St. Lewis v. Rancourt -- Court Reporter Transcript of the Entire Trial

There were 15 days (or partial-days) of hearings in the trial in the case Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt, including all trial motions and jury selection.

The first day was a hearing of a defendant's (Rancourt) recusal motion, heard on May 7, 2014. The last day of trial was the judge's reading of his reasons in making a permanent injunction against the defendent, on June 6, 2014.

The entire official court reporter's transcript of all the hearings in the trial is available HERE.

Rancourt and a few other participants spoke in French, and the court's language-interpretation from French to English (done on the fly) is included in the transcripts.

APPEARANCES / WITNESSES

Justice Michel Z. Charbonneau, trial judge

Richeard Dearden, plaintiff's lead lawyer

Anastasia Semenova, plaintiff's lawyer

Peter Doody, lawyer for the University of Ottawa, opposing the defendent

Denis Rancourt, self-represented defendant

WITNESSES FOR THE PLAINTIFF

Joanne St. Lewis, plaintiff

Allan Rock, president of the University of Ottawa

Camille Nelson, expert witness

Charlynne MacCharles, plaintiff's counselor

Bruce Feldthusen, former dean of common law section, University of Ottawa

Denis Laberge, plaintiff's brother-in-law

Jacqueline Yvette Beckles, department of justice lawyer and plaintiff's friend

John Curie, law professor, University of Ottawa

Robert Major, former VP-Academic, University of Ottawa

Saron Gebresellasi, law student, University of Ottawa

Sileen St. Lewis, plaintiff's mother

 

* * *

The CanLII interlocutory, trial, and appeal rulings in the case are here:
http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html#search/id=st.%20lewis%20v.%20rancourt

Links to all/most court-filed documents in the case are here:
http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/stlewislawsuit.html

An appeal hearing has been listed at the Court of Appeal for Ontario for June 26, 2015, at 10:30 AM. See links to factums (arguments) on appeal in THIS blogpost.

Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel

On June 25, 2014, guest blogger Joanne St. Lewis posted this blogpost on the SLAW legal magazine blog:

Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel (LINK)

Ontario Civil Liberties Association moves to intervene in Supreme Court application about unresolved judicial bias complaint

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has moved to intervene in the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of appellant Denis Rancourt, regarding an unresolved judicial bias complaint that is advanced as grounds to overturn a Court of Appeal for Ontario decision to dimiss Rancourt's appeal from a lower court motion to end a defamation action against Rancourt on the grounds of maintenance and champerty.

The OCLA has posted all the court documents about its motion to intervene (OCLA's motion, St. Lewis response, U of O response, Rancourt response, and OCLA's reply): HERE-LINK.

At one point in argument, counsel for St. Lewis, Mr. Richard Dearden, rejects OCLA's intervention on the basis that:

"It is submitted that any organization that subscribes to Founding Principles that support hate speech and expression about child pornography, genocide and slavery utterly fails to 'represent the broad interests of citizens' in Canada." [at paragraph 19 of St. Lewis's response]

The Founding principles of OCLA are HERE, and are in evidence before the Supreme Court.

Iconic public intellectual Noam Chomsky, on reading the founding principles, endorsed OCLA as:

“I am very pleased to learn of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and wish it the greatest success in its work, which could not be more timely and urgent as elementary civil rights, including freedom of speech, are under attack in much of the world, not excluding the more free and democratic societies.”

It appears that Mr. Dearden is stating, inter alia, that a civil liberties association that supports free expression on all topics, including taboo and sensitive topics, cannot possibly represent the broad interests of Canadians? Mr. Dearden often acts for clients defending freedom of the press.

***

All other posts about the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada are: HERE, and HERE.

The summary of the application for leave to appeal is:

An Ontario superior court judge had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party intervening for the plaintiff in [the] case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court, and did not disclose any of these ties. This party was also the employer of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and funded the plaintiff’s litigation. The judge was tasked with determining the propriety of the party’s funding of the plaintiff, which was done with public money. The judge’s ties made it inconceivable that he would rule against the party. When the defendant discovered the judge’s ties and presented the evidence, the judge lost decorum, threatened the defendant with contempt of court, and recused himself, but refused to consider whether there was an appearance of bias, and continued to release decisions. The judge’s in-court reaction and walkout further confirmed his ties with the party in the lawsuit. The defendant raised the matter with six more judges, up to the court of appeal [for Ontario], but all of them refused to duly consider and properly apply the facts. As a result, all the decisions of the judge in the lawsuit stand to this day, even the decisions he released after recusing himself.

--Summary, Memorandum of Argument, Application Book, page-34

On-going story of an application to the Supreme Court of Canada

When is it OK in a democratic society for a court to ignore a complaint of bias of the court? Is it acceptable for the rules of the court to permit circumventing a bias complaint? Can a judge refuse to hear and determine a complaint about his/her own apparent bias? Is being heard on a bias question in order to overturn decisions of a judge a Charter right? Will the Supreme Court of Canada find these questions of sufficient importance to hear the appeal?

At least the last of these questions will be answered in the coming months. Here is how the story has unfolded to date:

• 2013-01-07::: Rancourt's Application for Leave to Appeal filed to the Supreme Court of Canada, to appeal from the November 29, 2012 decision of Justice Peter Annis to not grant an appeal regarding the defendant's complaints about reasonable apprehension of bias. Full-Application-SCC.

• 2013-01-14 to 2013-01-25::: Letters to and from the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada::: 2013-01-10-Dearden-to-Registrar, 2013-01-14-Rancourt-to-Registrar, 2013-01-14-Doody-to-Registrar, 2013-01-15-Dearden-to-Registrar, 2013-01-15-Rancourt-to-Registrar, 2013-01-25-Registrar-to-Rancourt.

• 2013-02-13::: Motion to a Judge, filed to the Supreme Court of Canada, motion to set aside Registrar's January 25, 2013 order. Full-Motion-SCC.

• 2013-02-14::: Letter of St. Lewis via Richard Dearden to SCC Registrar, asking that Registrar "not accept" Rancourt's Motion to a Judge. 2013-02-14-Dearden-to-Registrar.

• 2013-02-22::: Letter of U of O via Peter Doody to SCC Registrar, echoing Dearden's request to "not accept" Rancourt's Motion to a Judge. 2013-02-22-Doody-to-Registrar.

• 2013-02-22::: Letter of SCC Registrar Roger Bilodeau to Rancourt, not accepting Motion to a Judge for filing. 2012-02-22-Registrar-to-Rancourt.

• 2013-03-04::: Ontario Civil Liberties Association's letter to the Chief Justice of Canada, about SCC Registrar's conduct. LINK. Followed by THIS, and then THIS.

Stuff happens in the corridors at the Supreme Court...?

• 2013-04-08::: Registrar of the Supreme Court of Canada changes his mind, accepts to file Rancourt's Application for leave to appeal: Registrar's letter.

• 2013-04-09::: Rancourt re-files his Application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: Full-Application-SCC.

• 2013-04-11::: Supreme Court of Canada Registry letter to Rancourt -- Materials filed, File Number assigned: Registry's letter. 

• 2013-04-19::: Supreme Court of Canada responds to the Ontario Civil Liberties Association about Registrar's conduct: SCC-letter-OCLA.*

• 2013-05-09::: U of O submissions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: UofO-Mem-Arg-SCC.

• 2013-05-09::: St. Lewis's submissions for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: StL-Mem-Arg-SCC.

• 2013-05-21::: Rancourt's REPLY for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada: DGR-Reply-SCC.

*This bullet was added on June 20, 2013.

OCLA responds to Chief Justice of Canada about Richard Dearden

First THIS.
Then Richard Dearden with THIS.
And now the REPLY.

"sad and unfortunate"

Richard Dearden trashes OCLA to Chief Justice of Canada

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has posted the recent letter of lawyer Richard Dearden of the Gowlings law firm to Chief Justice Beverly McLachlin. The letter is here: LINK. Dearden argues that "The OCLA has no evidentiary or legal basis for accusing the Registrar of having an apprehension of bias (sic) regarding the two letters he wrote Mr. Rancourt and no investigation is warranted."

Following Mr. Dearden, the Chief Justice should not investigate the conduct of the Registrar in dealing with self-represented litigants, as requested by the OCLA.

Editorial and news articles about the "Rancourt saga" (in French) -- La Rotonde

February 25, 2013, La Rotonde (links to content):

M. Rock, nous cacheriez-vous des choses?

L’AFFAIRE RANCOURT

U of O president Allan Rock and law professor Joanne St. Lewis must not sue student Hazel Gashoka

Threat of lawsuit against YouTube video

By Denis Rancourt

Hazel Gashoka earned an Honours B.A. in psychology from the University of Ottawa in 2012 and is now a graduate student in Community Psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University.  As an undergraduate at the U of O, she was an activist for social justice, and in her graduating year was elected to represent students on the University Senate.

In 2008, while Gashoka was an undergraduate, the student union reported systemic racism at the University of Ottawa.  The report drew a lot of public attention and was an embarrassment to the university.  In response, the university asked U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis to publicly "assess" the student report.  In just a few days' time, St. Lewis issued a public report questioning the validity of the student charges.

Gashoka recently made a six-minute YouTube video (imbedded below) analyzing St. Lewis's role in helping the university deflect the students' charge of racism.  (St. Lewis and Gashoka are black, and this writer is white.)

After the video was posted, St. Lewis, through a big-name lawyer hired for her by the university, sent Gashoka a notice of libel, which is a threat to sue for defamation.



St. Lewis is already suing former U of O physics professor Denis Rancourt for $1 million for expressing a similar view on his “U of O Watch” blog.  That defamation lawsuit, which began in 2011, is funded by the university and pursued by the same lawyer who is threatening Gashoka -- Richard Dearden of the large corporate law firm Gowlings.  University president Allan Rock testified under oath that his funding of the lawsuit against Rancourt is without a spending limit, “without a cap.”

Gashoka made public the threat that she received, and she publicly called upon Rock to “Please confirm that the University of Ottawa will not be funding a defamation lawsuit against me [her].”

In this writer’s opinion, it is morally wrong for the University of Ottawa and St. Lewis to try to silence Gashoka.  Using public funds and student tuition money to fund repressive litigation against her would be ironic, as the university claims to promote discourse and debate on matters of public interest.

Gashoka has the right to interpret the facts any way that she wants in this or any other matter of public importance.  Public controversy and debate on societal issues can be a rough trade and can involve terms that sting, but the law accommodates its requirements.  St. Lewis should not expect to be immune from criticism for the role that she played.

I call on president Allan Rock to state publicly, without further delay, that the university will not fund a lawsuit against Hazel Gashoka for her video, and to clarify the university’s criteria for funding lawsuits against its critics.

See all related posts HERE.

Lawyer Richard Dearden asks Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau to not accept motion to a judge

Regarding THIS recent motion to a judge filed to the Supreme Court of Canada by Rancourt in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case, St. Lewis' lawyer Richard Dearden sent THIS February 14, 2013 letter to Supreme Court Registrar Roger Bilodeau.

In the letter, Mr. Dearden is asking Mr. Bilodeau to not accept a motion to the Court to have Mr. Bilodeau's own decision set aside.

Mr. Dearden is explaining to Mr. Bilodeau how the rules of the Court work, and how it is that Mr. Bilodeau should not accept a motion to a judge which would set aside Mr. Bilodeau's prior decision to not accept Rancourt's recent application for leave to appeal (without allowing the application to be considered and determined by the Court).

It would seem from Mr. Dearden's letter that Mr. Dearden is under the impression that Mr. Bilodeau is maybe not familiar with the rules of the Court or with the responsibilities of his own function?

Former U of O student and senate member Hazel Gashoka receives a Notice of Libel

Hazel Gashoka

Web site reports that former U of O student and senate member Hazel Gashoka has received a Notice of Libel from U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis' lawyer Richard Dearden.

Link to Notice of Libel HERE.

Rancourt files Motion to a Judge, Supreme Court of Canada, to set aside Registrar's order

On February 13, 2013, Denis Rancourt filed THIS "Motion to a Judge" to the Supreme Court of Canada.

The motion asks a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada to set aside an order of the Registrar of the Court.

On January 25, 2013, the Supreme Court Registrar, Roger Bilodeau, Q.C., wrote THIS decision to not even assign a court file number to Rancourt's January 7, 2013 application for leave to appeal to the Court.

Rancourt argues that the Registrar's decision/order was contrary to both the Supreme Court Act, and the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada.

Rancourt argues that the Registrar cannot simply "not accept" an application for leave to appeal on the basis of the Registrar's speculation about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, which is a substantive matter argued in the application itself.

The opposing parties, Joanne St. Lewis (represented by Richard Dearden) and the University of Ottawa (represented by Peter Doody), had written to the Registrar to argue that the Court did not have the jurisdiction to hear Rancourt's application, and to ask the Registrar to "not accept" the application.

The application was about a litigant's Charter and natural justice rights to an impartial judicial process. Specifically, the right to have a complaint of actual or apparent judicial bias heard by the court where the complaint is made. The application seeks to appeal a decision by Justice Peter Annis to refuse leave to appeal decisions of Justice Robert Beaudoin on the grounds of apparent bias.

Links to all court documents in the on-going St. Lewis v. Rancourt legal case are HERE.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: IN A NUTSHELL

This is a brief explanation of the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit presently before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.


SUMMARY -- In 2008 the student union released a public report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa. The University asked a black professor expert to assess the student report in a responding public report. The expert found that there was no basis for affirming systemic racism at the University of Ottawa. A white former physics professor runs a blog critical of the University of Ottawa and of its (white) president. The physics professor was critical of the expert's report in a 2008 blogpost. After the student union released relevant access to information documents in 2011, the physics professor blogged again stating that the access to information documents suggested that the expert had [COURT ORDER]. The expert obtained funding for a lawsuit from the university president, and then sued the physics professor for $1 million in a defamation action, without disclosing the university funding. The university was later obliged to disclose its involvement and the president's role in the on-going lawsuit.


Denis Rancourt is a former tenured Full Professor of physics, University of Ottawa. He has run the "U of O Watch" blog, critical of the University of Ottawa, since 2007. Rancourt was dismissed from his full professorship in 2009, after 23 years. The dismissal is presently in binding labour arbitration where the hearings are scheduled to continue until June 2013.

In 2008, the student union at the University of Ottawa published a report ("the SAC report", Student Appeal Centre) alleging systemic racism in the University's treatment of academic fraud, based on the SAC's data and on case studies. This SAC report immediately attracted media attention.

The University asked tenured Assistant Professor of law Joanne St. Lewis, then Director of the University's Human Rights Research and Education Centre, to write an evaluation ("the St. Lewis report") of the SAC report. The completed St. Lewis report was announced on the University web site and Professor St. Lewis did media interviews about her report.

The St. Lewis report was critical of the SAC report, found, in part, that

"The short answer for this evaluator on whether there is systemic racism in the administration of the Academic Fraud process at the University of Ottawa is: I don’t know. What I do know, is that this report does not establish this in any measurable or analytically plausible fashion."

and made ten recommendations, as "The Way Forward".

In 2008, Rancourt made a critical assessment of the St. Lewis report on his blog. The post was entitled "Rock Administration Prefers to Confuse “Independent” with “Internal” Rather Than Address Systemic Racism".

In 2011, the SAC posted documents about the St. Lewis report, which it had obtained via an access to information request, to the SAC blog.

In 2011, Rancourt posted another blog article critical of the St. Lewis report, based on the newly released access to information documents. This second blog article was entitled "[COURT ORDER]" and it stated, in part (see p.9, HERE):

"[COURT ORDER]"

The later blogpost gave rise to a $1 million defamation lawsuit against Rancourt, initiated by St. Lewis, see June 23, 2011 Statement of Claim.

As one defence, Rancourt argued that if this lawsuit was a proxy lawsuit by the University, then it violated his Charter rights by suppressing his criticism of a public institution, see p.20-21 of the Statement of Defence.

Rancourt sought to discover if the University of Ottawa was funding the St. Lewis litigation. This question was pursued and even was asked at the University's Senate via a student senator's motion (LINK).

The University replied on October 25, 2011, via hired lawyer David Scott, that it was indeed funding the St. Lewis litigation against Rancourt. A report on the efforts to obtain this reply is here: LINK. Scott's letter states, in part:

"Furthermore, your outrageously racist attack upon her takes this case out of the ordinary and, in the view of the University, alone creates a moral obligation to provide support for her in defence of her reputation."

Following this reply, Rancourt brought a motion that the action be stayed or dismissed for abuse of process (see Notice of Motion). The later motion is presently in process (LINK to report about motion).

As part of the later "champerty" motion, Rancourt cross-examined university president Allan Rock who testified under oath that he had made the decision in April 2011 to fund the St. Lewis lawsuit "without a cap" (with no funding limit) from the University's operating budget (see Transcript of the cross-examination).

Rancourt's "champerty" motion will be heard on August 29, 2011, following Rancourt's on-going "refusals and productions" motion to obtain answers that the cross-examined witnesses have refused to give.

In the first day of Rancourt's "refusals and productions" motion, on June 20, 2012, Rancourt was not allowed to cross-examine a recent affiant put forward by the University of Ottawa to counter the "refusals and productions" motion. In addition, Rancourt had put forward an expert's affidavit to establish the authenticity of a document showing a March 2012 email communication from Allan Rock to St. Lewis' counsel Richard Dearden. The expert's affidavit was stated to be inadmissible for reasons that Rancourt expects will be explained in the Judge's decision about the "refusals and productions" motion.

The "refusals and productions" motion resumes in court on July 24, 2012.

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

The St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation was covered in the University of Ottawa French-language student newspaper La Rotonde:

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

The article is mostly about Rancourt's open court motion to require that all out-of-court cross-examinations be public; starting with Rancourt's motion to stay the action on the basis of an alleged champertous relationship between the plaintiff and the University of Ottawa which is entirely financing St. Lewis' lawsuit.

St. Lewis' lawyer Richard Dearden is quoted in part as saying (translated from the French):

"Cross-examinations are private. I have never, never, never heard of a public cross-examination."

Both president Allan Rock and chair of the Board of Governors Robert Giroux are to be examined by Rancourt regarding the champerty charge.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Author Jeff Schmidt apologizes to Professor Joanne St. Lewis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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




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

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


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

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


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

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

?

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

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

Robert:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dearden,

1. Thank you for your message.

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

Rule 39.02(4)(a) states:

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

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

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

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

Rule 37.10.1(1)(a) states:

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

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

DGR

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Dearden,

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

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

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

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

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

DGR

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

Mr. Rancourt

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good evening Professor Zweibel,

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,
Dr. Denis Rancourt

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

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

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

Mr. Dearden,

The next steps are:

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

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

Denis Rancourt

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

Good morning Mr Rancourt and Mr Dearden

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

Thank you for considering me for this.

Very truly yours,

Ellen B. Zweibel, Professor

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

Professor Zweibel,

Thank you for the rapid answer.

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

Sincerely,
Dr. Denis Rancourt

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

Gentlemen,

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

The hard copies will be delivered later today by courier.

Renzo Catana
CORNELL CATANA REPORTING SERVICES