This site is devoted to transparency at the University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada. UofOWatch exposes institutional behaviour that is not consistent with the public good.
U of O Watch mission, in the words of Foucault...
"One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." -- Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.
U of O Watch mission, in the words of Socrates...
"An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all."-- Socrates
Union wins interim motion in appeal of the Rancourt dismissal
A short background summary of this recent leg of the protracted battle over the University of Ottawa's dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt was given in this October 9 post (LINK).
Following the October 8 hearing of the university's interim motion to strike the union's affidavit in support of the union's application for judicial review... (the university wanted to deprive the union of evidence about what actually happened during the lengthy labour arbitration that upheld the dismissal)... Divisional Court (appellate court) Justice Robert Scott released his decision on October 26, 2015.
Rancourt's union won the motion completely and unequivocally. The union's affidavit of evidence survives in whole, and is appended to the judge's decision, as "Appendix A" (HERE). This is the first significant positive judgement since the 2009 dismissal.
The judge's ruling gives an indication of how the university's extensive use of a hired student spy -- using unethical methods such as assuming false cyber identities and advancing false pretexts for collecting information from third parties, all condoned by the university and its legal counsel -- will be viewed by the higher courts, whereas the Arbitrator in the labour arbitration refused to accept its relevance (LINK).
[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robinson's written notes were referred to "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student"
[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.
[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.
[18] The University referred to the "report" thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.
[19] Given the unique circumstances, paragraphs 3 - 13 are necessary and in keeping with Keeprite and Kingston Utilities, this affidavit evidence should be admitted on the judicial review to "show an absence of evidence on an essential point".
DEAN LALONDE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF
STUDENTS P AND V
[20] It is difficult to separate the input of the evidence or lack of evidence of Ms. Robinson and the circumstances of her somewhat bizarre involvement in this matter, from the other areas of concern identified by the Applicant, APUO. [...]
And see the background about the motion hearing itself: HERE.
Maureen Robinson did her BSc in chemistry at the University of Ottawa, graduating in 2010. She then moved to Australia to do her MSc, and is now employed at Golder Associates, in West Perth, Australia. The university did not make her available to be cross-examined during the labour arbitration that ended in 2013.
Maureen Robinson's fake Facebook identity was "Nathalie Page". In her regular email reports to the dean of science and to the then university legal counsel Michelle Flaherty, Robinson would joke: "Hi, It's Nathalie...", when sending emails from a fake gmail account. This was the fake Facebook profile picture for "Nathalie":
Fake picture for the false cyber identity "Nathalie Page" created by Maureen Robinson
These exhibits (LINK) describe some of Robinson's detailed reports to the university.
Update: Rancourt's union won the motion and won costs. The October 26, 2015, judicial decision of the Divisional Court is HERE.
Denis Rancourt at the courthouse on October 8, 2015
By Denis G. Rancourt
On October 8, 2015, there was the first hearing before the appellate court in the matter of the 2009 dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt, in Ottawa before Divisional Court Judge Robert Scott (who travelled from Belleville for the hearing).
The Divisional Court hearing was to decide a university’s motion to strike (remove, disallow) the union’s affidavit of evidence about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings, for which transcripts do not exist. After the hearing, Justice Scott said he would study the motion record further and provide his decision as soon as he can.
Justice Scott made interesting comments during the October 8th hearing, and the university’s tactics in the motion are also of note.
Brief history of the case
Tenured professor Denis Rancourt was fired by the Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa in 2009 over his grading of students in one advanced physics course. This TVO video interview from 2009 is a vivid summary of the academic dimension of the conflict:
A lengthy labour arbitration followed, in which it was shown that the university had employed a student spy (Maureen Robinson, using the false cyber identity “Nathalie Page”) who made extensive surveillance of professor Rancourt and of students and gave weekly reports to both the dean of science and University Counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK).
During the lengthy arbitration hearings, the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden spent most of the time presenting professor Rancourt’s political and professional views in a negative light. He went so far as to repeatedly suggest that professor Rancourt’s writings incited students to violence, and even showed this video at the hearing, since he had found it in one of the professor’s Playlists on YouTube:
On the central question, the arbitrator disregarded the hard evidence of grading (examination copies, and grading sheets), disregarded the dean’s admission that he had no evidence that any student did not deserve his or her grade, and upheld the dismissal in 2014.
The professors’ union announced in 2014 that it would appeal the arbitrator’s decision (LINK):
“While the decision not only upheld the Employer’s unjust dismissal decision, the arbitrator also made some troubling statements concerning Academic Freedom which can have a profoundly negative impact on academics everywhere.”
Happenings in the motion hearing
Following the union’s filing of its application for judicial review, the university brought a motion to strike the union’s affidavit about what occurred during the labour arbitration hearings. After much delay, the motion was finally heard on October 8, 2015.
Despite the fact that there is a large amount of documentary evidence (many exhibits) that Ms. Robinson was hired for surveillance and gave regular reports about her activities (including details about her use of a false cyber identity, and her misrepresentations in requesting information from third parties) (LINK),
and despite the labour arbitrator himself finding (LINK, see paragraph 58) “[a] report on Professor Rancourt’s address prepared by a University of Ottawa student and editor to the students newspaper (attending the talk with the purpose of monitoring the communication by Professor Rancourt), was entered into evidence”,
the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden argued at the hearing that the dean of science had hired Ms. Robinson solely to help him organize his office.
Justice Scott (J) expressed some reservation about this. His exchange with lawyer Lynn Harnden (H) went like this:
J: This is where I’m confused about Ms. Robinson – she’s the editor of a newspaper and she’s sent in to tidy up his office? H: That’s what Dean Lalonde testified he engaged her to do. He explained she also had another hat on as editor of student newspaper and took certain initiatives related to Professor Rancourt’s activities.
J: Any evidence how she was chosen, or just happened to be there? Seems a little unusual to me, that’s the only thing I noticed.
H: That she had this dual hat on? Not on the record how he chose her, but did take her on to organize this voluminous evidence and she took other steps.
J: There’s a reference somewhere in the materials to how she equated her role as a young woman trying to trap a pedophile?
H: There was reference in Prof R’s testimony of that allegation. She didn’t testify so we don’t have that. We …
J: Where did that reference come from then? She never said that? It’s not part of the record?
H: No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that or it’s said somewhere I’m not aware – she didn’t testify. […]
“No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that …” Here, Mr. Harnden appears to have forgotten about a lot of damning exhibits (LINK), including Ms. Robinson’s "pedophile email" report to the dean of science and to counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK), and appears to have also forgotten that the "pedophile email" was described in the union's factum for the very motion being heard (LINK, see paragraph 41(a)). This lapse of memory was acknowledged later in the hearing and corrected by the union’s lawyer.
Justice Scott was also somewhat baffled that the parties had allowed the labour arbitration to proceed without a recording or transcript of the lengthy hearings:
J: Let me stop you. I’m confused – in your affidavit material it indicates the nature of the hearing – you started off by giving us the breakdown on that – “28 days, 160 documents.... Rancourt there 13 days...” – doesn’t that fly in the face of the reason why arbitrations aren’t recorded? They’re recorded because they’re short, to the point, get done in reasonable time – but when you have a really complicated one such as this one, it would be necessary for anyone to make sense of it later on to have it recorded. Do you see what you’re faced with – or what I’m faced with – ultimately the Divisional Court faced with – how do you review, just take a look at it? Assume?
[…] My point was that technology is there that would allow for accurate recording. Might be helpful for someone sorting it out later. I also understand what this thing is built on.
Note that it is precisely because there is no transcript or recording that the union needed to file an affidavit about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings in order to appeal the labour arbitration decision, exactly the affidavit that the university wants to strike.
Put simply, if the university succeeds in convincing the motions judge to strike the affidavit, then the union will be deprived of its necessary evidence about what it affirms actually happened at the arbitration, and the appeal will be almost guaranteed to fail.
The test for allowing the affidavit is that the affidavit evidence is otherwise not available, and is necessary to attack the arbitration decision on allowed grounds for appeal. In common language, this "test" is called a “no-brainer”.
The actual arguments as to whether or not to strike the union’s affidavit were very interesting, in that they diverged somewhat from this test.
The union argued that the affidavit evidence was not otherwise available, was essential for its appeal, and that the stated grounds for appeal were legally allowed grounds for appeal.
Mr. Harnden, for the university, argued that the affidavit should not be accepted because the university will contradict evidence in the affidavit with its own affidavit, later in the actual judicial review hearing, and because to accept the evidence in the affidavit would amount to the court inferring that the arbitrator had “blundered”:
H: Let’s just think about the significance – she’s [the affiant is] telling this court that the decision maker heard all of those comments of Professor Rancourt. She’s making it clear that the Arbitrator heard those concerns from Professor Rancourt, then the Applicant would have the court that the expert Arbitrator disregarded those concerns, disregarded comments by APUO in closing submissions, and blundered. They’re asking this court to draw the inference from the fact that the Arbitrator didn’t go out of his way to state ‘look I’m referring to fact that Professor Rancourt conceded accuracy because that means I can rely on those portions of the documents’. Given how rare it should be that affidavit evidence is heard, it would not be appropriate to make that exception in a case where this court would have to find, in effect, that Mr. Foisy [the arbitrator] didn’t exercise the expertise that should be held by any competent decision maker with respect to a document that has not been identified by a witness, and which has been identified with respect to its potential failure many times in the proceeding. We know Mr. Foisy heard Professor Rancourt’s comments. The court should not be too quick to infer that he made the blunder that my friend suggests.
Basically, as I read it, the university's hired lawyer Lynn Harnden is saying that the affidavit should be blocked here and not be seen by the panel of three Divisional Court judges that will hear and decide the actual appeal itself that claims arbitrator errors because to allow the affidavit to pass would be equivalent to Justice Scott “inferring” that the arbitrator “blundered”.
In other words, the affidavit evidence is so damning of the arbitrator's decision that it should not be allowed to be considered by those judging the arbitrator's decision.
Despite Mr. Harnden's high intelligence and despite his well crafted argument, the word “circular” comes to mind.
Overall, in my opinion, Mr. Harnden very ably worked to “shift” the question before the motions judge away from the rational and practiced legal test for accepting affidavit evidence and towards questions that properly belong to the appeal itself: 1. What evidence about what occurred during the arbitration is reliable, if it is opposed by a university’s own affidavit?; and 2. Did the arbitrator make errors, and were these errors serious enough for his decision to be set aside?
The university’s court-filed factum (i.e., written argument) for the motion is HERE-LINK.
The union’s court-filed factum for the motion is HERE-LINK.
Lawyer for the University of Ottawa Lynn Harnden spent the whole morning cross-examining Professor Denis Rancourt today.
The very first question was (from memory) "Do you agree with the Maclean's magazine description of you as a self-described anarchist?"
[I should have answered: "Did you know that Mahatma Gandhi was a self-described anarchist?" or "I am not and have never been a member of the Communist Party." Sheez. What century are we in?]
That set the tone for the morning's questions which were all about Professor Rancourt allegedly using his U of O Watch blog and emails for vengeance and to inflict emotional hurt.
Finally, lead counsel for the union objected to the entire line of questioning as being irrelevant to the issues before the Arbitrator.
The Arbitrator asked for written legal submissions from both sides in order to decide if these broad questions will be allowed to continue. The Arbitrator will provide his decision by Tuesday May 21st when the hearings will resume, with or without the broad questions.
The purely legal arguments will be part of the public record.
Rancourt has blogged critically and with sting about his colleagues and the University administration since 2007, years before he was dismissed. Yet the University never reprimanded him for his blog reports or asked him to stop. Now it is using the blog to justify itself in the dismissal case.
By contrast, the University had to ask one certain Chairman of Chemistry "that he refrain from making such comments aimed towards you...": LINK.
"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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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, suggestions 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-to-UofOWatch "war room" meetings* in firing Rancourt. (*Most of these will be non-disclosed pursuant to solicitor-client privilege.)
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 potentially block the grievor's UofOWatch blog during the hearings fell flat and was not mentioned or retained in the Arbitrator's decision.
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.
"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.
Today, May 2, 2011, was the first day of binding arbitration hearings in Rancourt's union (APUO) vs University of Ottawa, re: Rancourt's 2009 dismissal.
The university is represented by lawyer Lynn Harnden. The APUO is represented by lawyer Sean McGee. Arbitrator Claude Foisy is presiding. Each side was additionally supported by several more lawyers and staff.
Approximately thirty members of the public and media representatives were present for the hearing (media link).
Under these conditions, Harnden stated that the university would not attempt to block media access and that the university acknowledged the public interest in the case. These were immediate victories.
This means that the full hearings will be open to the public and to the media.
In the past, the university has been camera shy at labour arbitration hearings, has argued against audio-visual recording, and has been known to leave the room to avoid being photographed (LINK) and to request that its pictures be removed from this blog (LINK). Not in this hearing. The cameras clicked and the videos rolled during the entire session.
Another victory was also easily won, regarding "discoveries". Discovery is the legal obligation to disclose all relevant documents before hearing the legal arguments.
The University had previously argued to the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) that it would oppose a broad discovery process (HERE, page-13, point-13):
"[It is] submitted that the Applicant is not entitled to an order for document disclosure in preparation for arbitration because such remedy would result in irreparable harm to the Responding Party. Furthermore, the balance of harm favours a refusal of such remedy on an interim basis. If the documents were disclosed now that would effectively decide the issue of document disclosure. However, there would be no harm or prejudice to the Applicant if he had to wait intil after the ULP Application was determined for disclosure and/or until an arbitrator considered the issue of document disclosure at arbitration."
In fact, the arbitrator did not need to "consider the issue" because the university backed down and had already agreed with the union side before the hearing started that a proper document disclosure of "all arguably relevant documents" was acceptable. A full disclosure process is therefore in effect.
University intends to rely on "post-termination evidence":
Somewhat disturbingly, at the hearing Harnden announced that the university would seek to use "post-dismissal evidence" both to justify its dismissal of Rancourt and to argue that even if Rancourt's dismissal was found to be not warranted that his reinstatement would nonetheless need to be "assessed".
Harnden further explained that the university would seek special "enriched" guarantees or constraints regarding "exclusion of witnesses." Both sides agreed that the latter arguments for and against such "enrichment" would be made in writing to the arbitrator.
When McGee clarified that the latter written submissions would - like the hearing itself - be public, Harnden replied that he would "take this under advisement", which means that he does not agree and that the public nature of the legal arguments may need to be ordered by the arbitrator before he complies.
Therefore, the university will seek to make extensive use of post-termination evidence and evidence of Rancourt's post-termination "conduct" to justify its termination of Rancourt and Rancourt's permanent exclusion from campus.
It will be interesting to learn which "conduct" the university views as worthy of such consideration that would bar a tenured professor from campus allegedly for applying a new teaching method in one advanced physics course in his research area of expertize.
We hope that Mr. Harnden's intent is not to block or constrain the publication of the present blog.
Rancourt accused of "arranging" for videographer to film Harnden's laptop:
In another strange incident, Harnden gratuitously stated to the arbitrator that Rancourt had "arranged" for Algonquin College film program coordinator Peter Biesterfeld to film Harnden's laptop during the hearing. Biesterfeld stated to the arbitrator that he had not filmed Harnden's laptop. Harnden clarified that there was nothing of importance on his laptop screen.
Rancourt would like to affirm that he did not and does not "arrange" Peter Biesterfeld or any other videographer or media person and that he does not wish to see what is on Lynn Harnden's laptop.
Next step:
The next hearing date is scheduled for October 12, 2011. Disclosures are expected to be completed early this summer. The issue of Harnden's "enrichment" is also expected to be decided by the arbitrator before the next hearing date.
Extensive background information is provided HERE.
"My answer is the document that says I'm not answering. There."
From: Denis Rancourt <> Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 5:47 PM Subject: Re: Your personal written commitment to the community To: president@uottawa.ca, allan.rock@uottawa.ca Cc: Stephane Emard-Chabot
November 30, 2010
Allan Rock President University of Ottawa
Re: Your personal written commitment to the community
Dear Allan,
On November 28, 2010, I sent you the email BELOW with a request for your clarifications and intervention.
On November 30, 2010, I received the response BELOW from hired lawyer Lynn Harnden. Mr. Harnden states that you have answered in a Reply to the related Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) Application.
Mr. Harnden must be confused. The Reply to the OLRB Application alleges that you are in no way involved in this matter “Rock requests that the Application be dismissed because there are no material facts or particulars alleging that he has violated any section of the Act.”
The Reply, therefore, cannot logically be taken as your answer regarding your personal written commitment to the community that the law would be followed and that I would always be given due process.
Since you made a personal commitment to the community, it seems to me that you should personally explain yourself rather than using this subterfuge provided by Mr. Harnden.
Please do so and resolve the matter by receiving my duly filed and overdue grievances. Follow the law Allan.
I await your response.
Sincerely, Denis Rancourt Former physics professor, University of Ottawa
From: Lynn Harnden Date: Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 4:38 PM Subject: Ontario Labour Relations Board - File No. 2567-10-U To: Denis Rancourt <>
Mr. Rancourt:
I have for reply your email of November 23, 2010 to President Allan Rock.
You reference in your email the matters which are currently under review by the Ontario Labour Relations Board as a result of your application (File No. 2567-10-U).
The issues raised in your email have been addressed in the Reply which has been filed on behalf of President Rock.
Please forward any future communications which touch on this matter to my attention.
This e-mail is intended solely for the individual or company to whom it is addressed. The information contained herein is privileged and confidential. Any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail, other than by its intended recipient, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately and delete from your records. Thank you.
University of Ottawa president Allan Rock is the Responding Party in an Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) Application filed by former physics professor Denis Rancourt (OLRB File No. 2567-10-U).
The OLRB is the judicial body charged with enforcing labour law (the Labour Relations Act) in Ontario, Canada.
In the period around January 2009 when the Rock administration was executing its political dismissal of dissident professor Rancourt, more than one hundred students and community members and many professors wrote to Allan Rock to protest the planned dismissal. [See “Letters of Support” top-menu-item on THIS web page.]
Allan Rock responded the same way to all or most of the letter writers as, for example:
On 7-Jan-09, at 12:14 PM, Allan Rock wrote to James Douglas:
Thank you for your recent message.
The relationship between the University and its faculty members, including Professor Rancourt, is governed by a collective agreement.
In all of its dealings with Professor Rancourt, the University has complied strictly with the terms of that collective agreement, and will continue to do so.
Professor Rancourt has due process and opportunities for recourse through this collective agreement and his union.
Kind regards, Allan Rock
Contrary to his thus stated personal commitment to the community, Allan Rock has repudiated the collective agreement by refusing to process three recent labour law grievances on particularly sensitive matters:
managing a broad campaign (2006-2008) of covert information gathering practiced against Rancourt and several students (link to grievance G25),
executing a direct interference with research academic freedom in the area of climate change physics (link to grievance G26),
fabricating false concerns about the professor’s “physical and mental well-being” (link to grievance G27)
Rancourt has made the OLRB Application and Allan Rock’s Response to the Board public HERE.
Rancourt’s OLRB Application is rigorously constructed and shows an unacceptable violation of the professor’s rights (LINK).
In contrast, the OLRB Response filed for Rock by his lawyers of the Emond Harnden LLP law firm [Lynn Harnden, photo] is confused, contradictory, and tenuous (LINK).
For example, the Response contains the following.
- It argues that the complaint has no merit and should be summarily dismissed by the Board, that Rock is not personally linked to any of the facts of the case, then goes on to provide 83 pages of response and supporting documents.
- It argues that the three grievances cannot be received because they were filed after Rancourt was fired, yet the University received the dismissal grievance (G24) which was filed after the dismissal.
- It does not seem to matter with the geniuses at Emond Harnden LLP or with Rock that the alleged violations in the three grievances occurred while Rancourt was a tenured professor but were only discovered or confirmed later, as explicitly foreseen by the collective agreement.
- Nor does it seem to matter that the collective agreement is written in English (and also in French) since Rock and his lawyers take the position: “the Responding Party disagrees with all of the legal conclusions and arguments made by the Applicant”.
- Rock and his lawyers argue that the OLRB is not the proper venue for the complaint, that they are not repudiating or disregarding the law, but that instead this should be viewed as “a difference in interpretation” of the law that should be handled by filing a grievance. We’re not making this up...: The OLRB complaint in which Rock refuses to process collective agreement grievances because they were filed after Rancourt’s dismissal should be handled by a new collective agreement grievance... Ah hum.
- Rock and his lawyers go on to state that letters where the university contradicted itself or changed its position (as in from white to black) were simply not contradictions: “The Responding Party denies its emails … were contradictory as alleged.” OKey… so saying you will process a grievance and later saying you will not process the grievance is not contradicting yourself. Alright then let’s see how that actually works in a hearing?
- The case law that Rock and his lawyers put forth to argue that Rock, the CEO of University of Ottawa Inc., was not involved in any material way is one where a company where the alleged violations took place could not be shown to be a subsidiary of the accused company. Just seems like a bit of a stretch to this non-lawyer…? . . . And it just goes on like that without ever addressing the substantive arguments made by Rancourt. That’s law? Do they normally win by bullying or what?
A cynical analyst might conclude that these lawyers know a secret; that logic and meaning carry little weight at the OLRB? Hopefully, that is not the case. Hopefully a Board hearing is nothing like parliament.
M.-Z. Dang, J. Hickey, S. Kelly vs. University of Ottawa
The above is from the August 2009 media reports. The newly released video is embedded below.
In late 2008 and early 2009 University of Ottawa researcher Dr. Mei-Zhen Dang was summarily fired and graduate students were threatened with loss of their Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council (NSERC) scholarships in preparation for the Allan Rock administration’s March 2009 political firing of their supervisor tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt.
The video of their successful February 24, 2009, press conference in Tabaret Hall (U of O main administration building) has recently been released on YouTube (embedded below).
Dr. Mei-Zhen Dang, a long-time (more than 12 years) research associate and environmental analysis expert in Rancourt’s physics laboratory was summarily fired. She was locked out of both the laboratory and her office overnight and her pay was arbitrarily stopped by the dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde without any notification or explanation.
The joint lawsuit led to a significant cash settlement for Dang and a letter of apology from the university.
Meanwhile the hired university corporate lawyer (Lynn Harnden of the Emond Harnden firm) informed physics graduate student claimants Joseph Hickey and Sean Kelly that if the University of Ottawa won its jurisdictional motion to strike the action, the students would be made liable for the university’s legal fees.
The students dropped their participation in the lawsuit and Hickey pursued an internal (Policy 110) complaint supported by the graduate student association (GSAED) which the University of Ottawa via VP-Governance Diane Davidson has refused to hear to this day.
The media reported the late August 2009 Dang settlement victory and the alleged bullying of the students in some detail at the time:
(Photo: Dean of Science Dr. Andre E. Lalonde sends vehement email to quash research of AGW critic, collateral damage student. Credit: University of Ottawa.)
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.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed in posts and comments are those of the posting authors. Except if otherwise stated, the views and positions of UofOWatch are those of Denis G. Rancourt, former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. Obviously, links and references to cited works do not imply agreement with or endorsement of the views expressed or information in the linked postings or cited works.
