U of O's Stéphane Émard-Chabot thinks the secrecy laws are just fine

U of O's law professor Stéphane Émard-Chabot thinks the secrecy laws are just fine.

Émard-Chabot is a former chef of staff of president Allan Rock and, as such, was subjected to an access request in the past (link) (link). The important stuff was never disclosed.

Recent article:
Editorial: The shroud of secrecy at the Ottawa Police Services Board (LINK):

That makes the exemption sound broad, but Stéphane Émard-Chabot, a municipal law expert at the University of Ottawa and former city councillor, says it’s actually quite a high bar.

“The fact that you’re dealing with contentious issues, that’s certainly not a reason in itself to go in private,” he says. “You have to show the ‘outweigh’ factor: the fact that keeping it private is paramount or of such importance that it outweighs the principle of keeping things open.”

Rock administration loses another access-to-information decision - Seven more Allan Rock emails ordered disclosed - IPC Order PO-3540-F

The University of Ottawa's poor record of systematically opposing access to information has been documented many times on this blog.

On October 15, 2015, the University of Ottawa lost another Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision (LINK to Student's-Eye View report). Seven (7) more Allan Rock emails were ordered disclosed: IPC Order PO-3540-F.

Here are excerpts from the decision:

[5] In this order, I do not uphold the university's decision to withhold the records pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act, and I order it to release the records to the appellant.

[8] The university argues that the records contain commercial information supplied to it by third parties and are exempt pursuant to the mandatory third party information exemption at section 17(1) ...

[12] The university goes on to submit that disclosure would result in such information not being provided to the university again. It submits that, at the commencement of or during the relationship between the university and a third party, high level exchanges of communications will often take place between the third party and senior executives of the university, Including the President. The university submits that it is important to these discussions that third parties be able to share information freely, and that if they learn that information which they provide may be disclosed, they may not be willing to engage in similar high-level strategic discussions. As a result, the university will be prejudiced in its ability to negotiate new projects and undertakings with third parties.

[14] The appellant submits that these records do not relate to "informational assets". He points out that the subject of record 164 is "visit to country", and the subject of record 209 is "country". ...

[25] I conclude that the university has not discharged its onus and that there is no reasonable expectation of the harm identified by the university occurring if the records are disclosed. Therefore, section 17(1) does not apply to them. ...

I order the university to disclose records 143, 164, 209, 219, 270, 271 and 272 to the appellant ... This disclosure is to take place by November 20, 2015...

OCLA Director authors blistering report about U of O's deplorable access-to-information practices

The Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, Joseph Hickey, has authored and published a report about the documented deplorable practices of the University of Ottawa in responding to access-to-information requests:

"Access Denied in Ontario: A Critical Examination of the Roles of the University, the Commissioner, the Legislature, and the Courts (LINK)"

"First, I present the U of O’s behaviour in response to FOI requests using data obtained from statistics reports published annually by Ontario’s Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) and from publicly available adjudication decisions (“orders”) made by the IPC about the university. This is followed by a description of specific examples of tactics used by the university to deny access to information, and the impact this can have on researchers, activists, and others who seeks information from the university. The third section discusses why the U of O maintains bad FOI practices that contravene the purposes of the FIPPA. The final section considers what can be done to improve access at the U of O and in other public institutions across the province."

The report is well documented, with many records in appendix. (LINK) (PDF)

Six more IPC rulings released against the University of Ottawa, in the last two months

Between January 16, 2014, and March 11, 2014, six more rulings of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario have been released against the University of Ottawa.

No other university in Ontario has so many violations of access to information law.

Here is the list for that period alone:

Order PO-3294: University ordered to disclose all the records to the individual.

Order PO-3298: University ordered to require a named doctor to perform a search.

Order PO-3302: Adjudicator does not uphold the University's application for its exclusion on the alleged basis of "employment or labour relations".

Order PO-3312: University ordered to disclose 20 records that it was withholding.

Order PO-3314: University ordered to disclose 50% of the records that it was withholding.

Order PO-3318: University ordered to disclose all the responsive information in the withheld records.

To me, this suggests an institutional disregard for the law of access to information.

In my opinion, instead of using its discretion to promptly provide access to requested information, the university appears to be using constructive attempts to avoid its statutory obligations, and appears willing to fight lengthy and costly appeals to prevent being transparent with its students and the public.

It's not winning the appeals. But it is delaying fair access. Rather than using the law primarily to protect the privacy of individuals, the university is using the law to shield itself against needed institutional transparency.

As a result, individuals are being prevented from accessing their own personal information generated by and/or kept by the university, while others see their information improperly disclosed to political opponents.

Certainly an area where the U of O stands out. A culture of political-party-style management darkness coupled with irresponsible refusals to protect the information of its students and professors. For example, THIS, and THIS.

More to come before that particular culture changes... stay tuned.

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

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


The University's spin is poor:

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

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

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

Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Orders U of O to provide an access decision

In a ruling released on October 22, 2012, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario has ordered the University of Ottawa to provide an access decision, which the University sought to avoid by claiming that the requester of the information was acting maliciously: LINK TO IPC ORDER.

The University had its access to information officer swear an affidavit that she was required to work long hours of overtime because of the requester's many requests over the years. The University also said that one time the requester cancelled a cheque and did not pay the access fee, and that the requester was misrepresenting the IPC in blog articles critical of the IPC, and that the University staff feared for their safety, and so on.

Adjudicator Haly did not accept the University's arguments, and concluded her ruling as follows (below). She also stated that if unspecified "aspects of the appellant's [requester's] behaviour ... were to continue" then this could possibly provide a basis for a future University claim (to avoid access pursuant to the law).

[60] I adopt the approach set out by the Senior Adjudicator for the present appeal. The appellant has provided the purpose behind his request which is the subject of this appeal. I find his reasons to be reasonable and I find that his request is not for a purpose other than to obtain access. Accordingly, I find that the university has not established section 5.1(b).

[61] In summary, I find that section 10(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 460 do not apply to the appellant’s request that is the subject of the appeal. While I have found that the university has not, in this appeal, established that the appellant is frivolous and vexatious, I have found that there are aspects of the appellant’s behavior, that if were to continue, could form the basis of another claim by the university.

ORDER:
1. I do not uphold the university’s decision that the appellant’s request is frivolous and vexatious.
2. I order the university to issue an access decision regarding the request, in accordance with sections 26, 28 and 29 of the Act, treating the date of this order as the date of the request, and without recourse to a time extension under section 27.

Inside look at the Rock administration -- ATI records posted

“We need to push uottawa team! Less than 30% towards team goal!

What to do? Bribes? Empty promises (it works during elections!)…” 

  - U of O President Allan Rock, June 7, 2011 (record 142)

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

"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:

1. 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)
2. 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)
3. 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)
4. 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.

.

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

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.

Rock's U of O is transparency-challenged, since 2007 media say

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.

UofOgate::: Identity of student spy disclosed by court order

The University of Ottawa's UofOgate spy cover up scandal is not going away.

After Indy Media broke the story (HERE, HERE), in January to March 2010 there were nine articles in student newspapers across Ontario about the matter (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and see here), with numerous letters (HERE). It was covered in Macleans OnCampus (M1). It appeared in Academica's Top Ten media stories (HERE). And it was featured in an in-depth report by Canadians for Accountability (HERE).

The university response has been an extensive cover up (HERE) involving top corporate executives, a former VP-Governance (now director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association), a former Legal Counsel (now a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario), the present VP-Governance (HERE), and many more. The university and president Allan Rock are illegally stonewalling a labour law grievance on the matter (G25-HERE). The student newspaper The Fulcrum (where the student spy was a journalist/editor) fired its ombudsman in mid-investigation over the matter (HERE, HERE).

On the legal front, former physics professor Denis Rancourt - who had been spied on along with several other university employees and students - filed a formal labour law grievance (HERE) and appealed his access to information (ATI) request to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario; whereas members of the teacher assistant union (CUPE 2626) filed a collective grievance and settled with the university before arbitration (HERE).

Rancourt's grievance was illegally stonewalled by the University of Ottawa and president Allan Rock. This matter therefore was taken to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) by Rancourt and is now awaiting a tribunal hearing: HERE. The first item to be heard by the OLRB tribunal will be a motion by Allan Rock to be removed as a responding party (HERE).

The appeal to the IPC on the other hand has now concluded (IPC Order PO-2951 dated February 9, 2011) and the University of Ottawa was ordered to disclose a key record by March 16, 2011.

Although Rancourt's original ATI request was for all communications involving student journalist Maureen Robinson and resulted in an index of many communications with the university's Legal Counsel, Robinson has always denied (to the media) that she was involved in the covert information gathering campaign (2006-2008) described in the university's representations to the IPC tribunal (made public by Rancourt, HERE).

In IPC parlance, Rancourt was the Appellant, the university was the Institution (which has the burden of proof when not disclosing personal information of the Appellant), and Robinson was the (only) Affected Party.

The newly obtained document ordered disclosed by the IPC is posted HERE. It is an email from the Affected Party to the dean of the Faculty of Science (Andre E. Lalonde) and to the Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty, now a judge with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario). It is signed "Maureen".

In this case, Maureen is forwarding an email that she has obtained under false pretense at a time when she was a student journalist.

Maureen's identity is also disclosed in a second document recently obtained in a separate ATI request for documents in the dean's office: HERE.

The latter document is disturbing in many regards.

Note how the dean Andre E. Lalonde (who is not known for his strict adherence to ATI law) makes special efforts to circumvent ATI law: (1) Rancourt is referred to as "Professor R" to avoid keyword searches, (2) the dean suggests that since Legal Counsel would have received a copy of a sensitive CD (which he also has) that the CD would be excluded from ATI access (by virtue of solicitor-client privilege), and (3) the dean specifies that a previous communication was "privileged and confidential", again abusing the cover of solicitor-client privilege.

The document (HERE) also establishes that the university was in possession of a voice recording (two CD copies in fact) that it did not disclose to the IPC as required by law (as the dean acknowledges in this message to former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod, HERE).

Possibly most disturbingly, IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries participated in this illegal information practice by not requesting the sound recording that was surmised to exist, despite the Appellant's explicit request under Representations that the Adjudicator do so, following presented evidence that the search had been "incomplete" regarding the existence of a voice recording.

Finally, another document also now conclusively identifies Maureen Robinson by her full name as the Affected Party: HERE. The latter document is a letter from the IPC Adjudicator to the Affected Party addressed to "Maureen Robinson" at her address in Australia at the time.

It is now impossible for Maureen Robinson to credibly deny being the student at the heart of the covert information gathering 2006-2008 campaign described in some detail by the university in its representations to the IPC Adjudicator (see the full documents and reports HERE). The lie is up.

RELATED LINKS AND POSTS:
AF.ca reports on the 2006-2008 covert surveillance campaign
University stonewalling of grievance G25 and OLRB legal action
All UofOWatch articles under label "covert surveillance"
All UofOWatch articles under label "Maureen Robinson"

Did the dean destroy records and lie in affidavit?

In an access to information (ATI) request dating back to 2008 the dean of the Faculty of Science at the University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde, was asked to produce all records (emails) about then professor of physics Denis Rancourt’s weekly Cinema Politica film and discussion series.

The series was opposed by the university administration and ran continuously during the academic year under Rancourt’s sponsorship between 2005 and 2009. Rancourt and student Marc Kelly were arrested by Ottawa Police at Cinema Politica on campus on January 23, 2009, as reported by the national media.

A legal appeal of the ATI case is presently under adjudication with the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario: IPC appeal No. PA08-97-2.

The ATI request and its adjudication have revealed the following.

First the dean would not respond pursuant to ATI law and the university had to be ordered by the IPC to immediately produce the records: IPC Order PO-2671.

Under order, the University responded with disclosed records on its imposed deadline of May 14, 2008.

Later, under appeal, the University was forced to perform three more searches for all the dean’s records relating to Cinema Politica. These are electronic searches using keywords and should be immediate yet each new search found significant numbers of new records which had not previously been found or released.

More disturbingly, the University and the dean claimed to have lost the records it had first disclosed, between May 14, 2008, and the launch of the IPC appeal, and claimed to be unable to find many of these records again via its three new and extensive searches.

The requester (Denis Rancourt) was able to identify twenty one (21) records that the University never found again. These were most sensitive records and involved the following correspondents (including the President, two VPs, Legal Counsel, the Human Resources boss, etc.):

• Andrée Dumulon, Director, Communications Office, University Relations
• Bela Joos, chairman of Physics
• Gilles Patry, President
• Julie Cafley, Executive Assistant to the President
• Louise Page-Valin, Human Resources boss
• Luciana Ion, Administrative Assistant, VP-Academic's office
• Luciana Vaduva, Project Officer, Office of VP-Academic
• Michelle Flaherty, University Legal Counsel
• Paul Mercier, Computer Systems Manager and member of the Board of Governors
• Raymond St-Jacques, retired professor and consultant
• Richard Hodgson, former chairman of Physics
• Robert Major, VP-Academic
• Victor Simon, VP-Resources

How could the university lose these records while subject to an IPC investigation?

In the meantime the University tried to satisfy the IPC Adjudicator by providing an affidavit from dean Andre E. Lalonde.

The dean’s affidavit (dated August 30, 2010, HERE) states:

• (point-2) that he has the practice of keeping all emails of interest to the University
• (point-3) that he has never destroyed or lost any emails
• (point-5) that in May 2008 (first batch) he searched his electronic emails
• (point-7) that later in May 2008 he sent these to Legal Counsel (first batch)
• (point-9, point-11) that in February and March 2009 he performed a far more extensive search of his same electronic emails
• (point-12) that he was the sender or a recipient of all respondent records

The dean swears that no records were lost or destroyed and that the same electronic data bank was searched again (in 2009) far more extensively. Yet 21 highly sensitive records (list provided to the IPC) were not found.

At best the University and the dean are being disingenuous in advancing that they performed a reasonable search.

At worst the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The requester knows dean Lalonde to be very meticulous and careful with electronic data.

Since the later searches (2009) are reported to have been extensive and involved the additional on-site help of two other individuals specializing in ATI searches and since the 21 records in question are sensitive documents and represent almost one fifth of the records in the first (May 14, 2008) batch, we conclude that it is probable that the dean illegally destroyed respondent records and lied in affidavit.

The same dean has lied previously regarding a different ATI request, as publicly reported HERE.

The University was asked to comment or correct any information in the latter report and did not respond, except one respondent (Alain St-Amant, Chairman of Chemistry) who did not deny any of the elements in the report – see St-Amant’s response made public HERE.

It appears that lying to the IPC and disregarding ATI law may be a little too common in the Faculty of Science?

RELATED POSTS:
Allan Rock lies and lies and lies
Victor Simon lies
Gilles Patry covers up lies
Dean Andre E. Lalonde lies
Diane Davidson covers up
Michelle Flaherty runs covert campaign
Nathalie Des Rosiers does her job
Robert Major is himself

And even more himself...

Allan Rock, nation builder, hides behind his staff - again

A simple matter of law for the former Minister of Justice…


Media across the country reported on the University of Ottawa’s tortuous efforts to keep its emails about former professor Denis Rancourt from former professor Denis Rancourt, in the face of an access to information (ATI) law request, followed by an ATI appeal.

HERE – HERE – HERE – HERE

The dean of the Faculty of Science first claimed that there were no records because he had acted alone but then records were mysteriously found (including several to and from the dean) after the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Mediator asked for sworn affidavits…

A detailed report is HERE.

The IPC ruled (IPC Order PO-2915) that it could not order the university to release the emails because of a legal loop hole in Ontario’s ATI law. And the Adjudicator stated that he agreed that Rancourt should be granted access to his own personal information.

The IPC also then explained by letter to Rancourt that the loop hole anomaly (section 65(6) of the Act) was contrary to “world-wide trends favouring fair information practices”, that the IPC publicly opposed this loop hole, and that nothing about 65(6) prevented the head of the target institution (that would be Allan Rock) from releasing the documents in good faith.

Therefore, Rancourt, armed with this IPC’s endorsement, made a reasoned appeal to Allan Rock to not use 65(6) as an excuse to deny fair access: HERE.

Rancourt assumed that Allan Rock, given Mr. Rock’s Minister of Justice and United Nations credentials, would uphold democratic principles rather than choose a device intended to block fair information practice.

After more than two weeks Allan Rock did not respond or even acknowledge Rancourt’s communication as asked. He only responded after Rancourt sent Rock another letter (HERE) indicating that Rancourt was prepared to immediately take the matter (and other matters) to an independent labour body, the Ontario Labour Relations Board.

This got Mr. Rock’s attention and his staff (Mr. Jean-Yves Leduc) responded within the 24 hours suggested by Rancourt: HERE.

The answer is a resounding:

“No, I will hide behind my staff and behind 65(6).”

And another reply says (translated from obfuscate-ish):

“and I will not process your labour law grievances about these ATI emails, about our alleged campaign of covert surveillance against you, and about our alleged interference against a graduate student candidate wanting to work under your supervision.”

Clearly Mr. Rock is a nation builder.

RELATED POSTS AND REPORTS
Dean lied to cover up
Will Allan Rock do the right thing?
Background on ATI investigation and ruling
Partial list of Allan Rock ethical breaches

U of O physics professor Andre Longtin studies real physics

For professor Andre Longtin at the University of Ottawa it's not all only about stochastic resonance in bursting neurons. There is also room for denying the freedom of thought and beliefs of graduate student applicants to his research group.

Documents were recently obtained by physics graduate student Joseph Hickey via an access to information (ATI) legal appeal in which the University of Ottawa had to be ordered (IPC Order PO-2852-I) to comply with the ATI law of Ontario (see background HERE).

One of the latter records shows dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater explaining to other university officials that Longtin is refusing graduate student applicant Joseph Hickey (despite Longtin having supported the student's successful NSERC scholarship application to work in the Longtin research group) based on the student's "newly aquired activism beliefs". See document HERE.

This illegal use and disclosure of the student's personal information by university officials occurred during covert discussions aimed at denying the student's chosen research project, in anticipation of what the student's second choice of research might be (see above links).

Although students are in principle entitled to academic freedom in their choice of research, delimiting the student's possible choice of supervisor effectively forces the student into the research area of the "available" research supervisor.

Student Hickey eventually "chose" to work with physics professor Ivan L'Heureux and also became the student representative for the Faculty of Science at the Senate of the University of Ottawa, the highest governing body on academic matters, despite his "newly acquired activism beliefs".

Welcome to the University of Ottawa, "Canada's university". Welcome all scholarship students. Except those that are inferred to have unacceptable "activism beliefs". Thank you Andre Longtin for making this clear.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa; physics professor Andre Longtin]

U of O's Alain St-Amant replies to report on IPC

.

QUESTION

From: Denis Rancourt
Sent: October 6, 2010 10:00 PM
To: Andre E. Lalonde (Dean, Science); Alain St-Amant
Subject: please provide any corrections

These reports are about you:
http://uofowatch.blogspot.com/2010/10/report-on-ipc-in-rancourt-case-dean.html
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportonipcdeanliestocoverup.html

Please contact your former colleagues who are also named and provide any corrections or comments for posting.

Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt

ANSWER

From: Alain St-Amant
Date: Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 8:09 AM
Subject: RE: please provide any corrections
To: Denis Rancourt

Hey Dennis,

I’ve gotta get a new picture of myself on the University website for you to use.....dropped 25 pounds over the summer!!! You have to promise to use it on your website once it goes up J

Totally stoked right now since I pulled off a Brady for Schaub+Moss trade in my fantasy league. I think Favre and Moss will be like two kids in the proverbial candy store and put up monster numbers. So I think you’ll agree I have too many things on my plate right now to take the time to comment on your article.

Take care, the place simply is not the same without you,

Professor/Professeur Alain St-Amant

Vice-Dean (Undergraduate Studies), Faculty of Science / Vice-doyen (Études de premier cycle), Faculté des Sciences
Professor, Department of Chemistry / Professeur, Département de chimie
University of Ottawa / Université d’Ottawa
(613) 562-5800 ext. 6003
Alain.St-Amant@uOttawa.ca

Court-ordered released document shows University of Ottawa suppressing critical global climate research

(Photo: Dean of Science Dr. Andre E. Lalonde sends vehement email to quash research of AGW critic, collateral damage student. Credit: University of Ottawa.)

The University of Ottawa has a notorious record regarding access to information and protection of personal information: LINK-1, LINK-2, LINK-3, LINK-4, LINK-5, LINK-6, LINK-7, LINK-8.

In a recent access to information (ATI) case in which a graduate student sought access to his personal information, the University made sustained but failed attempts over a period of two years to subvert the ATI law of Ontario.

In the end, on August 27, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Adjudicator Diane Smith ordered the University to immediately release the last contested document (IPC Order PO-2909-I).

The student, scholarship physics graduate student and elected University Senate member Joseph Hickey, has made the entire ordeal public on the web: HERE.

The released document shows that the University had no reasonable standing to argue that the document could not be released to the claimant. The University’s efforts in this direction appear to constitute either obstruction of justice or incompetence. Two lawyers were directly involved in this apparent cover up by making formal submissions to the IPC: Former VP-Governance Pamela Harrod and present University Legal Counsel Kathryn Prud’homme.

Indeed, to block the release of the document was to hide a gross (and illegal under labour law) violation of academic freedom, a foundational principle of universities in free and democratic societies.

Under academic freedom a university administration can in no way interfere with university research. Yet the document shows the dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde sending an email to the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies Gary Slater, to two University-hired corporate lawyers Andre Champagne and Lynn Harnden, and to the then VP-Governance Pamela Harrod stating (LINK):

“Gary, Andre, Lynn, Pamela,

The Chair of Physics [Bela Joos] has evidence that is not reproduced below that indicates the student wishes to research global climate change with Professor Rancourt. The professor has no scientific expertise in this scientific field whatsoever. I am strongly opposed to letting this student initiate such a study with Professor Rancourt.

Andre”

The email also has VP-Academic Robert Major, the human resources boss Louise Page-Valin, and others in cc.

Note that Harrod was involved in BOTH the violation of academic freedom (and the student’s right to fair process without discrimination) AND the apparent attempted cover up with the IPC.

Such an intervention was unprecedented in physics professor Rancourt’s twenty-two-year academic career since:

(1) Rancourt was known for successfully changing scientific fields several times in his research career and was certified to supervise graduate students and postdoctoral researchers in both the Department of Physics and the Department of Earth Sciences.

(2) Rancourt had published (and been an invited conference speaker) in areas as diverse as nuclear spectroscopy, materials science, organic chemistry, soil science, metallurgy, magnetism, marine science, aquatic geochemistry, environmental nanoparticles, X-ray diffraction, and measurement theory, as both a theorist and a measurement scientist.

(3) Thanks to his scientific record, in 2000 Rancourt was awarded the largest Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) Strategic Project Grant ever awarded at the University of Ottawa to lead a five-year project in lake environmental geochemistry and to supervise dozens of research students in the project, whereas he had never previously published in this area.

(4) Similarly, Rancourt had supervised a physics graduate research student in the area of “physics education”, having never at the time published in a peer-reviewed education journal. The physics student took courses out of faculty.

Rancourt had in February 2007 self-published (posted to the web) a damning scientific and societal/political critique of global warming science. The essay received some attention and criticism in the left media soon after its posting. His article has since catalyzed other studies and has been used in university courses.

Following this, Rancourt continued to research global warming science on his own and it was known that he had started conceiving graduate student research projects that would examine at the root the fundamental physical mechanisms behind such phenomena as an atmospheric greenhouse effect, radiative sublimation or melting of snow and ice, particulate effects on snow and ice radiation absorption, and the statistical and physical meaning of mean global temperature. (Recent articles HERE, HERE, HERE; and video interview HERE.)

In 2008 Rancourt discussed potential graduate student research projects with then undergraduate student Joseph Hickey. They agreed to work together and Mr. Hickey submitted his application accordingly, following established application procedures.

It appears that the dean’s October 2008 vehement intervention was aimed at squashing Rancourt’s research plans in the area of global climate science by barring supervisions in this area. NSERC research funds are tied to supervisions of students.

Rancourt was then in December 2008 suspended from all his supervisory duties, trespassed from campus and handcuffed and arrested while still a Full tenured professor, and ultimately fired in April 2009 under the false pretext of having arbitrarily attributed high grades in one advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008. (LINK-1, LINK-2)

Yesterday (September 21, 2010) Rancourt sued by filing a labour law grievance against the University of Ottawa and those involved: HERE.

In a recent labour arbitration (Professor David F. Noble vs. York University, Arbitrator Russell Goodfellow, 2007) the plaintiff was awarded $2,500. for a far more tenuous and minor violation of his academic freedom: The University had emitted a press release that did not name or defame the plaintiff (according to the ruling) and that only distanced the University from certain views that the plaintiff held. In the latter case, there was no direct assault on research freedom or harm to a student.

Allan Rock is a moose - National Post

"Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff."
--National Post

Part of a pattern when one is "ethically challenged" (LINK).

True face of the Rock administration - Ann Coulter ATI fallout hits the news

UofOWatch readers will recall that we followed the March 2010 U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco in some detail: See THIS series of posts.

Well the Canadian media made an access to information (ATI) request under the Ontario FIPPA legislation and the results hit the news today: HERE and HERE.

Here is an example of Mr. Allan Rock in action, leading "Canada's university". Rock to VP-Academic Francois Houle on March 18th:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

Oh la la, nice example of respectful and measured administrative conduct for our students. According to his own account, Rock affirms all of this to be based only on a quick web search, having had no previous knowledge of Coulter (see Senate video).

It appears Mr. Rock is a quick and self-assured judge of character (and intelligence) and that he has extraordinary faith in the web as an unsubstantiated source of information. No verification was needed. (We note that dean of science Andre E. Lalonde has similar abilities for psychological evaluations on the fly, LINK, LINK.)

Rock casts Coulter in this light (presumably because Houle can't use Google or make up his own mind?) in instructing Houle to write their idiotic letter.

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

A sure way to protect freedom of speech... In this light, the now famous resulting letter is no longer surprising.

What is most surprising on the face of it, however, is that Rock, an experienced statesman and lawyer, approved the letter and found it "excellent":

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

It's like Rock wanted to jab Coulter. He seems to know a lot about Coulter's life for having only briefly visited her on the web. Also, this account is contrary to Rock's claim at Senate that he "recognized when he approved the letter that such a letter sent only to certain speakers could represent discrimination and could have a chilling effect on a potential speaker" (see HERE).

The letter ended up being the University of Ottawa's worst image and reputation catastrophe in its history, with print, radio and TV echos on several continents (LINK).

All too reminiscent of the string of blunders that ended Rock's political career - see short history HERE.

It is also revealed that Rock hid out from the media and from his public responsibilities using the communication director's advice as an excuse:

"I think that you should stay under the radar for the next weeks especially attending events where there is media."

"I am going to follow Andree's advice," explained Rock.

Yet another blunder. The media rightfully blasted Rock for "crawl[ing] under one" (LINK).

In conclusion, the U of O Rock-Houle-Coulter fiasco now appears to primarily have been of Rock's making.

What emerges is an unflattering picture of a failed and ethically challenged politician (LINK) who appears to have used Houle as a cover to send a bomb of a letter to a speaker he decided he despised and then to have used his communication director's advice as a pretext to hide from the mess.
.

U of O’s discovery of instant psychological evaluations: Mineralogist dean wants all the credit

Recall that back in 2007 the University of Ottawa’s dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde, who is a mineralogist by training, made a fundamental advance in labour management by spontaneously developing a capacity for instant psychological evaluations of his academic staff [LINK].
..
Such progress in management methods can only be of use to society at large if it is shared into the public domain so that other managers can learn these skills. Therefore, UofOWatch investigated this development in human knowledge by making an access to information (ATI) request on April 30, 2008, to identify all records (emails, letters, notes, reports, etc.) related in the broad sense to the dean’s September 6, 2007, LETTER [LINK].
..
The University was obliged by law to search for the requested records and to provide them within 30 days. The University replied on May 15, 2008, that “Access is denied to your request since no such records exist.”
..
UofOWatch appealed the University’s denial of access to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario on June 4, 2008. The appeal was accepted and the case went into mediation. Mediation lasted more than one year and was terminated with the Mediation Report. On July 30, 2009, the case was then moved to adjudication.
..
It is the position of UofOWatch that any “mediation privilege” should not be used as a pretext to prevent unethical or illegal behaviours of institutions from being disclosed.
..
As is shown in the Mediator’s Report and supporting documents (available to media and investigators on request), during mediation the University, in the person of Pamela Harrod, first reaffirmed its position that “no records exist.”
..
The University informed the Mediator that the dean had initiated the LETTER on his own initiative and based entirely on informal verbal conversations with one or more colleagues in the hallways or in his office: The dean had no respondent records.
..
At this point, the University also informed the Mediator that it was prepared to ask the dean to state his position in an affidavit.
..
Wow. Taken at face value, this means that the dean had discovered a way to single-handedly perform a psychological evaluation based entirely on hearsay, of sufficient reliability to write a formal letter insinuating a mental health problem. [From a statistical perspective, given the nature of hallway conversations in academia, the dean presumably would have sent out many such letters?]
..
However, it was not that simple.
..
UofOWatch then asked the Mediator to indeed secure the proposed affidavit and to also secure affidavits of non-involvement from those that the dean might have consulted, such as Pamela Harrod (VP-Governance), Legal Counsel, Robert Major (VP-Academic), and Louise Pagé-Valin (Human Resources). The Mediator also transmitted a list of thirteen University offices where respondent records might be found.
..
At this point, the University refused to provide any affidavits and instead provided an index of eleven respondent records that it now mysteriously found, some four months into the process.
..
The University has refused to provide the records themselves but the index shows that the records are emails between the dean, Major, Michelle Flaherty (Legal Counsel), Pagé-Valin, and others, exchanged mainly during June and July 2007, in obvious preparation for the September 6, 2007, LETTER. Several exchanges have the index subject line “A different tact?”
..
Since Legal Counsel Flaherty is involved in virtually all the emails, it is difficult to understand how her immediate supervisor Pamela Harrod could repeatedly report in the name of the University that “no such records exist,” while required by law to search for and produce all records within 30 days.
..
Oh my my, so the dean, although he does not like to admit it, needs at least a lawyer and his immediate supervisor the VP-Academic to accomplish his feat of psychoanalysis? What is most surprising is the length to which the University is prepared to go in order to not disclose its secret of newfound management abilities.
..
It appears that the dean was prepared to lie to cover the whole mess, but that asking everyone involved to lie under oath (in affidavits) was too much.
..
The next questions are:

• Will the University be ordered to perform another search?

• Will the University be ordered to disclose some or all of the found records?

• Will the IPC Adjudicator use her legal powers to get to the bottom of the case?

• Will the records be disclosed by a parallel legal adventure or investigation?

..
And finally, will those involved in subverting the ATI law in Ontario (FIPPA) suffer any consequences?
..
[Photo credits: Andre E. Lalonde, comet; University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde.]

U of O's Policy 92 ensures the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency for all its executives and officers

June 26, 2009
..
Nathalie Des Rosiers
VP-Governance
University of Ottawa
..
..
Re: Policy 92 disclosure of wrongdoing, university’s surveillance of professor
..
..
Dear Nathalie Des Rosiers,
..
University Policy 92 states that the VP-Governance, your office, will thoroughly investigate all allegations of wrongdoing. In this policy, “wrongdoing” means any act that is “dishonest, inappropriate or illegal.”
..
I hereby report wrongdoing by VP-Academic Robert Major. Other University officers and staff are also involved. Paragraph-16 of Policy 92 foresees that the written report of your investigation will be provided to the Board of Governors.
..
..
WRONGDOING
..
VP-Academic Robert Major and other University officers and staff practiced surveillance of two of my invited talks at other academic institutions in 2007 and 2008, while I was a full and tenured professor at the University of Ottawa. A description of evidence is given below.
..
As the officer responsible for Policy 92 investigations, you will recognise that such covert surveillance by the university is contrary to the “the highest standards of honesty, integrity and transparency in all of [the university’s] activities.”
..
As the designated General Counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), you will recognize that such surveillance by a corporation of one of its employees is contrary to responsible behaviour in a free and democratic society.
..
As an academic, you will recognize that such behaviour by a university is a violation of the legally established principle of academic freedom.
..
As a lawyer, you will recognize that this type of personal information gathering and use is against the law. Specifically, it is against the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) of Ontario to which universities in Ontario are bound and against the Employment Standards Act of Ontario.
..
..
ADDITIONAL WRONGDOING
..
In addition to the surveillance itself, there has been an attempt by VP-Academic Major and other officers of the University to avoid the issue. The VP-Academic and the University have not acknowledged my direct enquiries of October 16, 2008 (with the President, Secretary, and APUO in cc), and December 9, 2008 (with the President, Dean of the Faculty of Science, the APUO, the Head of Human Resources, and yourself in cc) in this matter.
..
..
EVIDENCE
..
Using Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) requests, such as my request dated August 7, 2008, I have established that the University, via Mr. Major and other offices, has used the services of a private reporter to monitor an invited academic talk I gave at the Studies in National and International Development (SNID) group at Queen’s University, some 200 km from Ottawa, on October 18, 2007.
..
The respondent FIPPA records are unambiguous regarding the act of surveillance of me.
..
The University used a private reporter a second time to monitor my invited contribution at the Association Canadienne Française pour L’Avancement des Sciences (ACFAS) conference in Quebec City, some 450 km from Ottawa, on May 7, 2008. See my FIPPA request dated May 8, 2009 (addressed to you) and the related Appeal to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) dated June 10, 2009.
..
You have my permission to use the relevant FIPPA records respondent to my FIPPA requests and my requests in your investigation. These records are available in the office of the University’s FIPPA Coordinator.
..
..
NEED TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
..
According to my FIPPA inquiries, in the past, the email records of leaving university officials (e.g. VP David Mitchell) have not been preserved. Since VP-Academic Major is leaving the University at the end of the month and since your investigation may take some time, I ask that all of Dr. Major’s records relevant to this matter be preserved.
..

Please acknowledge receipt of the present disclosure of wrongdoing. Please confirm that your office will investigate.
..
..
Sincerely,
Denis Rancourt
..
Cc: Marc Jolicoeur, Allan Rock, Robert Major, Andre E. Lalonde, Louise Page-Valin, APUO, CAUT, CUPE 2626, SFUO, GSAED, CCLA, made public.
..
RELATED POST: 1984 coming to a campus near you
..
[photo credit: University of Ottawa; VP-Academic Robert Major]