See the blogpost on Activist Teacher, here:
https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-matters-in-dispute-between.html
Showing posts with label legal action. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legal action. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Monday, April 25, 2016
And again
Allan Rock is being himself. Fire an entire hockey team in one case. Don't accommodate a single student for one course in another. Instead, force the student to go legal. That's in character.
University accused of discrimination for requiring dyslexic student to take course in French
Critics say human rights law trumps University of Ottawa's tradition of bilingualism
By Erica Johnson, CBC News
Posted: Apr 25, 2016 5:00 AM ET
Last Updated: Apr 25, 2016 7:54 AM ET
The Student Federation of the University of Ottawa says it has seen many cases where the university has 'failed to provide adequate accommodations.' (CBC)
(Editor's note: We are back. Sorry that we missed March.)
Also follow us on Facebook.
Friday, December 18, 2015
Profs sue uOttawa over executives' pay hike --Ottawa Citizen
Profs sue uOttawa over executives' pay hike
“In its application APUO alleges that these raises are illegal under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, which the Ontario government passed in 2010,” the association said in a news release. “This law stipulates that compensation paid to senior administrators such as Dr. Nemer and Dr. Bradwejn ‘cannot be increased’.”
The APUO represents 1,250 full-time faculty and librarians at the University of Ottawa. It’s the first time the association has taken the university to court, Dekker said. The university was served with the papers Thursday and the application is expected to be filed in court on Monday, Dekker said.
“The university insists that faculty have to prepare for cuts to programs, teaching assistants, library services and so on — students are also paying among the highest tuition fees in the country,” she said. “So we are reasonably asking why the administrators are awarding themselves massive raises while the province has made it clear that administrators are not to receive pay increases.”
Monday, February 3, 2014
Supreme Court of Canada now has all documents in hand to fix Rancourt's unresolved judicial bias complaint
The application gave rise to responses from the respondent Joanne St. Lewis and from the responding party University of Ottawa. Rancourt filed his replies to these responses today (February 3, 2014). The file is now nominally complete for a determination by a panel of three supreme court judges.
The St. Lewis response is posted HERE, or PDF.
The University of Ottawa response is posted HERE, or PDF.
Rancourt's replies are posted HERE, or PDF.
Rancourt essentially argues that if the Supreme Court of Canada refuses to grant an appeal, then Canada will have violated its international obligations to provide an impartial court in civil matters, pursuant to two international agreements:
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Article 10
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
Article 14(1)
1. All persons shall be equal before the courts and tribunals. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, or of his rights and obligations in a suit at law, everyone shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent and impartial tribunal established by law. ...
Rancourt also argues that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself requires that the appeal on the basis of the judicial bias complaint must be heard, because, he argues, access to an impartial court is a Charter right of every individual by virtue of s. 15(1):
Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Rancourt points out that the French text of the Charter (s. 15(1)) is unambiguous on the guarantee of access to an impartial court:
La loi ne fait acception de personne et s’applique également à tous, et tous ont droit à la même protection et au même bénéfice de la loi, indépendamment de toute discrimination, notamment des discriminations fondées sur la race, l’origine nationale ou ethnique, la couleur, la religion, le sexe, l’âge ou les déficiences mentales ou physiques.
Court documents in the overall action and its appeals are HERE.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Rancourt files Factum and Motion Record to appeal costs in the champerty motion
Rancourt's arguments that the $105,700.00 costs should be dismissed or reduced and/or delayed are (from the Factum):
10. The Appellant submits that the test of fairness and reasonableness for leave to appeal costs is amply satisfied, and that the impugned costs decision contains palpable and overriding errors of fact and law, including:
(a) the motions judge exceeded his jurisdiction by awarding costs to the University, which does not have party status, although given leave to file material but not to be awarded costs;
(b) costs for preparation of and attendance at five case conferences were awarded, contrary to binding case law;
(c) partial indemnity costs were awarded to the Plaintiff, in the absence of a need to indemnify, and raising the prospect of double recovery of costs;
(d) the motions judge did not recognize and did not consider ample evidence for the Defendant’s impecuniosity;
(e) in the circumstances of the defamation action, the awarded costs are inconsistent with Charter principles regarding the right to free expression, and definitively restrict the Defendant’s access to justice; and
(f) the quantum of costs ($105,700.00) for the one-day motion is excessive and contrary to the policy of partial indemnity.
Background documents:::
Tuesday, November 5, 2013
Court of Appeal for Ontario November 8, 2013 hearing: St. Lewis v. Rancourt
 |
| Courtroom at the Court of Appeal for Ontario |
The appeal hearing of Defendant/Appellant Denis Rancourt's "champerty motion" will be heard:
- Starting at 10:30 am, scheduled for 50 minutes.
- Friday, November 8, 2013
- Court of Appeal for Ontario (Osgoode Hall), 130 Queen Street West, Toronto
- Courtroom #1 (or as indicates under "St.Lewis v. Rancourt" on the bulletin board in the main entrance)
The three-judge panel will be composed of:
Justice Robert A. Blair
Justice Alexandra Hoy, Associate Chief Justice of Ontario
Justice Robert J. Sharpe
The "champerty motion" was dismissed by the Superior Court of Justice for Ontario (lower court) in this judgement: 2013 ONSC 1564
The latter lower court judgement is now being appealed.
Court documents for the appeal are here:
- 2013-05-09::: Rancourt serves and files appeal to ONCA, to appeal the decision on the champerty motion: Factum and Appeal Book, HERE.
- 2013-07-05::: St. Lewis FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: StL-Factum-ONCA.
- 2013-07-05::: U of O FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: UofO-Factum-ONCA.
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) objects to the funding by the University of Ottawa of the Plaintiff's private defamation lawsuit using public money: LINK-OCLA-page: "Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics".
Main AF.ca page about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case: HERE.
Monday, October 21, 2013
L'ancien professeur [Rancourt] condamné à payer 100 000 $ d'indemnités -- La Rotonde (French media)
L'ancien professeur condamné à payer 100 000 $ d'indemnités (LINK)
Marc-André Bonneau, La Rotonde, 21 octobre 2013
Extract:
Un procès financé par l’argent public
Les frais juridiques de la plaignante sont assumés par l’Université. Allan Rock a alloué un budget sans limite au procès, situation que l’Association des libertés civiles de l’Ontario (ALCO) a dénoncée. L’ALCO a lancé une campagne publique intitulée « Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics », qui a dénoncé qu’il « n’est pas éthique d’un point de vue de la liberté académique, que l’Université s’engage à protéger » le fait que l’administration finance cette poursuite pour diffamation contre M. Rancourt. [...] [article entié ici]
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Canadian Centre for Ethics in Public Affairs article discusses defamation law in our society
Keeping criticism honest and civil (LINK)
By Professor Mark Mercer, CCEPA blog, On October 16, 2013Extract from the article:
I think that the mechanism by which to keep comment and criticism honest and civil is comment and criticism itself. When someone speaks a falsehood about one, speak the truth back. Expose the other’s shoddy evidence or reasoning. When insulted, note that an insult isn’t evidence or argument against one, or even a criticism.
If it is false that [six words removed on June 9, 2014, pursuant to COURT ORDER], explain to the world that you didn’t. If you are upset by a phrase or a tone, criticise publicly the use of that phrase or tone. If you didn’t lie, expose the lie that you did. This all can be done easily and effectively without employing a single lawyer.
There are at least two worries about the strength of this mechanism. One is that people are credulous and won’t respond to the truth, especially if they like the falsehood or it gets repeated. The other is that not many people have access to a medium through which to tell their side of the story.
Saturday, October 12, 2013
Latest legal turn in the U of O "Neuroleaks" saga: Lower court costs decision reported in the media
Saudi doctors who sued University of Ottawa ordered to pay $90,000 in legal costs (LINK)
By Don Butler, Ottawa Citizen October 7, 2013
OTTAWA — Three Saudi doctors whose lawsuit seeking $156 million in damages from the University of Ottawa was thrown out earlier this year have been ordered to pay the university and 10 other defendants $90,000 plus GST in legal costs. (Continue reading...)
The "Neuroleaks" e-mails from the Chairman of Neurosurgery, Richard Moulton, and others conspiring to dismiss Dr. AlGhaithy for making a previous complaint are stored here: LINK. These emails were in evidence in the case. They are worth the read!
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Profs' union at U of O files application to the Ministry of Labour: Seeks an order and award of damages
On July 29, 2013, the professors' union (APUO) had this to say to its members:
Dear APUO members,and continued HERE.
Throughout these negotiations, the APUO believes that the employer has acted in many ways that contravene both the spirit and the letter the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Such actions have included stating false information; refusing to share data they are legally obligated to release; communicating in ways that constitute attempts to negotiate directly with the membership; and now, seeking to intimidate members in order to influence the strike mandate vote planned for July 31.
Since the beginning of this process, it has been clear to the APUO that the employer has been using its vast institutional resources to wage a battle against members and the APUO. Up to this point, the APUO has assumed that members would prefer that we focus on negotiations rather than use the legal system to respond to the employer’s unacceptable actions. We had also hoped that, even if the employer continued its dishonourable actions, it would have at least ceased the ones we believe to be unlawful.
As you all know by now, this has not been the case. With its communications on Thursday and Friday of last week, the APUO can no longer ignore the issue. Peter Simpson (one of CAUT’s most seasoned advisers with more than 20 years experience) said that the employer’s communication was “unprecedented” in his experience, and that “it is hard to read it as something other than an attempt to interfere in the union’s credibility and its communications with its members ahead of a strike vote”.
Therefore, this morning the APUO has responded in the only way possible under the Ontario labour law. We have filed an application to the Ministry of Labour requesting that it (a) investigate the employer’s violations of the Ontario Labour Relations Act; (b) force the employer to disclose information required by the APUO for bargaining and insist that the employer respect the law regarding its communications; and (c) award the APUO damages to compensate for the employer’s illegal activity. You can find more detailed information about this in the Bargaining Bulletin #9.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Monday, June 10, 2013
On-going story of an application to the Supreme Court of Canada
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.
- 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.
Friday, November 30, 2012
Judge rejects ex-professor’s allegations of judicial bias in defamation suit
 |
| Justice Robert Beaudoin |
Related: April 2012 Ottawa Citizen article that gave rise to the apprehension of bias: HERE-LINK.
Related: Transcript of the court hearing at which Justice Beaudoin recused himself is HERE-LINK.
Related: Recent blog article on A Student's-Eye View: HERE-LINK.
Friday, November 9, 2012
Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) Orders U of O to provide an access decision
The University had its access to information officer swear an affidavit that she was required to work long hours of overtime because of the requester's many requests over the years. The University also said that one time the requester cancelled a cheque and did not pay the access fee, and that the requester was misrepresenting the IPC in blog articles critical of the IPC, and that the University staff feared for their safety, and so on.
Adjudicator Haly did not accept the University's arguments, and concluded her ruling as follows (below). She also stated that if unspecified "aspects of the appellant's [requester's] behaviour ... were to continue" then this could possibly provide a basis for a future University claim (to avoid access pursuant to the law).
[60] I adopt the approach set out by the Senior Adjudicator for the present appeal. The appellant has provided the purpose behind his request which is the subject of this appeal. I find his reasons to be reasonable and I find that his request is not for a purpose other than to obtain access. Accordingly, I find that the university has not established section 5.1(b).
[61] In summary, I find that section 10(1)(b) of the Act and section 5.1 of Regulation 460 do not apply to the appellant’s request that is the subject of the appeal. While I have found that the university has not, in this appeal, established that the appellant is frivolous and vexatious, I have found that there are aspects of the appellant’s behavior, that if were to continue, could form the basis of another claim by the university.
ORDER:
1. I do not uphold the university’s decision that the appellant’s request is frivolous and vexatious.
2. I order the university to issue an access decision regarding the request, in accordance with sections 26, 28 and 29 of the Act, treating the date of this order as the date of the request, and without recourse to a time extension under section 27.
Saturday, October 13, 2012
How to find the room number to attend a public Court hearing at the Ottawa Courthouse
The open court principle is a right in a democratic society, including in Canada and Ontario. This means that the court is open to public attendance and scrutiny. The main reason is to secure just behaviour of the courts themselves.
Cases before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa are heard at the Elgin Street Courthouse, corner of Elgin and Laurier.
Even though you know the date and time of a hearing, the court does not publish the room number until the morning of the hearing.
To attend a hearing, therefore, you must arrive early at the Courthouse and find out the room number where the hearing will be held. There should be a list of all the day's hearings and room number's at the security desk (in front of the elevators) on the second floor (main Elgin Street entrance level).
Go to the security desk and consult the list to find the room number. For example, room "34" is on the third floor, and so on. If security does not have the list, then ask them when they will get it or how else you can find the room number. You can always go to the "Civil Counter" on the second floor, as they should also have the list for the day's hearings.
You will need to know the name of the case, such as "St. Lewis v. Rancourt". The list also tells you the name of the judge.
Good luck.
Cases before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice in Ottawa are heard at the Elgin Street Courthouse, corner of Elgin and Laurier.
Even though you know the date and time of a hearing, the court does not publish the room number until the morning of the hearing.
To attend a hearing, therefore, you must arrive early at the Courthouse and find out the room number where the hearing will be held. There should be a list of all the day's hearings and room number's at the security desk (in front of the elevators) on the second floor (main Elgin Street entrance level).
Go to the security desk and consult the list to find the room number. For example, room "34" is on the third floor, and so on. If security does not have the list, then ask them when they will get it or how else you can find the room number. You can always go to the "Civil Counter" on the second floor, as they should also have the list for the day's hearings.
You will need to know the name of the case, such as "St. Lewis v. Rancourt". The list also tells you the name of the judge.
Good luck.
Friday, July 27, 2012
“Ambush” caused judge to withdraw from civil suit, lawyers say -- media article, St. Lewis v. Rancourt
The next day, The Ottawa Citizen updated their article to this (and added a picture):
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Sunday, July 22, 2012
Why donate to my Legal Fund?
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:
Saturday, June 30, 2012
St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Update on the Defendant's "champerty" motion
Justice Robert Smith, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, recently summarized the current status of the lawsuit this way (LINK):
[1] Denis Rancourt (“Rancourt”) is a former professor at the University of Ottawa who publishes a blog. He is being sued by the plaintiff, Joanne St. Lewis (“St. Lewis”), for libel for statements he made in his blog, criticizing the University of Ottawa.
[2] St. Lewis is also a professor at the University of Ottawa who prepared a report which concluded that there was no systemic racism in the University of Ottawa’s treatment of visible minority students. Her legal fees for her libel action against Rancourt are being paid by the University of Ottawa (“University”), which Rancourt alleges constitutes champerty.
[3] Rancourt seeks leave to appeal the decision of Beaudoin J., acting as a case management judge, wherein he refused to allow him to bring a motion (the open court motion) to allow members of the public to attend the cross‑examinations on affidavits that were filed in his champerty motion.
At this time, Rancourt has moved that the action be dismissed for abuse of process ("champerty" motion). That motion hearing will be on August 29, 2012, in open court. The reason alleged is that the University of Ottawa is funding the Plaintiff's entire legal costs with improper motive and stands to benefit from proceeds of the action.
Since the previous update, many events have occurred in the action, including:
- the motion for Leave to Appeal the Court's decision to deny Rancourt's Open Court motion to make cross-examinations public was heard and decided - Decision (LINK);
- a motion by student Joseph Hickey to intervene in the Leave to Appeal motion of Rancourt was heard and denied (no written decision was provided);
- legal costs were ordered against Rancourt for his Leave to Appeal motion - Costs Decision (LINK)
- legal costs were ordered against student Hickey for his motion to intervene - Costs Decision (LINK)
- a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Plaintiff by the Defendant was held;
- a seven-hour discoveries examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff's lawyer was held;
- the Chair of the U of O Board of Governors, Robert Giroux, was cross-examined as a witness by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the examination (LINK)
- the President of the U of O, Allan Rock, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK)
- the Plaintiff, U of O law professor Joanne St. Lewis, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Trancript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
- the Dean of the U of O common law faculty, Bruce Feldthusen, was cross-examined as an affiant by Rancourt for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK);
- a lawyer for the U of O (in the Rancourt dismissal arbitration case), Celine Delorme, was cross-examined for the "champerty" motion - Transcript of the cross-examination (LINK), Exhibits at cross-examination (LINK);
- Both the University and the Plaintiff declined to cross-examine the Defendant on his two affidavits in the "champerty" motion - First affidavit (LINK), Second affidavit (LINK);
- Rancourt filed a refusals and productions motion to seek orders compelling the witness and affiants to answer refused questions in the "champerty" motion examinations;
- The first day of hearings for the refusals and productions motion in the "champerty" motion was held on June 20, 2012, continuing on July 24, 2012 in open court.
The chosen counsel had been suggested by the Plaintiff's Dean, Bruce Feldthusen, who, according to his testimony, made a strong appeal to Rock that the University had a responsibility to fund the litigation (to sue Rancourt).
The Chair of the Board of Governors provided sworn testimony establishing that Rock had never informed the Board about the fact that the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim sought $125 thousand for a university scholarship fund (that St.Lewis had spearheaded). The Chair learned this fact for the first time at the April 18, 2012 examination of him by Rancourt.
All transcripts and many of the court documents are provided as links HERE.
Wednesday, June 6, 2012
Faculty of Ed student continues to sue U of O
April 18, 2012
Court rules students may sue universities, in some cases
Ontario Appeal Court decision could have wide repercussions.
A recent decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal has effectively established a small, newly defined area in which universities no longer have exclusive jurisdiction in disputes with their students. Students seeking money as a remedy for consequences that impact on their academic situation will be able to use the precedent of the case of Manon Gauthier.Ms. Gauthier was a doctoral student in education at the University of Ottawa who did not graduate because, she maintains, the university was negligent and in breach of contract in not providing her with adequate thesis supervision. >>>more>>>
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
