Professional ethics complaint against former BOG Chairman Marc Jolicoeur

The former chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa, lawyer Marc Jolicoeur, BLG law firm, was ultimately responsible for the final decision to fire former tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt and then the law firm that he directs in Ottawa accepted legal work representing the University against Rancourt in a matter that arose as a result of the firing.

Not surprisingly, this is explicitly against the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC).

Rancourt filed a formal complaint against Jolicoeur on February 26, 2011, HERE.

The LSUC has received the complaint and assigned it LSUC File Number 2011-95023, HERE.

The LSUC must decide if it will refer the file to its disciplinary process. It may also be necessary for the LSUC to do an in depth investigation of the complaint involving interviewing various parties.

Ontario's IPC practicing unwarranted secrecy, procedural machinations, and condoning unethical practice

September 18, 2010

Ann Cavoukian
Information and Privacy Commissioner / Ontario
2 Bloor Street East
Suite 1400
Toronto, Ontario
M4W 1A8

(By email)

(E-mail CC: Work Ethics Watch; Democracy Watch; Canadians for Accountability; Canadian Association of University Professors; Ontario Ombudsman; and made public)

IPC PRACTICING UNWARRANTED SECRECY HARMFUL TO SOCIETY,
TERMS OF REFERENCE MACHINATIONS,
AND POSSIBLE CONDONING OF UNETHICAL PRACTICE

(Reference: IPC files PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245, PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2.)


Dear Dr. Ann Cavoukian,


Unwarranted secrecy

I have recently received two letters dated September 13, 2010, signed by IPC Adjudicator Catherine Corban (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2). These are cover letters inviting my submissions for IPC inquiries.

In the recent past (October 29, 2009) I have received three such notices signed by IPC Adjudicator Colin Bhattacharjee (PA08-149, PA08-224, PA08-245).

The October 2009 notices stated:

“Please find attached severed copies of the University’s representations… Portions of these representations have been withheld because they fall within this office’s confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.”

Whereas the September 2010 letters state:

“Please find attached the non-confidential representations of the University. Please note that portions of the University’s representations have been withheld due to confidentiality concerns.”

Contrary to the October 2009 stated IPC policy, the September 2010 letters describe an unwarranted application of secrecy consisting in the IPC not disclosing the University of Ottawa’s submissions consistent with the IPC’s own established practice.

This is of concern to me because it appears to function in a way that is contrary to the IPC’s societal mandate regarding transparency and disclosure. It also harms my ability to respond in my submissions to the IPC.

I request an explanation regarding the IPC’s change of position.

I ask to be given the full representations following the IPC’s own confidentiality criteria on the sharing of representations.

I add to this my continuing concern that the IPC is anomalously not itself subject to the conditions of the Act (FIPPA) and that your office has not lobbied to bring the IPC under the purview of the Act. In this regard, your office has not been a model defender of transparency for societal institutions. Other provincial “IPC” offices are rightly subjected to the conditions of access to information laws.

Terms of reference changed in mid-inquiry

I am also concerned that the terms set out in the original IPC Notices of Inquiry for inquiries PA08-97-2 and PA08-158-2 were changed between the times the University was asked to make its submissions and now when I am being asked to make my submissions. The September 2010 letters sate:

“I am enclosing a Notice of Inquiry which summarizes the facts and issues in the appeal. This Notice has been modified to reflect matters arising from the representations [which I am not being allowed to see] of the University.”

It is difficult for me to understand why the IPC’s terms of reference on the “facts and issues” for the inquiries in question would need to be changed. I ask that you explain this.

Possible ethical breach in University’s use of the BLG law firm

Finally, I wish to inform the IPC of the following.

The recent University submissions (PA08-97-2, PA08-158-2) were prepared by the Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG) law firm. The former Chairman of the Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, is the Regional Managing Partner of the Ottawa office of BLG. He stepped down as U of O BOG Chairman in mid June 2010.

Mr. Jolicoeur participated in the administrative process that led to my April 2009 dismissal from the University, as is publicly documented. My dismissal as a tenured professor has not yet gone before a labour law arbitrator. Mr. Jolicoeur’s law firm is now working at profit to bar access to records that relate to my dismissal.

To the extend that this situation is an ethical breach for the University and for BLG, and now that the IPC has been explicitly informed, continuing to allow the involvement of BLG will constitute condoning and collaboration by the IPC.

I ask that the IPC disallow the participation of BLG in all IPC inquiries involving me.

Need for a quick response

Please respond immediately as the inquiry process imposes deadlines for my representations.

Please acknowledge receipt of the present communication.

Yours truly,

Denis Rancourt
Former physics professor, University of Ottawa

RELATED POSTS:
BLG's previous involvement and link to Jolicoeur
Jolicoeur leaves U of O BOG in silence

U of O's previous attempt to use IPC to deny access: covert surveillance (several posts)

Allan Rock on Ann Coulter - New access to information report released

.

A new report based on 138 emails via University of Ottawa president Allan Rock's office about Ann Coulter has been released HERE.

The report suggests that former Liberal heavyweight Loyd Axworthy may have played a significant role in the U of O Rock-Coulter affair.

The text of the second letter that Allan Rock wanted to send to Coulter is revealed in the report and it is shown that Rock was motivated to write the second letter by a desire to minimize his legal liability following an email from associate professor of law Amir Attaran.

The preamble of the report states:

This blow by blow account provides an incisive picture of the executive crew of a modern Canadian university which will be of interest to all stakeholders that must deal with these institutions of "higher learning."

A student reviewer of the report said:

"The prez is more concerned with covering his ass and controlling his playground than he is about principles or education etc. It cuts Rock down to size from superstar to petty, mean-spirited, and panicking. It vaporizes his rhetoric. He looks totally out of place in academia. Profs have been sacked for the kind of academic fraud he's up to. The report contrasts what the University is meant to be to show how Rock doesn't have a clue."

RELATED POSTS:
URL of the new report: Allan Rock on Ann Coulter
All UofOWatch articles about the Ann Coulter affair
UofOWatch "list of Allan Rock lies"
"Ethically challenged" Allan Rock U of O mistake was avoidable

Another one bites the dust at U of O -- Jolicoeur out Giroux in -- (with VIDEO analysis)

Meet the new Chairman of the Board of Governors of the University of Ottawa, Mr. Robert Giroux.

No mention of the last guy...?

It has become commonplace under the Allan Rock reign at the U of O for top executives to be removed or demoted or to leave without any explanations or public thank yous.

Former president Gilles Patry fell off the edge of the earth and has been nowhere to be seen in public life. His acclaimed talents for running a top Canadian university or any similar corporation seem to be going entirely to waste.

VP-Governance (then Secretary) Pamela Harrod was suddenly demoted to "special" assistant to the president doing routine access to information legal work, to then suddenly leave under early retirement.

VP-Governance interim Nathalie Des Rosiers was never formalized and took administrative leave to head the Canadian Civil Liberties Association but is now leaving that post under questionable circumstances.

VP-Academic Robert Major could barely be convinced to stay one year into Rock's mandate and left without a public thank you after being a pillar of the institution for decades.

Major was replaced by Coulter-fiasco Francois Houle at the same time that the position of VP-Academic was downgraded from second-in-charge to "just another VP cause we need at least one from academic ranks" while the newly renamed position of VP-Governance was given to outside hack Diane Davidson and upgraded to second-boss-man.

The underlings feel it also. The turn-around in staff at media relations (Marketing Service and Communications Office) is legendary, to say the least. Must be a nice work environment in that department?

And now the latest...

The University simply put out THIS June 16, 2010, press release announcing:

"The University of Ottawa has appointed Mr. Robert Giroux as chair of its Board of Governors."

The press release makes NO mention of Marc Jolicoeur or his many years of service and gives no indication as to why a new Chair of the BOG was appointed. No search had been announced, no search committee formed, nothing. Quite remarkable really.

The celebrated Chair of the Board of Governors, Marc Jolicoeur, is being replaced without any explanation or public thank yous?

Jolicoeur remains the Regional Managing Partner of the Ottawa office of Borden Ladner Gervais LLP (BLG Law), the same law firm that threatened to sue UofOWatch some time ago and that appears to have used illegally-obtained personal information to threaten lawsuits against students for client VP-Resources Victor Simon, well known for his respect of academic freedom.

This is all the more surprising given the intellectual and legal stature of Jolicoeur, as can be ascertained in this video in which he explains the democratic nature of the BOG to an interested student:

Did Jolicoeur quit?
Why would he quit?
Did he not want to be thanked publicly?
Will there be a thank you reception later this summer?

Did Allan Rock lie to the Board of Governors on April 27th?

University of Ottawa president Allan Rock has publicly used the recent global financial crisis as an excuse for the administration's initially projected coming yearly deficit of 25M$, while refusing to provide details about its projection.

This was critically challenged in the media on April 15, 2010 (Citizen article HERE).

Only following the latter media report did president Rock respond on April 17th - to the media rather than to the university employee unions and student associations - with a revised deficit projection of 19M$, without any explanation of the 6M$ loss (Citizen response HERE).

Then on April 27, 2010, at a university Board of Governors meeting scheduled to approve a tuition fee increase, Chairman of the Board Marc Jolicoeur introduced Rock as "our Rector" and asked him to provide the context for the tuition fee increases.

In answer, Rock stated the projected deficit of 25M$ as a key element.

That's right. The media gets a revised 19M$ while the Board that rules on approving budgets gets a 25M$ figure as part of the foundational context it receives in order to make an "informed" decision...?

See video of the full April 27, 2010, Board meeting HERE.

This was too much for former Teacher Assistant union (CUPE, Local 2626) president now graduate student association executive Sean Kelly to take. At the break in the April 27th Board meeting, Kelly confronted Rock and explained that the president ("our Rector") had lied. Kelly has since made this public on CHUO 89.1 FM.

Only on return from the break in the April 27th Board meeting and minutes before the final vote did Rock acknowledge Kelly's criticism and correct the projected deficit number, while explaining that "this was not just something that Allan Rock and [VP-Resources] Victor Simon made up".

To lie is to knowingly make a false or deliberately misleading statement.

The U of O president was asked to respond to Mr. Kelly's allegation for the present blog report and did not acknowledge the request.

This Board episode and the entire "financial crisis" fabrication appear to add to the thesis first advanced in the mainstream media that Mr. Rock is "ethically challenged." Something the Board should seriously consider investigating... Some of the background research has already been done (HERE).

UofOWatch Blog Too Much for UofO – Board to Decide on Suspension of Professor

This very blog, which should be celebrated by the University of Ottawa as an example of open self-criticism and vibrant discourse (e.g., see Professor St-Amant’s many contributed comments to the previous post), has in fact been threatened with legal action on two counts and its creator, Professor Denis Rancourt, has been disciplined and is now under review for suspension.
.
Professor Rancourt’s final supplementary brief (posted HERE) in the matter of his suspension for the blog was deposited today. The Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa has 40 working days to provide its decision and its reasons therefor. BOG meetings are public.
.

A brief history of the University’s reactions to the UofOWatch blog is as follows.
.
First, on August 20, 2007, University of Ottawa’s VP-Resources Victor Simon initiated a “private” action against Rancourt using the third largest national law firm in Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG), which is known to specialize in libel and defamation cases. The Chairman of the BOG of the University of Ottawa is a Partner in BLG.
.

The BLG letter of threat “Notice under the Libel and Slander Act” is posted HERE. It is signed by BLG Partner J. Bruce Carr-Harris who has been involved in high-profile fund raising activities for the University.
.

The letter states:
.

“Mr. Simon hereby demands that you immediately remove the two blogs [THIS ONE and THIS ONE] … from your U of O Watch blog, failing which we expect to receive instructions to commence the requisite legal proceedings to do so.
.

In addition, we require a full, absolute, and unequivocal and fair apology and retraction of all defamatory statements…”
.

Similar letters of threat of legal action, in this matter of Victor Simon and UofOWatch, were sent to graduate students Jean-Paul Prévost and Severin Stojanovic (for allegedly providing material support) and to three (student) staff members (Editor-in-Chief, Director General, and the journalist covering the Victor Simon matter) of the student newspaper La Rotonde (presumably to intimidate the paper away from publishing on the matter).
.

La Rotonde bravely published a full spread on September 10, 2007, with copies of some of the BLG letters. Rancourt did not budge, trusting truth as the ultimate defence. The lawsuits never materialized.
.

Next, on August 28, 2007, came a letter from the University of Ottawa’s Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty). This letter is posted HERE and states: “the University of Ottawa hereby requires that you immediately remove the images of Tabaret Hall, of the President of the University of Ottawa with Mr. Telfer and of the President of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Lau from the U of O Watch blog site … If you fail to remove these images by August 31, 2007, the University of Ottawa may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
.

The Flaherty letter explained that it is University policy that the images “may be used by faculty, staff, students, and the news media solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”
.

Having been informed of the University policy, Rancourt responded by making more widespread use of copyrighted University images, which greatly enhanced the blog.
.

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, next enthusiastically took on the job of “protect[ing] [the University’s] intellectual property rights.” The Dean initiated his own investigation on November 23, 2007 (see letter posted HERE). In his letter, the Dean explained “I am concerned that your refusal to remove the copyrighted images from the U of O Watch website constitutes insubordination.”
.

What followed was a long series of meetings, exchanges of letters, and procedures (see Rancourt’s brief HERE for a summary) in which Rancourt tried to explain to the dean that both criticism and allowing criticism were positive and that, consequently, the University policy was not being violated.
.

The Dean disciplined Rancourt and warned of more discipline if the images were not removed. The Dean then appealed to the good judgement of VP-Academic Robert Major to ask that Major schedule the continuation of the investigation in order to pursue a suspension of Rancourt. Major obliged – leading to the present evaluation by the Board.
.

The Executive Summary of Rancourt’s BRIEF to the Board reads as follows.
.

The University of Ottawa has a stated policy of allowing professors to use its copyrighted images from its web site “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.” (See Legal Counsel’s letter to Denis Rancourt dated August 28, 2007.)
.

Denis Rancourt uses credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site in the UofOWatch blog that he manages (see attached item-1).
.

The UofOWatch blog features commentary and critical articles about activities of the University of Ottawa (see attached item-1).
.

The credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site significantly enhance the UofOWatch blog (a picture is worth a thousand words) and show a positive image of a university open to self-criticism.
.

University professors have academic freedom in their research and communications, including in criticisms of the university itself. The university has a duty to support the work of its professors, within the usual limits of resource constraints.
.

The University has disciplined Professor Denis Rancourt (Letter of Reprimand dated February 5, 2008) for not removing the copyrighted images from the UofOWatch blog.
.

Dean André E. Lalonde presently seeks further discipline (a one-day suspension) to be approved by the Board, before a grievance (filed on February 24, 2008) against the first discipline has been heard.
.

The University’s discipline and the on-going attempt to further discipline are not legitimate and appear to constitute attempts at ideological (political) censorship. The actions of the dean (and of Legal Counsel) appear to be petty and contrary to fostering a vibrant and critical university intellectual environment in a free and democratic society.
.

In addition, there are many procedural anomalies that point to serious problems in ethical and responsible management. These include illegal gathering and use of personal information and unwarranted legal threats.
.

In wrapping up his BRIEF, Rancourt states:
.

“Criticism is positive, healthy, and necessary to produce change. Congratulatory niceties only support the status quo. Not exposing known problems encourages their continuation. Criticism is vital work that needs to be encouraged rather than censored and attacked.”
.

Let us hope that the Board, in its collective wisdom and mandated fairness, will find a way to celebrate freedom of expression and inquiry at the University of Ottawa.
.

[Photo Credit: University of Ottawa. Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, BLG Partner and Chairman of the University’s Board of Governors.]