The matters in dispute between the University of Ottawa and professor Denis Rancourt have been amicably resolved

See the blogpost on Activist Teacher, here:

https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-matters-in-dispute-between.html

Rancourt's union refused leave by the Supreme Court of Canada

The latest development in the Rancourt academic freedom case is reported on the Activist Teacher blog:

Latest development in my academic freedom case: Supreme Court refuses to fix administrative tribunal law (LINK)

U of O appeals from interim motion judgement to a panel of the Divisional Court

The U of O is doing everything it can to strike the union's affidavit of evidence for the judicial review of the dismissal of Rancourt

Rancourt's union (Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa, APUO) is pursuing a judicial review (appeal) of an arbitrator's January 27, 2014 decision to uphold the university's December 10, 2008 dismissal of tenured full-professor Denis Rancourt. (link)

The arbitrator made negative findings in a total absence of evidence, and ignored relevant evidence that contradicted his findings. He also used a "report" obtained by covert surveillance, which was not in evidence. These were violations of natural justice, and are grounds in the judicial review.

In order to prove the arbitrator's errors, the union must bring an affidavit in the judicial review to say what actually happened during the arbitration hearings, because no court transcript of the 28-day hearing is available.

(The hearings were held between May 2, 2011 to June 26, 2013. The university appeared to do everything it could to delay and complexify the process, including a broad and sustained campaign of character assassination of Denis Rancourt.)

Thus, the union's affidavit about what actually occurred in the arbitration is necessary for the judicial review. Yet, the university is spending tremendous resources in now-repeated attempts to disallow the union's affidavit.

The university can of course challenge the union's affidavit and enter its own affidavit in the judicial review itself. But, instead, it seeks to bar the union from even bringing an affidavit.

The first attempt by the university to bar the union's affidavit was a motion to a judge of the appellate court (Divisional Court for Ontario) to strike out the union's entire affidavit. This attempt failed entirely. The appellate judge was unambiguous and ordered the university to pay the union's costs for the motion. (See appellate judge's ruling HERE, and U of O Watch article HERE.)

That is not good enough for the university. President Allan Rock instructed the university hired lawyers to appeal the appellate judge's judgement to a full panel of three appellate court judges. This will be a second costly attempt to strike out the union's needed affidavit so that the evidence cannot be used in the judicial review. Without the affidavit, or any evidence about what actually was said in the hearings, the judicial review is destined to fail.

The union is resisting this second attempt and will request that punitive costs be ordered against the university. The hearing before a panel of the Divisional Court is scheduled for April 2016.

Happenings in the U of O’s “motion to strike”, in the judicial review of the Rancourt dismissal

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.

Professor's union takes Rancourt arbitration to judicial review

The Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) will challenge the Foisy arbitration of the university's unjust dismissal of Denis Rancourt by filing for judicial review before a panel of three judges of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The APUO's announcement was released on March 10, 2014, after careful consideration of the arbitration judgment, and reads:

The APUO is extremely disappointed in the decision rendered in Professor Denis Rancourt’s case. 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. APUO has filed for judicial review and will continue to work diligently on this case so the decision does not adversely affect the right to academic freedom of professors, librarians, and students in the university setting. (LINK)

This is the first time in APUO's history that an individual grievance is taken to judicial review. The Divisional Court is one of the busiest appellate courts in Canada, and it hears appeals from administrative tribunals such as labour arbitrations.

Arbitrator Claude Foisy rules that the University of Ottawa was justified in dismissing tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt

Denis Rancourt on campus in 2007-2008, file photo: La Rotonde

The University of Ottawa's 2009 dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt has been upheld in a binding labour arbitration award released to the parties on January 28, 2014.

The full text of the 32-page decision is posted HERE (direct link to PDF file HERE).

A final paragraph in the arbitration award reads:

[105] Finally I want to note that I am in no way passing judgment on the value of Professor Rancourt’s teaching method, which calls for removing a student's stress by not grading. It may very well be that such a method of teaching results in improved learning for the Physics students. A number of researchers have written books on this teaching approach applied by Professor Rancourt. The University, however, has the right to decide and manage its institution in a manner in which students are objectively evaluated and graded comparatively one against the other. It has the right to determine that the grading method applied by its professors must conform to the general practice of universities which is the benchmark for determining the students' progression in their studies and for the attribution of bursaries and grants.

The first media report about the arbitration award is this one: Arbitrator upholds University of Ottawa’s firing of tenured professor -- Ottawa Citizen

The following report was written about the conflict by academic workplace mobbing expert Kenneth Westhues in 2009: Ottawa's dismissal of Denis Rancourt

Rancourt's 2011 description of the broader conflict is here: This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like in Canada

TV-Ontario 2009 interview with Denis Rancourt about his teaching method and grading:

 

Article about the U of O's dismissal of Denis Rancourt, The Chronicle of Higher Education

Click on image for link to article.

Rancourt arbitration hearings end: Media coverage

University of Ottawa accuses ex-professor Denis Rancourt of inciting violence

By Don Butler, OTTAWA CITIZENJune 11, 2013

 

 

Ottawa U had 'real worries' about activism class

By Tony Spears ,Ottawa Sun

First posted: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 01:52 PM EDT | Updated: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 08:08 PM EDT 

Lawyers spar over University of Ottawa’s dismissal of Denis Rancourt

By Don Butler, OTTAWA CITIZENJune 25, 2013

 

 

 

 

Lawyer defends A+ marks handed out by Denis Rancourt as lengthy hearing ends

By Don Butler, OTTAWA CITIZENJune 26, 2013

The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt continues: Blog articles and student spy report introduced into evidence

Maureen Robinson -- student spy hired by the U of O, active 2007-2008

The public tribunal hearings into the 2009 firing of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa are on-going this May and June 2013.

These hearings will determine if the dismissal of the professor was (1) justified, and (2) whether it was done in bad faith for reasons other than the alleged pretexts given.

The main alleged reason given by the University of Ottawa for firing the professor is that he would have assigned fraudulent grades to 23 students in an advanced physics course in the winter semester of 2008, grades that are alleged to have no relation to the students' actual performances and progress in the course.

A recent ruling by the Arbitrator has allowed the university to cross-examine Rancourt on his radical blogs "U of O Watch" and "Activist Teacher", and on any broad question to impeach Rancourt's "credibility" and/or fitness to be a university professor.

Rancourt's union had argued that such questions should not be permitted (HERE and HERE). The University had argued that such questions are proper cross-examination questions (HERE and HERE).

The Arbitrator explained that allowing the cross-examination questions is a distinct step from a determination of the relevance of the questions and answers, and cited the factors for determining admissibility of the thus gathered evidence.

The questions about the blogs appear to be aimed at establishing that Rancourt cannot be allowed back on campus because he incites and/or condones violence (link), because he is an anarchist, because he attacks University administrators with no regard for their feelings (link), because he uses his blogs for vengeance against any University executive associated with the dismissal (link), because he celebrates burning cop cars at G20 (link), because he promotes academic squatting (link), and so on.

On May 23, 2013, the University was allowed to put into evidence a report covertly prepared by a hired student spy about a talk Rancourt gave on another campus in 2007. Rancourt requested that he be provided a complete document rather than an incomplete report, and requested that the source of the report be identified and documented on the record, prior to answering questions about the report. Rancourt's requests were not granted. The Arbitrator ordered Rancourt to answer questions about the report. Rancourt was then cross-examined about the report.

The union will introduce a new witness when the hearings resume on June 5, 2013. The cross-examination of Professor Rancourt will then continue after the new witness is cross-examined and re-examined.

Start stop cross-examination of Professor Denis Rancourt at dismissal case tribunal

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.

General background document: HERE.

Final hearings in the dismissal case of Professor Denis Rancourt

In May and June 2013 are the final hearings in the binding labour arbitration tribunal in the case of the dismissal of tenured Full Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

The schedule for the 14 final hearing days is:
May 13, 14, 15, 21, 22, 23, June 5, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, 25, 26 2013 at 9:30am.
Hotel Indigo Ottawa (Indigo Room), 123 Metcalfe Street, Ottawa.

Arbitrator: Claude Foisy
Lead counsel University: Lynn Harnden
Lead counsel union: Sean McGee

Professor Rancourt finished his testimony in chief on May 14th. He will be cross-examined starting on May 15th.

In the course of the first days of testimony, the University has abandoned its discipline of Professor Rancourt for refusing to produce the final examinations of his students. This is no longer one of the causes for discipline.

The remaining alleged causes for discipline include:

• using improper speakers in his Fall 2006 SCI 1101 "Science in Society" course;
• giving anomalously high grades (too many A's) in his Winter 2007 PHY 1722 "Principes de Physique II" course; and
• assigning fraudulent A+ grades to 23 students in his Winter 2008 PHY 4385/5100 "Solid State Physics" course.

The University is also charging that Professor Rancourt incites violence and should therefore not be allowed back on campus even if his dismissal was not warranted.

Background document: HERE.

Why donate to my Legal Fund?

This is an appeal to donate to my legal fund (the Denis Rancourt Legal Fund) in order to provide a moderately fair trial in what some observers have characterized as a SLAPP (strategic litigation against public participation) against me.

I am committed to obtaining justice but justice is illusive when there is a large asymmetry of means between the opposing parties. At this point I will have exhausted all my financial savings within a month or so.

I was wrongly fired in 2009 from my tenured full professorship in physics at the University of Ottawa by a president, Allan Rock, who had a personal mission to get me.  He instructed his executives and hired lawyers to fire me, and this was executed without due process.

Under false pretence, in November 2008, my students and I were locked out of our laboratory and offices without warning.

My research associate of 12 years was summarily fired (she sued and won a settlement).

The laboratory was dismantled before I was even informed of the mock procedure to fire me that was initiated in December 2008 when I was banned from campus, again without notice, under police escort. 

The false pretext used was that I had fraudulently assigned grades in one advanced physics course in the winter 2008 semester. The University’s main witness at a recent hearing admitted under oath that the university had no evidence for this for any student.

The real reason that Allan Rock wants to shut me down may be my (this) “U of O Watch” blog and its persistent criticism of university management and executives, including: criticism of the university’s treatments of students, criticism of Rock’s on-going career dealings, criticisms of administrators and colleagues who, in my view, act against public and/or student interests, exposing executive malfeasance such as doctoring documents “to make a point”, and so on.

The true reasons for firing me may also include: my development of a new and highly popular “activism course”, my weekly “cinema politica” public event on campus, my weekly on-going campus radio show, inviting critical speakers into my classes, my liberating pedagogical methods focussed on learning rather than obedience, my continued invitations in university classrooms as an invited intervener, and so on.

Rock hoped that firing me would be the end of me:

“With any luck, firing him will get him off campus …”
       -- December 15, 2008 email, Allan Rock to staff

After firing me at an executive meeting that he chaired on March 31, 2009, Rock continued to express his views about me and to search for ways to “get the facts out”:

“Far from having had ‘an impeccable pedagogical career’, Rancourt has spent the last several years undermining pedagogy, denying students access to an education and engaging in a cynical mockery of the whole education process; and

Rancourt is trafficking in fictions to try to save his own skin while recklessly and irresponsibly creating tensions in Ottawa’s religious communities. (As to ‘fiction’, I refer to the example of his lying about me going to Israel last July.)

How best to get the facts out?

Allan”
      -- April 19, 2009 email, Allan Rock to Bruce Feldthusen (then VP, now dean of common law)

In what I believe to be the latest episode to “get Rancourt”, Allan Rock has, following a “recommendation” from Bruce Feldthusen, personally agreed to entirely finance – without a spending limit – a private $ 1 million defamation lawsuit against me, for a blogpost on my “U of O Watch” blog. The private litigant did not contact a lawyer until after the agreement for unlimited funding was made – according to sworn testimonies given in my recent court motion to dismiss the action (ref).

Irrespective of the legal merits of the defamation claim and irrespective of the legal merits of my defence, the plaintiff’s unlimited funding is such that, as an unsalaried self-represented defendant, I find myself pitted against two major law firms (Gowlings and BLG), thus creating a Charter breach to my fundamental rights (ref, at paragraphs 61 to 67).

The legal process is complex and expensive. I am working hard to learn the theory and practice of litigation.

Even if I do not pay legal fees to a lawyer representing me, there are court and proceeding costs, and, most importantly, each time I lose an interim procedural motion I must pay the legal costs of the opponents. On some motions, the University of Ottawa itself is a second opponent (using the BLG law firm).

There have been over ten such motions (or mini-trials) to date and I will soon (this month or next) have exhausted my life savings at this point. If I win a motion, the other side argues that I need not have costs because I am self-represented.

It is obvious to me now that a minimum degree of justice requires at least a minimum of funding.

At stake is freedom of expression on matters of public interest (here, namely, the possibility of systemic racism at the University of Ottawa). At stake is access to justice. At stake is fundamental fairness in the justice system itself in treating self-represented litigants. At stake is the need for SLAPP-informed funding rules in private civil litigation in Ontario.

Please contribute to my legal fund. All donations go to my legal costs to obtain a just treatment before the courts. All court documents are posted to the web.

(LINK: Donate, Legal Fund -- donate web page)

Related articles:

This is what targeting a dissident tenured professor looks like in Canada

Hearings into dismissal of Rancourt reveal much

TVO (TV Ontario) interview with Denis Rancourt:

Hearings into dismissal of Rancourt reveal much

There have now been fifteen days of hearings before labour arbitrator Foisy into the wrongful dismissal case at the University of Ottawa of tenured full professor of physics Denis Rancourt.

The hearing dates have been scattered over the last year and as many more hearing days are foreseen until June 2013. The last four days of hearings were May 14, 15, 16, and 17. The next hearing date is in May 2013.

The University has closed its case after only three witnesses: Two students who complained about the teaching method in an advanced solid state physics course given by Rancourt to twenty three students in the winter 2008 semester and former dean of the Faculty of Science, Andre E. Lalonde.

Most of the week was taken up by the cross examination of Lalonde by counsel for the union Sean McGee, and re-examination of Lalonde by counsel for the university Lynn Harnden. Rancourt started giving his evidence at the end of the week.

The cross examination of Lalonde has revealed what many observers had already inferred about the dismissal:

1. The November 2008 unannounced lockout of Rancourt and his graduate students and post-doctoral associate from their laboratory and offices was meant to permanently render the laboratory unusable (essential materials were permanently removed).
2. The "context" of this November 2008 permanent shut-down, as the former dean explained, was that an upper management group including President Allan Rock had already decided that Rancourt was to be fired; in advance of both the dean's December 2008 "recommendation for dismissal to the Board" and the Board's April 2009 "decision to dismiss". (Allan Rock chaired the April 2009 Board meeting that made the "decision".)

At the time of the lockout, the university had advanced the pretext of a simple change in radiation safety protocol, unannounced to radiation license holder and principle investigator Rancourt. The "new safety protocol" was not written in time for a meeting involving Rancourt's union that followed the lockout.

The cross-examination of Lalonde also revealed that science student Maureen Robinson (aka, Nathalie Page; false Facebook and Google-group identity) had been hired by the university in 2007-2008, was given access to the dean's email account to compile emails about Rancourt, and gave regular reports to both the dean and former university legal counsel Michelle Flaherty (now a co-Chair at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal) that included:

• Surveillance of Rancourt and students.
• Gathering information from third-parties on false pretense.
• Minimizing the "paper trail" of her activities.
• Reporting on student electoral events.
• Reporting on the presence or absence of Rancourt and others at campus and off-campus events.
• Transcribing Rancourt's campus radio show recordings.
• Obtaining recordings of Rancourt's talks on other campuses.
• Attempting to obtain class notes and class communications from Rancourt's courses.
• Using her former contacts at the Fulcrum (student newspaper) to transmit the Fulcrum's information.

These activities were performed with the full knowledge of both Lalonde and Flaherty. Indeed, Robinson routinely joked about what "Nathalie" (her false identity on Facebook and in Google-groups and by email) had been up to and her coming projects.

For example:

"Hi, it's Nathalie. Haha.
(You know, posing as a smiling schoolgirl to get information makes me feel like those police officers who pose as 9-year old girls online in order to catch pedophiles...)"

Several more emails HERE.

Lalonde stated that he had the login name and password to Robinson's fake account (that she had provided only to him) on a 3M sticky note in his office for many months. Robinson wanted him to have it for the periods when she was absent from her work.

Lalonde stated under oath that he discouraged Robinson from performing her surveillance, that she only did this out of "personal interest", and that he accepted receiving the information she provided because of the "climate of fear" that prevailed on campus at the time.

Lalonde explained that science student Marc Kelly had appeared on campus in a white costume and playing "ominous" music ("The institution controls your mind") from a portable sound box, that part of the white costume had been found in Rancourt's laboratory, that he had seen a picture of Kelly in-costume on Rancourt's office door, and that a biology professor had expressed security concerns a-la-Fabrikant to him. Lalonde further explained that if some unauthorized person "anarchist activist" had access to a laboratory with radioactive materials that this had great potential to create "fear in the community". Lalonde also sought advice from a psychiatrist, to advise him regarding Dr. Rancourt's mental state and the risk that he and/or others represented to the University community, regarding these events. For these reasons Lalonde felt that he was justified in using the information gathered by Robinson.

Many of the emails involving Robinson that were disclosed by the university under the requirements of the arbitration had never been disclosed as required by law following an access to information request made by Rancourt in 2008, even under a subsequent appeal with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, not even their existence in the required table of non-disclosed records. It is difficult to understand how this could have occurred. As a result, the access to information request gave essentially no results.


Background articles and links:

• Targeting dissident professor Denis Rancourt, HERE.
• Tribunal hearings page on academicfreedom.ca, HERE.
• All UofOWatch posts about the dismissal hearings, HERE.
• Reports on University's covert surveillance practices, HERE.
• Recent Student's-Eye View reports about the hearings, HERE1, HERE2, HERE3.
• Globe & Mail letter from concerned parent Julia Debono observing Rancourt's 2006 class, HERE.

[2012-06-22: Correction/clarification: "Lalonde also consulted a psychiatrist regarding these events." was changed to "Lalonde also sought advice from a psychiatrist, to advise him regarding Dr. Rancourt's mental state and the risk that he and/or others represented to the University community, regarding these events."]

Tribunal hearing DAYS-5-6-7 in Rancourt's wrongful dismissal case

Hearings before a binding labour arbitration tribunal are on-going in the wrongful dismissal case of tenured full professor Denis Rancourt at the University of Ottawa.

Rancourt was fired using the pretext that he assigned fraudulent grades to all 23 students in one advanced physics course in 2008: It is the on-the-record position of Rancourt's union that the grades allegation was a pretext to remove Rancourt and that the dismissal was done in bad faith.

The particulars of university bad faith advanced by the union include:

• an extended covert information gathering campaign against Rancourt and students,
• a defamation lawsuit against Rancourt funded by the University,
• the removal of Rancourt from all the large introductory courses that he developed,
• a refusal to assign any teaching to Rancourt,
• barring Rancourt from his students and from campus using police,
• barring Rancourt and his students from their laboratory and removing essential materials from the laboratory, and
• refusal to accept document submissions in Rancourt's defense.

Rancourt's documented chronology of the events leading to his dismissal is HERE-LINK.

There have been seven hearing days to date and eight more hearing days are scheduled into May 2012. See the hearings schedule and reports HERE-LINK. See all U of O Watch posts about the hearings HERE-LINK.

On DAYS-5-6 (January 23-24, 2012) the University presented evidence from two student witnesses from the 2008 course in question, followed by cross-examinations and redirect-examinations of the witnesses.

On DAY-7 (February 21, 2012) there was a full day of evidence from the University's main witness, former dean of the faculty of science Andre E. Lalonde. The dean's evidence is expected to continue for at least another full day, followed by cross-examination.

The dean described his relationship with the griever since 1987, including his observations about the griever's career path and evolution towards environmental science and broad societal concerns. He described the creation of the "activism course" (SCI 1101, Science and Society) and his desire to have this course created and approved for professor Rancourt to "explore the consequences of science and technology on our society".

The dean went on to describe how he disciplined Rancourt for "not respecting the intent of the course"; despite Rancourt's responses to the contrary and without ever attending class or performing a teaching evaluation as foreseen in the union rules (collective agreement) and without any student or other complaints.

The latter testimony is part of two grievances being determined along with the main dismissal grievance, as part of the same binding labour arbitration.

All the tribunal hearings are open to the public and media. See schedule and location HERE-LINK.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.

Rancourt wrongful dismissal hearings::: Full disclosure is required

(see video commentary below)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The latter union-advanced particulars include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Message to U of O:
Full disclosure is required

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.

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

"It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them."
-- Michel Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

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



All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.

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

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

http://youtu.be/S_MibU1y8r0

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


All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All posts about the wrongful dismissal hearings: HERE.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.

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

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.

See hearings schedule and reports: HERE.

Chronology of wrongful-dismissal background events: HERE.

.