem of juggling too many contradictory positions? Or what? After all, this is a man with a Ph.D. who is second in command of a self-proclaimed leading Canadian university. Can we not expect that he understand what he says?

It's an echo of when Mr. Houle did not understand that his letter (approved by Allan Rock) to Ann Coulter was a threat of legal action about what she might say on campus before she even opened her mouth, leading to a predictable international media frenzy (LINK).

In the end -- after irresponsibly announcing to the media (before the Senate and Board had even heard of the policy) that it would approve its policy on discrimination and harassment in June 2011 -- Houle explained today at Senate that there would now be a consultation over the summer to re-table a new draft policy at Senate in the Fall...

What a zoo. And where is Mr. Rock? Bringing the U of O to the world?

U of O student union critical race theory burnout

2011-06-05T15:13:00.012-05:00

SFUO: Left in words, Right in deed?

UofOWatch has learned that this letter (below) was duly sent (in cc) for publication to the student paper The Fulcrum on March 26, 2011, and was simply ignored. The Fulcrum did not acknowledge or contact its author, despite the paper's statutory commitment to publish all student letters. This, for a paper that has been consistently enthusiastic to criticize the SFUO's Left politics.

It appears that at the University of Ottawa racism runs deep and crosses all race, political, age, and class boundaries...? (See all posts about racism at U of O HERE.)

UofOWatch has learned that the letter was re-sent today addressed to the present SFUO president Amalia Savva.

To Tyler Steeves,

I am writing to you as the Chair of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa's Black History Month sub-committee in your capacity as President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO).

It is with sincere regret and utter frustration that I find myself writing this letter. As a committee, we experienced a lot of resistance from the executive of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa. We also felt as if we were being held hostage and that we had to dance to a tune in order to be heard and taken seriously.

As a representative of the committee, I first approached the SFUO in July with the plan to put certain things in motion. I had a meeting with an executive member and the response from the meeting was an email advising me that the SFUO would be "selecting members" for the 2010-2011 Black History Month Committee. This response perplexed some students who were interested in being members because we did not understand them criteria that was to be used. We also questioned the SFUO's qualifications in determining who was suitable to be on this committee. What made this response even more curious for us was the fact that for centuries marginalized groups have always been told who has the legitimacy to speak on their behalf by the dominant group.

According to the SFUO Constitution, "the SFUO Executive shall only act as a liaison between the Black History Month Committee members for financial and logistical matters". There were a few embarrassing moments that were avoidable had the SFUO executive followed their mandate as stated in the Constitution vis à vis the Black History Committee. The most embarrassing and regrettable one was suffered by our keynote speaker Dr. George Dei of Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE), as he tried to check out of his hotel room.

It was also embarrassing to have to hold our event at the Carlton University Campus because of the delay in mobilizing the committee. This delay was due to SFUO's inaction in terms of setting up the committee and lack of facilitation in accessing all the resources required by the committee. The committee was also puzzled by the lack of attendance by any of the SFUO executive members.

We all have to acknowledge that the committee is seen by outsiders as representing the University of Ottawa's student body. As such any failure by the committee is seen as a failure by the whole student body. We have to work together to promote an inclusive and respectful study body at our university. The committee would like to set up a meeting with the SFUO executive to revisit the issue and come up with a more respectful working relationship.

I look forward to hearing from you in the near future.

Kindest Regards,

Hazel Gashoka
Chair, Student Federation of the University of Ottawa's Black History Month sub-committee

cc: Black history month committee members, SFUO executives, the fulcrum, and black caucus members

U of O neurosurgery malfeasance::: ALL SEVEN (7) employee and student unions denounce president's inaction

2011-06-02T17:57:00.010-05:00

All the professional and student unions at the University of Ottawa have written a joint letter (co-signed by seven union presidents, sent today June 2, 2011) to the members of the Board of Governors and to the members of the university Senate denouncing the university's inaction in the overt malfeasance and reprisals case involving three medical residents who were targeted by the Faculty of Medicine.

See all related posts HERE.

This is an unprecedented action at the University of Ottawa indicating the malicious character of this prima facie case of administrative malfeasance and cover up, possibly involving criminal acts.

An accurate translation (from French) of the co-signed letter follows.

Re: Discrimination and reprisal complaints at the University of Ottawa

Dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate of the University of Ottawa,

As the representatives of the professional and student unions on campus, we wish to express in a unified voice our concern regarding certain events reported recently in the national and regional media. Three students in the Faculty of medicine appear to have complained for reason of discrimination and to have been subjected to significant academic and professional reprisals following the filing of these complaints. Emails made public have shown that at least one student was removed from his study program despite his excellent academic performance in order to deter other students from filing complaints.

As union bodies formed by a common interest to improve work and study conditions of our members which represent 95% of the university community, we insist on denouncing all practices intended to impose reprisals against those who decide to make complaints. Such a practice could, by creating a climate of fear and intimidation, incite our members to not demand their rights and protections foreseen by many federal and provincial laws as well as by our university policies. In addition, this practice is forbidden by the Human Rights Code of Ontario.

Our concerns are exacerbated by the existence of an official rule which guarantees, to each of our members, access to a transparent and fair process to make complaints without fear of reprisals.

Note that our organizations hereby commit, via our representation, to activate a serious follow up of the development of procedures and policies at the University of Ottawa concerning the cases of intimidation and reprisals to which our members can be subjected.

In the hope that this situation will be resolved as soon as possible, please receive, dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate, our distinguished salutations.

In solidarity,

Micheline Lessard – APUO [professors]
Greer Knox – APTPUO [part-time professors]
Amalia Savva – FEUO [undergraduate students]
Jonathan Duguay – GSAED [graduate students]
Marc Fortier – PIPSC [professional employees]
Richard Hogan – PSUO [support employees]
Félix Grenier – SCFP 2626 [teaching assistants]

U of O neurosurgery malfeasance::: President Allan Rock refuses to investigate, letter to graduate student union

2011-06-01T07:07:00.012-05:00

It's starting to smell like one stinking pile of cover up, straight up to the top of the pile...

The present commentary is based on the recent revelations posted by student University of Ottawa senate member Joseph Hickey: HERE.

Recall that leaked emails showed a vicious attack (including career-destruction and dismissal) against medical resident Dr. Waleed Al-Ghaithy as reprisal for putting forth a racial discrimination complaint and as a way (explicitly stated) of preventing Al-Ghaithy and others from making Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints against the Faculty of Medicine and members of its professional staff.

Several background posts are HERE.

Mr. Hickey informed the university senate about the leaked emails and read one of the emails at Senate. More emails were read at a March 9, 2011, press conference organized by the undergraduate student union Student Appeal Centre (SAC) and the matter was widely reported in the national and regional media.

The graduate student union (GSAED) wrote to Rock asking him to investigate this startling prima facie case of malfeasance in the Faculty of Medicine.

Rock's April 29, 2011, reply is simply "quite remarkable", HERE:

"Note that, contrary to Mr. Rock’s assertions, the e-mails in question were leaked after Mr. Al-Ghaithy’s internal complaint was completed, and did not play any part in these reviews. Note also that Mr. Rock asserts respecting student confidentiality while disclosing the results of internal processes about students. It’s all quite remarkable."

The consistently adopted Rock strategy (condoned by a spineless or oblivious Board of Governors?) in this serious matter is for the university to avoid its legal and moral responsibilities by diverting to a relatively toothless human rights tribunal hearing. One wonders why the Liberals were wiped off the political map recently.

Methinks this one is going to come back and bite Mr. Rock, sooner or later.

U of O student union clique election coup

2011-05-29T09:40:00.011-05:00

It happened this year at the University of Ottawa, "Canada's university".

A clique of anti-oppression-trained student union executives and officers changed the rules to replace an elected student union vice-president by one of their own.

The mess was reported in Macleans On Campus in March 2011 HERE.

The move was similar to retracting a score-wise unambiguous hockey victory on the basis of post-game re-evaluated body-checking penalties using the league owners' reevaluation while barring the referee board's traditional role, thereby disallowing any mechanism for appeal.

Except that this was not a hockey game. It was a democratic election.

In our democracy only consequentially fraudulent elections can lead to retracting election results (and a new election!). Broken rules lead to reprimands, fines, controls and other penalties; and the candidate and those involved are answerable to the electorate.

It is a sign of our times that students -- less corrupted by lengthy accommodation to society's hierarchical dominance -- can behave in this way, be blind to the obvious fundamental violation of principle, and actively defend their attack against democracy.

There is little hope that this student union executive will be able to even perceive the despotism of the university administration?

Rock's senate: Democratic in name

2011-05-28T09:43:00.014-05:00

A university senate is intended to be an instrument of collegial governance that is the highest authority on all academic matters at the institution.

This role of senate is a foundational principle of the modern university in a democratic society and is established by statute (University of Ottawa Act, 1965).

Someone forgot to tell president Allan Rock (and Chair of the senate, University of Ottawa). It seems this item was either absent from the president school curriculum, or Mr. Rock was not paying attention when that came up in class?

Here are three recent reports from senator Joseph Hickey's blog about senate that show a senate treated like a show committee where senators are allowed to misbehave in disregarding student motions not popular with Rock's administration:::

Memo from President Allan Rock

U of O: Discrimination Policy to be Pushed Through in June

Motion to Prevent a Premature Policy on Discrimination

Law society acknowledges ethical breaches by lawyer Marc Jolicoeur

2011-05-24T08:33:00.005-05:00

On February 26, 2011, a formal complaint was launched with the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) against former Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa Marc Jolicoeur, HERE.

Mr. Jolicoeur accepted legal work which resulted from a controversial decision (to fire tenured professor Denis Rancourt) which he made -- for which he had ultimate responsibility -- from a public office (Chair of the BOG), and then repeatedly refused to answer or acknowledge all requests of clarifications in the matter.

After a lengthy LSUC intake investigation involving a detailed examination of thirty six documents, on April 29, 2011, the LSUC responded THIS WAY.

All the main exchanges with LSUC are posted HERE.

The LSUC could not dismiss the complaint and acknowledged "regulatory issues may have been raised".

The LSUC decision (LINK) of waiting till after Rancourt's dismissal case is resolved to consider continuing the investigation has been challenged as unjustified and irresponsible (outcome to be reported when available). Its approach appears to be one of delay and avoidance.

UofOWatch update::: Richard Dearden promises to sue

2011-05-23T16:22:00.014-05:00

THIS unfortunate matter is not going away. The following email exchange with Canadian top lawyer Richard Dearden shows that a lawsuit against UofOWatch will follow. It also shows an aggressive lawyer not interested in discussing solutions or even providing clarifications on simple points.

[Note: It makes more sense if you read from the bottom up.]

From: Dearden, Richard
Date: Mon, May 23, 2011 at 4:04 PM
Subject: RE: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis
To: Denis Rancourt

Mr. Rancourt
1. cease communicating with my client directly - you communicate with me as counsel for Professor St. Lewis.
2. i attach [LINK] my May 20th letter to you which is the second Notice i was referring to in my email to you today.
3. there is nothing to clarify regarding your defamatory statements - you take down your defamatory blogs immediately and then i will consider meeting with you to discuss the wording of your unequivocal retraction and apology to Professor St. Lewis that you will publish on your blog. That may assist in mitigating the damages you have caused her.
4. as for your para 4 below, the Statement of Claim that will be issued against you should answer your questions. Once again i strongly recommend that you retain a lawyer to defend the defamatory statements you continue to repeat and add to (such as the statements in para 5 below that are false and defamatory). I am informing you to not repeat the accusations in para 5 below to any third party. To do so will be malicious and further aggravate my client's damages.

Richard Dearden
Partner
613-786-0135
gowlings.com

-------------------------------------------
From: Denis Rancourt []
Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 3:25 PM
To: Dearden, Richard
Cc: joanne.stlewis@uottawa.ca

Subject: Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis

Dear Mr. Dearden,

Thank you for your reply. Clarifications are needed in this matter.

(1) Since you have not indicated that you would inform your client about my May 20th offer to publish her response, I have put Ms. St. Lewis in cc. This will also make Ms. St. Lewis fully aware of our exchange.

(2) Without implying guilt or blame on any party, I continue to seek a meeting to help clarify and resolve this matter, as I have indicated.

(3) In your today's email, you state "I have served you with two Notices demanding..." yet your letter of May 16, 2011, is the only paper communication that I have ever received from you (and in which you make no mention of a previous communication). Are you counting your email of 11:54am today as having served me a second "Notice"? Please clarify.

(4) Please clarify the nature of any legal action that you may be contemplating. I note that you do not refer to any specific law or legal principle that would have been violated. In the absence of any allegations of my having violated a specific common law or Act, please clarify the legal basis of the apology that you are now demanding and that was not mentioned in your letter of May 16, 2011.

(5) I am concerned that you or your client Joanne St. Lewis have obtained my unlisted personal home address. Please inform me how you obtained my personal information. In particular, I am concerned that my former employer the University of Ottawa could have illegally or improperly released my personal and former employee information to you and your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(6) Please acknowledge receiving the present email communication.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

-------------------------------------------
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Dearden, Richard wrote:

Mr. Rancourt - I have served you with two Notices demanding that you take down the defamatory statements you have published about my client. You refuse to do so.I will not consider any meeting with you until you take down your offensive statements. Let me be clear - there are no "possible misunderstandings" - you have published false and defamatory statements about Professor St. Lewis that have damaged her , must be retracted immediately and require an unequivocal apology from you. I strongly recommend that you retain a lawyer.

Richard Dearden
Partner
613-786-0135
gowlings.com

-------------------------------------------
From: Denis Rancourt []
Sent: Friday, May 20, 2011 2:43 PM
To: Dearden, Richard
Subject: Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis / Your (Gowlings) letter of May 16, 2011

Richard G. Dearden
Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP
Ottawa
(by email: richard.dearden@gowlings.com)

Re: U of O Watch Blog: Joanne St. Lewis / Your (Gowlings) letter of May 16, 2011

Dear Mr. Dearden,

(1) I am self-represented in this matter.

(2) Your law firm has legal specializations including in the area of protection of personal information. Therefore, you understand my concern that you or your client Joanne St. Lewis have obtained my unlisted personal home address. Please inform me how you obtained my personal information. In particular, I am concerned that my former employer the University of Ottawa could have illegally or improperly released my personal and former employee information to you and your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(3) The present matter about my U of O Watch blog and Joanne St. Lewis is one of public interest and I have and expect to continue to publicly report about it, as I have done here:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/05/top-dog-canadian-freedom-of-press.html

(4) Without implying guilt or blame on any party, as a self-represented individual, I request to informally meet with you as soon as is convevient in order to discuss and explore (1) informally resolving our possible misunderstandings, (2) the benefits of a possible apology regarding your client's feeling of having been offended by statements alleged to be racist, and (3) matters that you have raised.

(5) I was concerned by the possible negative societal impact of your client's apparent professional behaviour in relation to the SAC report but I am open to considering new facts and new reasoned interpretations in this matter and to correct my U of O Watch blog position accordingly.

(6) Please offer to your client Joanne St. Lewis that she write a response (to the U of O Watch post of expressed concern) that I will immediately publish without editorial changes in as conspicuous a place and type as was the alleged defamatory post. This response can include links to any supporting documents. I am also open to posting a guest op-ed by a third person selected by your client Joanne St. Lewis.

(7) In the week of Victoria Day, I am available May 25th and May 27th for our meeting. I am also available the week of May 30th (except June 1st).

(8) Please immediately acknowledge receiving the present email communication.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gowlings immediately by email at postmaster@gowlings.com. Thank you.

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. The message may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify Gowlings immediately by email at postmaster@gowlings.com. Thank you.

Rock's U of O is transparency-challenged, since 2007 media say

2011-05-22T10:04:00.015-05:00

It's gotten to the point where the media have noticed it:

"Has topped academic list since 2007"
-- Ottawa Citizen, May 21, 2011

The University of Ottawa ("Canada's university"), under the Allan Rock administration, has had the most freedom-of-information law requests of any college or university in Ontario every year since 2007: 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010.

And by a long shot: Second place in 2010 was occupied by U of T (a much larger institution) which had half as many requests.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner's (IPC) Annual Report 2010 was recently posted HERE.

"Officials at the University of Ottawa struggled ... to explain..." (Citizen) and the media struggled to interpret... but it seems pretty clear to this observer:

The University of Ottawa is an overly secretive publicly funded institution -- hello...?

Indeed, much of its last ("Vision 2010") 5-year plan was about how it was going to post all committee meeting minutes to the web and the like and emphasize transparency - we are still waiting... Even senators on University Senate can't get the information they need to do their work: HERE.

The media failed to note that the IPC 2010 Report also put U of O in a few additional notorious categories:

more information law requests than any other college or university

third most legal appeals of its non-compliance for all agencies in Ontario, led only by Ontario Power Authority and Ontario Lottery and Gaming Corporation

only university or college to be found in "deemed refusal" for non-compliance

largest number of legal appeals for personal information requests of any agency in Ontario

Methinks the media are being soft on U of O and not digging very deeply into its "unique" institutional culture.

Top dog Canadian freedom of the press lawyer targets UofOWatch blog

2011-05-18T19:47:00.020-05:00

[Richard G. Dearden; Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP]

This very blog, the UofOWatch blog, has received a threat of legal action, again.

Short history of past threats against this blog:

The first such threat was in 2007 from the University of Ottawa VP-Resources Victor Simon using the BLG law firm directed in Ottawa by Marc Jolicoeur who, at the time, was President of the university's Board of Governors (BOG). HERE is that Notice of Libel (alternate link). And HERE is the blog post that prompted it, and HERE.
Jolicoeur continued to mix work with community service after stepping down as president of the BOG, HERE.
Following this, the university went on a 2008 discipline campaign against the blog and suspended its author for alleged image copyright infringement: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3. Here is the video of how it went down in terms of BOG due process: VIDEO. Presently, the university is disregarding labour law by refusing to schedule arbitration over the discipline-for-copyright matter.
In 2009 the blog author was summarily fired from his tenured university position using a pretext involving his teaching and grading method in one course, after the university knowingly approved the grades. Binding arbitration in the dismissal case began this year.

The new threat comes in the form of THIS letter dated May 16, 2011.

The letter is signed by Richard G. Dearden of the Gowlings law firm. Gowlings has close ties with U of O. One of its founding members was Chancellor of the university in the 1990s, and HERE.

Dearden has represented Prime Minister Stephen Harper (LINK) and usually fights for protecting freedom of the press.

A 2009 Supreme Court of Canada decision gave blogs the same protections as the print and broadcast media (Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61).

Here, now, Dearden finds himself threatening an untenable case about THIS blog post concerning a professor Joanne St. Lewis; more than three months after St. Lewis was asked to make any comments or corrections (see EMAILS below) and did not reply.

One wonders why Dearden would counsel his client this way?

I did not say that Prof. St. Lewis acted like a house negro because she is black. I said it because it was reasonable to conclude in the matter that she acted like a house negro and because it is my reasoned opinion that she acted like a house negro.

She did so while attempting to discredit a 2008 student union report that alerted the university to its now more than evident problem of systemic racism: See all posts about U of O racism HERE.

EMAILS:
---------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 9:14 PM
Subject: About Joanne St. Lewis and Allan Rock
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca, president@uottawa.ca, joanne.stlewis@uottawa.ca

Dear Mr. Rock and Ms. St. Lewis,

This blog post is about you:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/did-professor-joanne-st-lewis-act-as.html

Please provide any factual corrections or comments for posting.

Yous truly,
Denis Rancourt

---------------------------------

From: Denis Rancourt <>
Date: Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 11:26 PM
Subject: Re: About Joanne St. Lewis and Allan Rock
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca, president@uottawa.ca, joanne.stlewis@uottawa.ca

Also, please inform your colleague Robert Major so he can verify the content about him.

On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 8:14 PM, Denis Rancourt wrote:

Dear Mr. Rock and Ms. St. Lewis,

This blog post is about you:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2011/02/did-professor-joanne-st-lewis-act-as.html

Please provide any factual corrections or comments for posting.

Yous truly,
Denis Rancourt

----------------------------------

Possibly related posts:
Rancourt dismissal goes to arbitration

Yet another human rights tribunal case tied to U of O awaits adjudication

2011-05-18T14:29:00.008-05:00

THIS Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO) Interim Decision shows yet another tribunal case of racism connected with "Canada's university", not previously reported in the media.

Nusrat Saleem
Applicant
-and-

The Ottawa Hospital, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Dean Belway, Brian Henley, Debbie Hubble and Jason Kennedy
Respondents

[1] This is an Application filed on May 7, 2010 under section 34 of Part IV of the Human Rights Code, R.S.O. 1990, c. H.19, as amended, (the “Code”). The applicant alleges that he was discriminated against on the basis of his race, colour, ancestry, place of origin and creed.
[2] The respondents have not filed a Response. By way of a Request for Order During Proceedings, filed July 6, 2010, they seek deferral of the Application pending the completion of a related grievance proceeding. This Interim Decision deals with the respondents’ Request.
more...

See several posts about racism at U of O HERE (label = racism)

Featured comment by former U of O professor Steve E Noble -- "Land of Rock"

2011-05-14T09:10:00.007-05:00

Dr. Steve E. Noble was a full-time professor in the Faculty of Education at the University of Ottawa. Having left the U of O, he feels he has insights to share about the institution, such a this recent comment (below).

[Background posts HERE (label = APTPUO).]
[Recent related media articles: LINK, LINK.]

Steve E. Noble said...

More than anything, the part time prof crisis is being dealt with by an incredible level of unethical, iron-fisted sleaze...

1. The university is unilaterally imposing a cut to the part time union's membership by telling the union that it wants non-credit profs within the second language institute and the Faculty of Education to be removed from the bargaining unit. Why only those two areas - what about other faculties and programs? All part time non-credit profs do similar things - why not go after all non-credit profs? Could there be a Rock-Berger alliance?

2. Is this a manufactured financial crisis that is being used to "legitimize" the iron fist approach to repress part timers and gut the union contract?

3. Why are tenured faculty and administrators not facing compensation cuts? If, after all, the university is facing a "financial crisis"? Should the wealthiest and most secure not be the first to cut their compensation, rather than the poorest and most vulnerable frontline?

4. The most vulnerable employee group is facing a 66% pay cut, yet are expected to do the same or more work for less money? Is this reasonable? In the corporate world, a move like this would result in the corporation being faced with severe government sanctions. What is acceptable is salary freezes, not cuts.

5. And the MOST vulnerable of all -the very people the university SAYS is its focus, the students, face the greatest penalty. May 13 was the last day to withdraw from a summer course without financial penalty. So, if there is a lockout or strike the May 14 or May 17 makes students the biggest losers - but then, that's likely how the university wants it - keep student cash and make the part time profs the evil ones in the process by being constructed as "unreasonable" - a very old employer union strategy.

The more I read about U of O, the more I wish I had stayed out west teaching at university there - so much more progressive and where, heaven forbid, the success of the student-prof relationship is the focus. Something stinks in the Land of Rock.

May 14, 2011 9:00 AM

[Links added by UofOWatch.]

MEDIA UPDATE:
U of O gives in to public pressure - settlement reached, in principle

U of O and big pharma -- "Medication" for better life

2011-05-13T13:28:00.004-05:00

PRESS RELEASE: University of Ottawa signs agreement with the Centre for Drug Research and Development

The University of Ottawa has a statutory responsibility to serve community for the public good following "Christian principles". Would Jesus prescribe psychiatric drugs to students?

Will the University of Ottawa fund large-scale critical studies on the social impacts of psychiatric and behavioral drugs? Ritalin, Prozac, Paxil, ...?

U of O union-busting posturing against part-time profs ends

2011-05-11T09:40:00.006-05:00

After many students (reportedly as many as 500 at a recent information event) expressed concerns that the summer semester would be disrupted by a university-imposed lock out, the University of Ottawa has backed down from its intimidation tactics and returned to the bargaining table.

See the UofOWatch initial report HERE.

It appears the university was caught off guard by a well organized, immediate and firm public awareness response from the union of part-time professors (APTPUO).

The APTPUO put it this way on a public web site:

"On April 11th 2011, the University of Ottawa Bargaining Team walked away from the government-led conciliation process and instructed the Ontario Ministry of Labour to issue a “No Board” report – which means that by early May 2011, the University will be in a legal position to lock us out and the APTPUO will be in a legal position to strike.

During the course of conciliation meetings, the Employer rejected all submissions made by the APTPUO. The Employer would discuss only one issue, which was the Employer’s insistence that APTPUO professors who teach non-credit courses in the Official Languages and Bilingualism Institute and the Faculty of Education be unilaterally excluded from the Union, thus losing all salary, benefits, and seniority provisions of the APTPUO Collective Agreement – or, that we accept a pay DECREASE of 66% for these members. This is not bargaining!"

Now the University of Ottawa has reconsidered its juvenile move and has sheepishly put out this press release: LINK. A joint statement appears to be a face-saving measure to facilitate the university's return to the bargaining table.

This episode has not exactly been an example of good faith on the part of the university employer, against its most underpaid professionals which provide almost 60% of the teaching at the institution.

Rock attempt to manipulate senate minutes on Israel fails

2011-05-07T09:13:00.008-05:00

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock tried to have the university Senate minutes changed via an unusual machination that in the end did not fly -- thanks to student senate member Joseph Hickey.

Hickey has reported the entire unfortunate episode on his blog about Senate: HERE.

The university videos of Senate also document Rock's incredible attempt to remove from the record the large numbers of abstentions in votes on motions questioning the University's academic involvement with the apartheid state of Israel, given the international call for an academic boycott of Israel.

It is remarkable the extent to which the Rock administration will go to participate-in and facilitate Israel's overt and explicit image war that has been termed "Brand Israel" -- an attempt to mask Israel's on-going war crimes (Geneva Conventions in occupied Gaza, etc.) using public opinion devices and cultural and academic collaborations.

Ottawa university presidents Rock and Runte make a pair

2011-05-05T14:07:00.011-05:00

Ottawa has two universities that market themselves with grand titles:

"Canada's Capital University" (aka Carleton U)

"Canada's university" (aka U of Ottawa)

Both can now reasonably be said to be run by ethically challenged individuals.

U of O Allan Rock's media title of being "ethically challenged" is well deserved and dates back (2003) to his fishing-vacation political days (that ended his political career...): LINK. (And list of ethical breaches.)

Now Carleton U's Roseann Runte is joining the ranks of ethically challenged university presidents in Ottawa, due to revelations in a stunning bribery and extortion legal battle unfolding in the United States: LINK. (The allegations have not been proved in court, but there is unambiguous testimony from a former dean.)

How do the governance boards of these universities choose these brave public servants? Do they use Google? Are the candidates interviewed about their pasts?

MEDIA UPDATE (May 11, 2011):
Guilty verdict in U.S. trial tied to Carleton U prez
(it appears somebody lied to the court...)

U of O media relations manager on academic freedom in national press

2011-05-04T10:22:00.012-05:00

The National Post has recently quoted the new University of Ottawa manager of media relations Vincent Lamontagne at length regarding Lamontagne's vacuous views on academic freedom.

The NP article (HERE) ends this way:

University of Ottawa spokesman Vincent Lamontagne defended the school, saying the “quality of the student experience” is its No. 1 concern.

“The University of Ottawa strongly believes in academic freedom and is proud of the practical knowledge given to its students by its outstanding professors and researchers,” he wrote in an email to Postmedia News.

He said the university has established itself as a “well-renowned centre for international relations studies.

“Our professors are proven experts in international politics and encourage in-class discussions of actual political situations from all around the world.”

By "our professors" does Lamontagne mean the part-time professors that teach 60% of the courses and that the university has recently threatened with lock out (HERE)?

At the University of Ottawa it appears that the message is highly managed and that the visible expert on academic freedom is the media relations manager.