Justice corrompue, Zabo vs. Université d'Ottawa --ebook

  Justice corrompue, Zabo vs. Université d'Ottawa: Connaître vos droits et savoir vous battre pour rétablir la justice (Volume 1). (French Edition) Kindle Edition

by Zeph Zabo (Author)

Published: 31 January 2016 

"Basé sur une histoire vraie, macabre et très dévastatrice, ce livre constitue le fruit du combat herculéen de l’auteur pour le rétablissement de la vérité et de la justice dans cette affaire judiciaire connue et répertoriée sous le nom Zabo vs. Université d’Ottawa. Il vise aussi à préserver la justice, la liberté, l’égalité, l’excellence et les valeurs morales au sein des institutions universitaire et judiciaires concernées.

Il fait le récit d’une histoire de barbarie, de corruption, d'une culture de violation des règlements, de violation abusive du contrat université-étudiant, de parodie et déni de justice en milieu universitaire.

Dans ce récit émouvant et plein de rebondissements, qui s’appuie notamment sur les affidavits sous serment des deux directeurs du programme de doctorat en droit de l’Université d’Ottawa témoignant en faveur de l’étudiant concerné, l'auteur dénonce vigoureusement la crucifixion dont il a été victime et le calvaire vécu."

"Free Speech is Dead in Canada (video)"--Brave The World

A video report about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit at the University of Ottawa, by Julia Tourianski of Brave The World, was published today: LINK.

Allan Rock is lucky to dodge this bullet, for the suspension decision was an unjust and irrational response to the known facts--National Post

FULL COMMENT
Barbara Kay, National Post
July 15, 2015

... As a case in point, you may recall that in 2014, when two players from the University of Ottawa hockey team were charged with one count of sexual assault each while partying during a trip to Thunder Bay, the whole team was suspended and the rest of their season cancelled. Twenty-four team members, who had nothing to do with the incriminating sexual incidents, are seeking a combined $6 million for damage to their reputations.

The U of Ottawa sought to have the lawsuit dismissed, but an Ontario court has just found that the suit’s claims that the school was negligent are admissible for trial, and also found the decision to suspend the hockey team was outside the university’s broad discretion to manage academic affairs.

The proposed suit would have charged U of Ottawa president Allan Rock with malfeasance in public office, but the court ruled the charge was not sustainable. Rock is lucky to dodge this bullet, for the suspension decision is down to him in the end, and it was an unjust and irrational response to the known facts surrounding the sexual incidents. ...

Use the labels below to find all related blogposts.

Alan Rock has had a long career of dodging "ethically challenged" bullets, both in parliament and on campus. See partial and not-up-to-date list HERE.

Hockey players can sue U of O, judge rules, BUT...

Hockey players can sue U of O, judge rules

Andrew Seymour, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: July 10, 2015 | Last Updated: July 10, 2015 4:29 PM EDT :

 

[...] And while Ontario Superior Court Justice Kevin Phillips agreed that the lawsuit’s claims against Rock for malfeasance in public office and that the university breached its fiduciary duty were not sustainable, he found that the player’s claims that the school was negligent should be allowed to go to trial.

Phillips also found that the decision to suspend the hockey team for the remainder of the 2013-14 season and all of the 2014-15 season was outside the university’s broad discretion to manage academic affairs and could be subject to a civil claim. [...]

In the lawsuit, Creppin alleges that the university and Rock tarnished the reputations of all the other players when it suspended the team without due process or the completion of an investigation amid sexual assault allegations.
In his decision allowing the lawsuit to proceed, Phillips found there could be room for such an argument to be made.

“The actions taken by the defendants could in their full measure be construed as acts of public discipline meted out as a consequence of an allegation of sexual assault, directed at a group of students known to be uninvolved,” wrote Phillips. “That is arguably a declaration that those to be on the receiving end of the punishment have done something deserving of it.

“Arguably the public assignment of culpability with respect to criminal wrongdoing should be left to those with the skill set and mandate for that function,” Phillips added.

While the university didn’t owe a duty of care to varsity athletes to offer a hockey program, there is a duty of care toward students who are athletes, the judge found.

However, Phillips ruled that the players’ claim that Rock acted maliciously couldn’t proceed. The players’ alleged in their statement of claim that Rock was more worried about the university’s image and fundraising efforts when he suspended the team, condemned the misconduct, and fired the coach.
“University President Allan Rock had a legitimate and complex task to perform with respect to managing the fallout from the hockey team’s road trip to Thunder Bay,” Phillips wrote. “Malice is not the only, or indeed the most reasonable, inference that can be drawn from the fact that Mr. Rock made a decision that had negative consequences to some.”

Creppin’s lawyer, Lawrence Greenspon, said they were disappointed portions of their claim were struck, but pleased the lawsuit would proceed. Greenspon said he felt the “crux and core” of their argument was reflected in the decision. [...]

BUT... This is incredible. The university simply asks that a lawsuit be struck, and a judge strikes out a claim prior to allowing discovery or evidence to be entered and tested, by simply pontificating that "Malice is not the only, or indeed the most reasonable, inference that can be drawn from the fact that Mr. Rock made a decision that had negative consequences to some."

That finding is suppose to be for the jury to decide, AFTER disclosures (discovery), witnesses, evidence, and cross-examinations, not for a judge to wave his arms in advance and decide that you can't sue Allan Rock.

The same happened with a lawsuit against Stephen Harper, HERE. Barring access to the courts for lawsuits against establishment show pieces appears to be a systemic practice.

If this occurred in North Korea we would conclude that, obviously, the courts are rigged to protect those with establishment visibility, and what a joke that the government can simply deny entry to the courts when one has a claim that is supported by publicly known facts...

When will any lawyers or their associations speak out publicly about this systemic sham? How can the judges be so shameless? How can this be occurring without public and institutional outcry?

Ottawa lawyer argues that Allan Rock acted in malice and bad faith

Throw out hockey player lawsuit, University of Ottawa asks judge
Andrew Seymour, Ottawa Citizen
Published on: June 25, 2015

...

Greenspon said the players are seeking damages for Rock’s decision to go public and tar all the players with the same brush after the allegations of sexual misconduct first arose. Greenspon alleged that Rock knew at the time that only two players were allegedly involved, and that Creppin and at least four other players weren’t even at the hotel at the time of the alleged incident.

Greenspon said Rock, as a former federal justice minister, knew better than anyone the damage such serious sexual misconduct allegations could cause to the players who weren’t involved. Greenspon alleged Rock acted in malice and bad faith, and the lawsuit should be allowed to proceed to trial to allow a judge to decide whether the school and Rock were negligent.

“Mr. Rock chose to convene these national press conferences and damn these individuals when he knew they were not involved,” said Greenspon.

“He acted in a deliberate, calculated and punitive way, despite that knowledge,” alleged Greenspon. “He did that branding on young men he knew were innocent.”

U of O to try to strike hockey lawsuit -- Ottawa Sun

U of O to try to strike hockey lawsuit (LINK)

"The university and its president, Alan Rock, filed a notice of motion this week seeking to strike the $6-million lawsuit filed by player Andrew Creppin."

The motion to strike is scheduled to be heard in June, when the students are away.

Waaaa -- Habitual dishonesty -- Turns out Allan Rock did it again -- based on the Globe & Mail article of today

With the hockey team distributed-discipline machination this time...

Remember when Allan Rock let VP-Academic Francois Houle take all the heat for a letter he instructed Houle to write to Ann Coulter (LINK)? That was something. Took him weeks to come out and admit it, after it was disclosed through access to information...

Well now the national media are reporting that Rock's "independent report" about the hockey team was (not just a disingenuous public-image maneuver as students claimed but) actually a covert preemptive tactic against anticipated lawsuits.

There you have it. Hockey team members participated in good faith in what they thought was an independent investigation, which was actually the work of Rock's hired lawyers preempting any legitimate legal action that those same hockey players might need to take to repair the damages caused by Rock.

Then that so-called "independent investigation" was used to punish the entire team but without disclosing the report to them. That's a good educational example to give: "Take that and now go and ponder why I punished you!"

The Globe & Mail reported today -- "University of Ottawa hockey team probe was part of legal strategy":

Last June, university president Allan Rock told a news conference that independent investigator Steven Gaon had delivered a report. Rock said the university fired hockey coach Real Paiement based on the finding he did not inform school officials about the Thunder Bay incident.

In a subsequent letter to The Globe and Mail, Rock said the investigation also “disclosed widespread behaviour that was disreputable and unbecoming of representatives of uOttawa and suggested an unhealthy climate surrounding the team.”

Gaon was actually hired and directed by the law firm Norton Rose Fulbright Canada, which in turn had been retained by the university.

“Norton Rose Fulbright … retained an independent investigator to probe the facts underlying the allegations, in order to be in a position to give legal advice to the university on potential legal claims arising from the men’s hockey team matter,” the firm said in a submission to Ontario’s Information Commissioner in December.

The Canadian Press lodged a complaint with the commissioner’s office after the university refused to release any part of the investigation’s findings under the province’s freedom of information law.

In May, Gaon delivered not one, but two reports – one about allegations of sexual misconduct and the other on excessive drinking. Those reports were also prepared “for use in giving legal advice,” according to university lawyer David Bolger.

The university said in a June press release that Gaon’s findings would not be published “to avoid any interference with the ongoing police investigation and out of respect for the university’s privacy obligations.”

But in its submissions to the information commissioner, the university cites as its primary concern the fact that the records are considered legal advice.

Disclaimer: The statements herein about Allan Rock's "habitual dishonesty" are not statements of fact. The said Allan Rock's dishonesty has never been proven and is solely my opinion. These are my opinions based on the cited media and blog reports, and the public knowledge reported therein.

More than twenty Gee-Gees hockey players will sue Allan Rock -- says CBC

University of Ottawa men's hockey players to file class-action lawsuit -- Lawrence Greenspon representing all players who aren't facing charges

CBC News, Ottawa, January 13, 2015

Unless this is settled out-of-court, Allan Rock will have left his ugly mess with the next president for the next many years.

We look forward to Rock's secret internal report being eventually released as part of litigation. Will it justify wrecking the reputations and careers of 24 university athletes?