Extension of Allan Rock’s mandate to 2016

News Releases & Announcements

Extension of Allan Rock’s mandate as President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ottawa

OTTAWA, May 29, 2012 — The Board of Governors of the University of Ottawa is pleased to announce that Allan Rock’s mandate as President and Vice-Chancellor of the University has been extended. The decision was made at the Board’s May 28, 2012 meeting, following a broad consultation with members of the University community. The Board adopted Mr. Rock’s proposal that his mandate be extended until June 30, 2016.

Appointed in July 2008, Allan Rock has guided the University through a period of change and modernization. Under his leadership, the University has focused on improving the student experience, strengthening bilingualism, intensifying research activity and expanding its international links, while modernizing its internal governance structures.

“The Board of Governors is confident that Allan Rock will continue to provide strong leadership as we meet future challenges and implement our strategic plan, Destination 20/20,” said Robert Giroux, Chair of the Board of Governors.

“I am simply delighted to have the opportunity to continue the important work that is now well underway,” said Allan Rock. “I am grateful to members of the Board for their continued confidence. I look forward to working with our outstanding leadership team, as we reach towards the ambitious goals we have set for Canada’s university.”

Allan Rock is the 29th President and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ottawa. A graduate of the University’s Faculty of Law, he practised in Toronto for two decades, becoming one of Canada’s leading trial lawyers. He subsequently spent ten years in Parliament, where he occupied senior cabinet portfolios, including attorney general of Canada, minister of health and minister of industry. He left Parliament to serve a term as Canadian ambassador to the United Nations. He joined the University in 2008.

About the University of Ottawa
The University of Ottawa is the largest bilingual university in the world, where it is possible for students to study in English, in French, or in both languages. Located in the capital of Canada, a G8 nation, we have ready access to the great institutions of our country. Our breakthroughs in health, science, social sciences and the humanities attract global attention, reflecting our ranking among Canada’s top 10 research universities and our ongoing drive to discover.

New site aims to keep academics honest

In the news:

New site aims to keep academics honest 

By Todd Pettigrew | May 29th, 2012 | 3:16 pm

"Little Office" hopes to have a big impact

Photo by jurvetson on Flickr

A new website is meant to keep Canadian scholars honest when it comes to research. The Little Office of Research Integrity posts news related to research misconduct and calls for action when it notices what it sees as problems with intellectual integrity.

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."]

Inside look at the Rock administration -- ATI records posted

“We need to push uottawa team! Less than 30% towards team goal!

What to do? Bribes? Empty promises (it works during elections!)…” 

  - U of O President Allan Rock, June 7, 2011 (record 142)

This is how it works -- Court costs arguments against student

UofO and Professor St. Lewis File Costs Replies (link)

Thierry Giordano honoured for his 2007 viscious verbal attack against a graduate student

This year's Student Appeal Centre's annual award for the "most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students" administrator goes to science vice-dean Thierry Giordano for a private-office verbal intimation and threats he perpetrated against graduate student Philippe Marchand in 2007.

A long-overdue Iron Fist Award for Thierry Giordano, Vice-Dean Governance and Secretary, Faculty of Science (link)

The episode was recorded by the student and the sound tracks are available at the latter link.

More public demands that Rock and St. Lewis drop their legal cost demands against student

Striking Quebec Students Denounce Joanne St. Lewis’ Legal Fee Demands (link)


uOttawa Students to Joanne St. Lewis: “Outrageous and Unjust” (link)


Student Appeal Centre Protests uOttawa’s Demand for Lawyer’s Fees from Student (link)

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

GSAED tells Allan Rock to Drop Lawyer’s Fees Against Students

The graduate student union (GSAED) at the University of Ottawa has written to president Allan Rock to request that the University drop their legal fee submission against graduate physics student and University Senate member Joseph Hickey (GSAED letter is in French; lettre en francais):

GSAED tells Allan Rock to Drop Lawyer’s Fees Against Students (link)

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Students co-sign a letter asking law prof St. Lewis to abandon her legal costs demand against co-student

Twenty three students and community members have co-signed a letter to law professor Joanne St. Lewis asking that she abandon her cost submission to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against physics graduate student Joseph Hickey:

Petition to Social Justice Prof. Joanne St. Lewis to Drop Legal Fees (link)

Hickey sought to have public and media access to the live testimony of public official Allan Rock regarding his use of public funds and student-tuition money to fund a private matter.

The claimed legal costs are for Hickey's court motion to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear an open court motion that requested that public attendance be allowed at the out-of-court cross-examinations of the evidence of U of O president Allan Rock and others in a "maintenance and champerty motion" in which Rock has stated that it was his decision that the university is entirely funding a private libel litigation of St. Lewis as the plaintiff.

Hickey's stated only interest was to have his say on the open court question of public and media attendance at the cross-examinations. Hickey had attended previous such cross-examinations and the Court had barred the public from a re-examination at that time.

For Hickey to have his say in court would probably have taken 15 minutes, as allowed by the judge for an intervener in this case. Instead, the St. Lewis and U of O lawyers argued during half-a-day before the judge against Hickey having his say. The judge then ruled that Hickey would not be allowed to make his statements or bring his evidence and received costs submissions from both St. Lewis and the U of O.

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Gashoka publicly scolds Rock on accountability

Allan Rock, “Why do you refuse to answer?” (link)

Two recent posts about the open court matter in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation

Two elected members of the Senate of the University of Ottawa have sent open letters posted at the Student's-Eye-View blog:


Letter to Prof. Joanne St. Lewis from Kilamanjaro Black Student Association President: “A Travesty of Justice” (link)



Professor Joanne St. Lewis Maintains Demand for Legal Fees from Student (link)

Allan Rock's 2011 income

In 2011 U of O president Allan Rock had a university income of $396,292.

Presumably we can add his estimated parliamentary pension of $63,000., which he is allowed to receive even when being paid with university public funds in a full-time job.

This gives a 2011 income of approximately $459,000.

This income from public and student tuition money is the largest president's income by far far far, adjusted for inflation, of any president of the institution.

It's only fair to ask what Mr. Rock has done and is doing for Canada's university.

What have been the accomplishments beyond the unavoidable population-growth-driven buildings and facilities? And beyond the image marketing?

What are the indicators that matter? Student satisfaction... Reputation of graduates... Societal progress beyond cancer research and the like...

What are students entitled to demand as real improvements?

Student pursued with punitive court costs by U of O for arguing transparency

On March 29-30, 2012 University of Ottawa Senate Member and physics graduate student Joseph Hickey posted these reports on his Student's-Eye-View blog:

• Ottawa Judge Robert J. Smith Excludes Student Media Reporter from Court Transparency Issue

• UofO and Professor Joanne St. Lewis want $5,500 in Legal Fees from Student

Hickey made a motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 28, 2012 to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear a motion to allow public and media access at the cross-examinations of public officials U of O president Allan Rock, U of O chair of the Board of Governors Robert Giroux, and others.

Hickey argued that he has a Charter right to attend the cross-examinations in order to blog-report about the sessions which are held under Court supervision at a private court reporter's offices.

Hickey had attended two previous such cross-examinations in the same St. Lewis v. Rancourt action and had blogged his observations and opinions. Hickey and other members of the public had then been barred by court order to not attend two specific re-examinations in the same action.

This had been followed by an "open court motion" served by the defendant (Rancourt) which was barred from being heard on its merits, leading to Rancourt's motion for leave to appeal, at which Hickey sought to intervene.

It seemed clear to this observer, that Hickey had standing to intervene as both a member of the public and as a member of the media seeking access to a court process, but the judge sided with the plaintiff (St. Lewis) and the U of O.

The U of O had not moved to intervene in the motion for leave to appeal or in Hickey's motion to intervene but was given "automatic" leave to intervene in both motions in the "private" action and used this intervener status to argue (in the person of lawyer Peter Doody) against Hickey and then to claim costs against Hickey for having forced it to argue against Hickey.

St. Lewis (via her lawyer Richard Dearden), whose legal costs are entirely paid by the University of Ottawa, also seeks costs against Hickey, at a punitive level, for having forced her to argue against Hickey's request to have his say.

Justice Robert Smith ruled that Hickey did not satisfy the test to have his say on the matter of his (and public and media) access to court processes pursuant to the Charter. Justice Smith reasoned that Hickey's contribution to the "private" libel action would not serve justice.

“I do not find that Mr. Hickey has an interest or perspective different from the Defendant’s. The nature of the case is also a factor to be considered, and in this case it is a libel action between two individuals. I do not find that Mr. Hickey would make any useful contribution to the resolution of the dispute between Mr. Rancourt and Ms. St. Lewis, or make a useful contribution towards resolving the question of whether or not Leave to Appeal should be granted of Justice Beaudoin’s order or Master MacLeod’s order.”

“I also find that Mr. Hickey would not be adversely affected by the judgement in favour of either Ms. St. Lewis or the Defendant, Mr. Rancourt since this is a private dispute between two individuals.”
– Smith J, March 28, 2012

Justice Smith also explained to Hickey, regarding costs, that an individual who attempts to intervene in a lawsuit must expect a certain financial risk which counters the costs imposed on the opposing parties.

St. Lewis and the university seek to hit the student with one third of his annual salary for asking to have his say about public access to a court process, as a citizen directly affected.

The university has a duty, enshrined in jurisprudence, to defend academic freedom.

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

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

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

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Responding Factums filed, Joseph Hickey intervenes for public and media on open court motion Leave to Appeal

Elected University of Ottawa Senate Member and physics graduate student Joseph Hickey has filed a Motion Record and a Factum as an affected-person intervening member of the public and media in the Defendant's (Rancourt) motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not allow an open court motion to be heard on it merits.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- Plaintiff's lawyer's Factum (Richard Dearden): HERE-Factum.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- University's lawyer's Motion Record and Factum (Peter Doody): HERE-Motion-Record, HERE-Factum.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- Intervener Joseph Hickey's Motion Record and Factum filed: HERE-Motion-Record, HERE-Factum. And Hickey's report: HERE.

The public in-court judicial hearing of the arguments for and against granting leave to appeal will be held at 10:00 AM, March 28, 2012, at the Elgin Street Courthouse, Ottawa.

The central issue is whether court proceedings such as the cross-examinations of the submitted evidence of university president Allan Rock and common law dean Bruce Feldthusen will be public (with media access) or strictly private.

The first matter is for an appeal to be granted towards allowing the arguments for and against public access to be heard.

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

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

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

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Rancourt's Factum filed, motion for Leave to Appeal the Case Conference decision on the open court motion

A factum is a presentation of one's legal arguments.

In a motion for Leave to Appeal a judge's decision, a factum is required.

Rancourt's factum for his motion for Leave to Appeal the case conference judge's decision to not schedule or allow his open court motion was filed on March 19, 2012 and is HERE-LINK.

All court-filed documents are public by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion will be heard at 10:00AM on March 28, 2012 at the Elgin Street Court House in Ottawa. The hearing is open to the public and media, by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court transcript of the February 8, 2012 Case Conference hearing in question is HERE-LINK. The transcript of the case conference is accessible and can be made public by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region's statement about Rancourt's open court motion is HERE-LINK.

The University of Ottawa president is refusing that his cross-examination on his affidavit evidence about how university public funds are being used to finance the litigation be accessible to the public and media. See his affidavit evidence HERE-LINK (at page number "34"). The Plaintiff through her lawyer is arguing that the open court principle does not apply to cross-examinations of affidavit evidence which itself is public.

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

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

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

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: U of O Senate shuts down rather than discuss open court principle

Is it the governing academic body at "Canada's university" or is it a lemonade stand?

Two elected Members of the University of Ottawa Senate duly submitted a motion to their Senate -- the highest governing body of the institution on all academic and freedom of expression matters -- to discuss the open court motion submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which would make the anticipated cross-examination of U of O president Allan Rock open to the public and media, regarding why the President decided to fund plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis' private litigation against defendant Denis Rancourt.

Instead of adding the Senate motion to the agenda, as required by the rules, VP-Governance Diane Davidson, an outsider hand-picked by Allan Rock, decided instead to simply shut down Senate and not have the April meeting of the institution's largest and most significant democratic body.

Davidson justified her move by asserting that the courts had already ruled on the open court principle as it applies to cross-examinations, in contradiction to a recent Statement from the Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region:

Diane Davidson Creates Veto Power to Hide Allan Rock?

Sophistry at the Highest Level: Diane Davidson’s Cancellation of UofO Senate

Of course Davidson's "reason" is just bad lemonade because: (1) the Court allows the cross-examinations to be public if both sides agree, and (2) the Court's decision in question is scheduled for leave to appeal.

This follows the recent sudden departure without notice or explanation of second-in-command VP-Academic Francois Houle, to which the academic community's response was... deafening silence.

Not democracy's finest hour at the institution once known for integrity and institutional continuity.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: 'Open court principle' appeal to be heard

Main updates in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt lawsuit include:


(1) Self-represented Rancourt is advancing a motion to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, the so-called "champerty motion".


(2) As next steps in the "champerty motion" Rancourt will cross-examine:

• U of O President Allan Rock
• U of O Chairman of the BOG Robert Giroux
• U of O Dean of Common Law Bruce Feldthusen
• Ottawa lawyer Celine Delorme

[Cross-examination dates to be set by a judge, see below.]
The University volunteered Rock as the person who directly made the funding decision, after Rancourt proposed to summon Rock as a witness. The Court offered the University an occasion to move that Rancourt's summons to Giroux be quashed but the University declined the offer.

(3) Rancourt has advanced an "open court motion" seeking that all the cross-examinations be open to the public and media.


(4) Rancourt's "open court motion" was quashed by a judge on February 8, 2012.


(5) Rancourt filed a motion for leave to appeal the judge's decision to reject the open court motion and called on the Regional Chief Justice to schedule the appeal prior to the cross-examinations.


(6) The cross-examination schedule was stayed in order for the motion for leave to appeal to be heard in court on March 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM at the Elgin Street Court House. All court proceedings are bilingual, following Rancourt's request to exercise his language rights.


(7) Civil society is reacting to the open court proposal:

The Civil Liberties Association - National Capital Region (CLA-NCR) has published a statement in favour of Rancourt's open court motion: HERE.

University of Ottawa Senate Member Hazel Gashoka has publicly called on Allan Rock to stop refusing a public cross-examination on the question of his decision to finance the St. Lewis litigation against Rancourt: HERE.

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

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

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

Student in battle with U of O over his currency proposal -- METRO News

JESSICA SMITH
METRO NEWS
Published: March 12, 2012 11:39 p.m.

A University of Ottawa student was found guilty Monday of escaping lawful custody in April after he ran away from campus security guards onto an OC Transpo bus while handcuffed.

Marc Kelly has had a series of disputes with the university. In April, he was apprehended for trespassing, at which point he ran away.

“I fled the security guards to try to reach the police before they did,” he said, adding that it was to stop the guards from lying to police about him.

He was charged with mischief, breaching the peace and escaping lawful custody, but the first two charges were dropped, he said.

The judge in his trial heard about his “Blinky Blinkies” — a form of currency similar to the Internet-based currency Bitcoin — because security guards testified that he was throwing them to a crowd of students when he was arrested.

“It’s decentralized, it’s not controlled by the banks,” he said, describing the currency as electronic light pulses. “It’s an innovative idea of replacing money on campus with a campus-specific currency that would enable a market independent of society. It’s one possible solution to eradicating tuition fees.”

Since his arrest, Kelly has been banned from contacting U of O students, faculty and staff because he has developed a mass-email system that he has used to contact them about various things, including his currency, he said.

See all UofOWatch articles about student Marc Kelly

Faculty for Palestine (Canada) calls for action to redress the Allan Rock administration

Today Faculty for Palestine put out this call:


*URGENT CALL FOR SOLIDARITY: UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA TRIES TO SILENCE SOLIDARITY FOR PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS (SPHR) AND WE NEED YOUR SUPPORT!*

Defend the right to critical discussion around Israeli apartheid on our campuses! Call on the University of Ottawa Administration to uphold free expression and follow clear and transparent procedures.

On March 5th, Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) 2012 opened at the University of Ottawa to a packed room, as students, faculty, and community members were treated to an informative lecture entitled “Arab Spring, Apartheid Falls? The Egyptian Uprising and Possibilities for Palestinian Resistance.” It featured an Egyptian activist who played an important role in the revolution that overthrew the Egyptian dictatorship, as well as a community activist from Montreal (for full schedule, see: http://ottawa.apartheidweek.org/).

Moreover, two students from the organizing committee were harassed by unidentified individuals, who on several occasions attempted to intimidate SPHR and Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) just outside the lecture hall during the event.

On March 6th, a member of SPHR received an email from Conventions and Reservations Services at the University of Ottawa telling her that their room booking for Thursday’s Keynote IAW event is now “on hold”, that SPHR “may not continue with this event for now”, and that SPHR's contract was being forwarded to “Protection Service for evaluation.” These heavy-handed measures are because of an unnamed “incident” that supposedly occurred at Monday’s event. When members of SPHR met with the University administration, they were not told what this “incident” was (see below for full email from U of O). The very fact that the organizers were put in a situation, where their event was threatened with cancellation, is a form of intimidation from the University of Ottawa administration.

In 2009, the Administrations at the University of Ottawa and Carleton University banned the international-used IAW poster, gaining national and international headlines. SPHR and SAIA see today's email as another attempt to silence the voices of students who advocate for Palestinian human rights. When the IAW poster was banned in 2009, we stood up and fought back with all of your support.


In response to this email:

Email sent to SPHR from University of Ottawa:

Hello [SPHR member],

Following the incident that occurred during your event in Fauteux 147A on March 5th 2012, your event scheduled for March 8th in Hagen 302 from 18:00 to 23:00 is on hold therefore in ``Pending`` mode. You may not continue with this event for now. Also, I urgently need you to provide the name of the speaker(s) who spoke on the 5th of March as well as the ones that are scheduled to speak on the 8th of March 2012 in Hagen 302. This information needs to be provided to me no later than today. Also, I am forwarding your contract to Protection Services for evaluation. Again, you may not proceed with your event in Hagen 302 on the 8th of March until I confirm.

Please respond to this email promptly

Martin Bergeron
Agent de coordination, Coordination agent
Service de congrès et réservations / Conventions and Reservations Service

UofOWatch Note: The last time this happened the CCLA wrote THIS stern letter of reprimand to Allan Rock. This time, the CCLA boss is Nathalie Des Rosiers, whose salary is paid by the University of Ottawa.

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

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

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former USA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney at University of Ottawa

Former USA Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney led a Black History Month workshop in the Rotunda of Tabaret Hall at the University of Ottawa on February 27, 2012, 7pm to 10pm.

The event was sponsored by PSAC. Co-organizers Hazel Gashoka and Jean-Marie Vianney were highly pleased with the depth and quality of the event. McKinney stressed a multicultural mosaic of allies to fight racism at the University of Ottawa. She showed awareness of local issues and brought her vast experience into play in catalyzing a search for answers.

Shamefully, university president Allan Rock was "out of the country" and left the organizers with the impression that he supported the event while his chief of staff was not even able to provide chairs. The university did provide security, following some Jewish Student Association attempts to intimidate Gashoka away from the event. McKinney is a known critic of Israeli policy against Palestinian rights.

The entire event has been posted in nine parts on YouTube:
http://youtu.be/gLkeghEDMBo

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.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: An array of motions aligned

Some updates in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt defamation lawsuit are as follows.

A chronological list of Court documents is HERE.


After Mandatory Mediation the Plaintiff (St. Lewis) served a motion to force summary judgement and to stop examinations for discovery.

The motion hearing resulted in the case being assigned by consent to Case Management. The Plaintiff dropped her summary judgement demand and now wants a 7 to 10 day trial.

The Plaintiff stopped opposing discovery and now wants discovery in parallel with a Defendant's (Rancourt) motion to stay or dismiss the action.

The Defendant's motion to stay or dismiss is based on alleged maintenance and champerty; or improper funding by the University of Ottawa of the Plaintiff's private lawsuit.

In opposing the champerty motion, university president Allan Rock has provided an affidavit (see 2012-02-21 entry HERE) explaining that he made the decision to fund the Plaintiff's legal costs to sue Rancourt.

The dean of the faculty of common law Bruce Feldthusen has provided an affidavit explaining his role (HERE).

The Plaintiff has provided an affidavit (HERE) explaining how she obtained university funding and why she wants Rancourt to pay $125 thousand in punitive costs to a university scholarship:

"The reason I will donate half of any punitive damages that may be awarded against the Defendant to the Danny Glover Routes To Freedom Graduate Law Student Scholarship fund is to create a record that the Defendant was held to account to the Black community for his destructive use of Black History Month and for his racial slur that I acted as a "house negro" to the President of the University of Ottawa."

All affiants are expected to be cross-examined out-of-court before an officer of the Court.

Rancourt has served a motion (HERE) for the out-of-court cross-examinations to be subject to the open court principle guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would give public and media access to all out-of-court examinations of affiants and witnesses.

The Case Management Judge did not allow Rancourt's open court motion to be filed with the Court and heard on its merits: Judge's decision HERE.

Rancourt has asked for Leave to Appeal the Judge's decision: HERE.

Rancourt has filed a motion (HERE) to stay all out-of-court cross-examinations until his appeal for open court is determined.

Oh, and the University of Ottawa has been granted party status to intervene in Rancourt's champerty motion. Self-represented Rancourt is therefore opposed by two legal teams from two of the largest law firms in Canada, all paid for with student tuition and public money, in the interest of access to justice.

See the chronological list of Court documents HERE.

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

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

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

Telfer of U of O fame named in Fraud probe

CEO Ian Telfer gave $25 million to U of O under university president Gilles Patry's reign, hence the "Telfer School of Management". Related background link: HERE.

February 7, 2012 Toronto Star article:

ONTARIO SECURITIES COMMISSION INVESTIGATING SECURITIES FRAUD RELATED TO HUDBAY; GOLDCORP CHAIRMAN IAN TELFER ALSO NAMED

The OSC (Ontario Securities Commission) will not investigate allegations of health and environmental harms, human rights violations and repression caused directly or indirectly by companies like Goldcorp and Hudbay. However, the OSC will investigate - in defense of the "public interest" - the sharing of insider information. What is supposedly of the "public interest" and of concern to law-makers and investors are not harms and violations caused by mining companies against other people, far away, but improperly sharing investor information.

Source: www.rightsaction.org

Rock administration ordered to follow the law: Must give access to President's emails

From A Student's-Eye View: HERE.

The Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario has ruled on January 25, 2012 (IPC Order PO-3043) that the University of Ottawa has shown unacceptable disregard for the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act in refusing to respond to a University Senator's request for internal communications between President Allan Rock and his (former) Chief of Staff Stephane Emard-Chabot.

The University had flippantly and incorrectly rejected the access-to-information request by claiming that the request was not sufficiently clear. The IPC rebuffed the University and ordered it to perform the search for the emails and provide an access decision.

This illustrates the University's bold disrespect for Ontario's transparency law. The University of Ottawa receives among the highest numbers of IPC orders against it of all universities in Ontario.

Wow

I never thought I would see the day soon when the student media at the U of O would find its voice in the needed criticism of the university administration...

Wow.

The French student newspaper La Rotonde is on fire with being brushed aside by the Rock administration.

Its latest razor sharp editorial is HERE.
An English translation is provided by student senator Joseph Hickey HERE.

The editorial focuses on the internal administrative meltdown that is occurring with five major and sudden departures in the last 12 months or less:

• chief of media relations Andre Dumulon,
• main media mouthpiece,
• chief of staff of the president,
• VP-Academic (second in command) Francois Houle,
• VP-Resources Victor Simon,
• dean of science Andre E. Lalonde,

not to mention the departures since Rock's arrival on campus ... :

• VP-Academic Robert Major,
• Legal Counsel Michel Flaherty,
• VP-Governance Pamela Harrod,
• VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers,
• VP-External,
• President Gilles Patry (in mid-career),
• VP-Research Howard Alper,
• Chair of the BOG Marc Jolicoeur, ...

Will The Fulcrum wake up and participate in this revolution in accountability?

PRESS RELEASE::: International MDs sue U of O for conspiracy to injure -- $120 million claim made public

(OTTAWA, January 30, 2012) – Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.

Discrimination, conspiracy to injure, malfeasance in public office, breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, breach of contract, and negligence are claimed against the University and several of its officials.

Among the individual defendants are Dr. Jacques Bradwejn – Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. James Worthington – Ottawa Hospital’s Vice-President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety, Dr. Paul Bragg – Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education, Dr. Eric Poulin – Chair of the Department of Surgery, Dr. Therry Mesana – Chair of the Cardiac Surgery Division, Dr. Richard Moulton – Chair of the Neurosurgery Division, Dr. Fraser Rubens – Cardiac Surgery Program Director, and Dr. John Sinclair – former Neurosurgery Program Director.

The claim casts a spotlight on the state of medical training of foreign medical residents at both provincial and national levels in Canadian universities and illustrates some of the hurdles faced by foreign doctors at the U of O.

The plaintiffs’ case had garnered media attention in the Spring of 2011 when they held a press conference to announce that they had filed a Human Rights Complaint against the University of Ottawa.

They are represented by lawyers Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka.

For more details please follow the link to the statement of claim: Aba-AlKhail et al. v. University of Ottawa et al. CV-11-440336.

- 30 -

For more information please contact:

Mireille Gervais, LL.L.
Director, Student Appeal Centre
Student Federation of the University of Ottawa
Email: case.cresac@sfuo.ca

Khalid Aba-AlKhail, MD
Cardiac Surgery Program
University of Ottawa

All related posts about this case and the Faculty of Medicine are HERE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canadian university presidents concerned about human rights choose their battles

At a time when Israel, backed by the US and Canada's power elite, is calling for all-out war to destroy Iran; even having a US Zionist pundit call-out in the media for US president Obama to be assassinated by Israel if he won’t attack Iran (Globe and Mail LINK)...

At a time when a major regional war is threatened to satisfy Israeli regime ambitions...

What better time for two university presidents, two champions of Canadian-government-sanctioned human rights advocacy, Allan Rock and Lloyd Axworthy, to point out (LINK, LINK) Iran's human rights violations against Iranian Baha'i educators who had their University of Ottawa degrees stripped from them by the Iranian government?

It is heartening to see these men of principle call out for the protection of human rights irrespective of the political circumstances.

In their own words: "Those who support human rights, who believe in access to education and who deplore repressive governments are increasingly speaking out ..."

Does this mean that we can soon expect our two academic champions of human rights to jointly and publicly denounce the lack of access to higher education for the occupied Palestinians of Gaza, mainly due to Israel bombing the schools, hospitals, and public health infrastructure...?

I hope so. But somehow I fear this will not occur soon.

[Note: This author does not minimize the human rights abuses of Iran or of any state, Canada included. But it seems to this author that influential citizens should be first concerned with the human rights abuses of their own nation and nation's allies, since that is where these concerned actors have the greatest potential influence and responsibility.]

EN FRANCAIS::: L'U d'O oppose le bilinguisme devant les tribunaux

Le professeur titulaire de physique Denis Rancourt a été limogé en 2009 sous prétexte d’avoir attribué des notes frauduleuses aux vingt-trois étudiant(e)s dans un cours de fin de cycle à l’Université d’Ottawa, dans une affaire majeure de liberté universitaire. Son syndicat le soutient dans un procès en cour. En plus l’université finance une poursuite judiciaire de $1 million contre lui pour diffamation, suite à sont traitement d'une professeure de droit d'avoir agit en “reine nègre” pour la position de cette professeure contre un rapport étudiant qui accusait l’institution de racisme systémique.

Récemment (les 24 et 26 janvier) le professeur Rancourt, qui est franco-Ontarien, a décidé de faire valoir ses droits de représentation en français à la fois au tribunal pour le travail et à la Cour supérieure de l’Ontario. Cela a causé des plaintes aigues des avocats unilingues anglophones retenus par l’université. Maitre Richard Dearden, en particulier, a indiqué à la cour qu’il chercherait à imposer des frais punitifs contre le professeur pour « abus de procédure » quand ce dernier devant un refus de la cour se mit simplement à adresser les intervenants en français lors d’une séance juridique, après avoir signalé les règles du Procureur général pour l’Ontario vis-à-vis du bilinguisme devant les tribunaux.

Le professeur de physique tient son blogue anglophone critiquant l’Université d’Ottawa « U of O Watch » depuis 2007. Dans le passé, l’université a menacé deux autres poursuites judiciaires contre le blogue.

Ibrahim Said wrongly dismissed - Medicine Dean Jacques Bradwejn biased against foreign doctor - Judge rules

(Jacques Bradwajn, Dean, Faculty of Medicine, U of O)

On December 30, 2011, a judge ruled (link HERE) in yet another case of wrongful bias and wrongful dismissal in "Canada's university's" (aka U of O) Faculty of Medicine. The national media reported on the ruling early this month:

National Post article HERE.

This time the target was foreign-trained Dr. Ibrahim Said who was denied the certification to continue practicing medicine rather than being promoted to Associate Professor despite an excellent performance evaluation.

The judge is reported to have found that the Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. Jacques Bradwejn, acted with bias against Said. In my view, the circumstances were also not duly ascertained by the Faculty committee responsible to make the recommendation, which found it acceptable to go along with the Dean.

In recent years, at least five non-white doctors have been targeted by the Faculty of Medicine, with devastating career consequences. These are only the known cases that have led to court or tribunal processes.

The Rock administration has not yet seen fit to investigate or intervene but instead is in denial and funds extravagant legal defences against the plaintiffs or complainants. Not to mention the School of Nursing racial discrimination problems, HERE.

All U of O Watch links about the Faculty of Medicine are HERE.

Dean of Health Sciences Denis Prud'homme stands up to Rock administration

In the present U of O climate of obedience a la political party discipline it is breaking news whenever any dean actually acts like a dean!

Here is the only example known to U of O Watch of a dean publicly opposing the Allan Rock administration.

Dean of the Faculty of Health Sciences Dr. Denis Prud'homme is punishing Rock with media exposure for breaking a promise to nursing students to provide adequate space resources. Prud'homme has even compiled an extensive media list about the conflict on the Faculty's web page:



This provides accountability via public exposure.

The University is spending a lot of public money fighting its own students in courts and tribunals, fighting against access to information disclosures, suing a former professor, ..., including fighting to quash or minimize a Faculty of Health Science's Nursing students' Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint for racist discrimination (see below).

It also pays Allan Rock an unprecedented president's salary, in addition to his generous publicly funded MP's pension. (The pension itself is more than most full-time untenured teachers earn.)

It also spends unprecedented amounts for "media relations" and "academic programs marketing", including a two-for-one law degree scam with Israel (and here, here, here).

It also spends a far larger fraction of its budget for "administration" (not teaching or research or community service) than at any previous time in its institutional history.

It seems to this commentator that it could fund a proper 5-story building for the Faculty of Health Sciences. Is the Faculty too francophone? Too independent thinking? Too community oriented? What is the problem? And why break an explicit Allan Rock in-writing promise to Nursing students (HERE)?

After this is fixed (or before) maybe dean Prud'homme could get personally involved in examining how the Rock administration's legal team is treating the Nursing students' Ontario Human Rights Tribunal complaint for racist discrimination (HERE and HERE)...? And maybe look into the systemic racism in his faculty?

In the news (EN FRANCAIS)::: Marie-Josée Berger in hot water?

(Note that the University of Moncton has its short-list candidates for president give public addresses to the university community as part of the selection process. What a concept! Maybe "Canada's university" could take a lesson in democracy here? Would Allan Rock have survived his past, HERE?)

.


capacadie.com (Moncton, NB)
le mercredi 11 janvier, 2012

DIEPPE - Alors que l’Université de Moncton a annoncé, ce mardi, les deux finalistes dans la course pour briguer le poste de recteur de l’établissement, la Fédération des étudiants et étudiantes de l’Université de Moncton (FÉÉCUM) s’inquiète d’une possible nomination de Marie-Josée Berger. Cette dernière a, en effet, été élue l’an passé doyenne la plus inefficace par la Fédération étudiante de l’Université d’Ottawa (FÉUO).

«À première vue, c’est inquiétant, mais il faut donner la chance à la candidate d’apporter sa version des faits», indique ainsi Ghislain LeBlanc, président de la FÉÉCUM.

Intimidation d’une élève lors d’une rencontre privée, menace envers une étudiante qui souhaitait changer de superviseur, non-respect du devoir de répondre aux plaintes des élèves contre certains professeurs... Les accusations portées à l’encontre de Marie-Josée Berger, doyenne de la Faculté d’éducation par le Centre de recours de l’Université d’Ottawa sont lourdes.

Pour toutes ces allégations, ce service proposé par la FÉUO afin d’offrir de l’aide aux étudiants qui désirent faire appel d’une décision administrative de l’université a donc décidé de nommer Mme Berger, Prix du bras de fer 2011.

Cette distinction a pour but de dénoncer l’administrateur de l’université qui a le plus attiré l’attention des agents de recours étudiant par son attitude impitoyable ou injuste et par son manque de respect.

«Je suis en poste depuis 2007 et j’ai donc eu la possibilité d’observer la manière dont la faculté a été gérée par Marie-Josée Berger. Lorsque nous avons créé le prix, il n’y a pas eu d’hésitation. Marie-José Berger a été élue l’Administrateur qui a eu le comportement le plus inacceptable», critique Mireille Gervais, directrice du centre.

De plus, la doyenne de la Faculté d’éducation aurait quelques soucis relationnels avec certains professeurs du département.

«Lorsque l’on a désigné Mme Berger pour ce prix, un membre d’une association de professeurs est venu nous féliciter», explique, ainsi, Mireille Gervais.

Cette dernière nous a également fait parvenir les résultats d’une étude interne établie par l’Université d’Ottawa en 2007. Cette enquête, conduite auprès du personnel de l’établissement, révélait que les professeurs de la Faculté d’éducation étaient parmi les plus mécontents (seconde position) par la gestion de leur département.

De même, plus de la moitié d’entre eux, parmi ceux qui avaient répondu à l’enquête, ne se sentaient pas traités avec respect.

Malgré tout, il convient de relativiser la portée de cette étude dans la mesure où moins de 12 professeurs sur les 75 que compte le corps professoral de la faculté avaient répondu au questionnaire.

De même, il faut prendre avec précaution les plaintes reçues par le bureau du Centre de recours puisqu’aucune n’a été suivie d’effet.

«Les étudiants ont eu peur des représailles», a néanmoins justifié Mireille Gervais.

L’Acadie Nouvelle aurait souhaité parler de toute cette affaire avec Mme Berger, mais cette dernière, en déplacement professionnel, n’a pu nous répondre. Elle aura tout le loisir de s’expliquer lors des consultations publiques auprès de la communauté universitaire de Moncton, qui auront lieu dans les prochaines semaines.

All U of O Watch posts about Marie-Josée Berger: HERE.

.

Remember this? UofOWatch time machine to 2007

Massive U of O survey of staff reveals widespread discontent

Ottawa Citizen report, October 9, 2007

"But the study also flags the stress of mounting workloads and tensions between professors and deans. Those conflicts appear sharpest in the faculties of education and medicine, which consistently reported the highest levels of dissatisfaction."

The faculties of medicine and education have also been those most flagged at UofOWatch.

U of O in the news::: Houle, Berger

• VP-Academic Francois Houle is being escorted out by Allan Rock:

François Houle quitte l'Ud'O

The VP-Academic represented institutional memory under the Rock outside administration. The move is sudden and rather quiet (no press release, no party). Who will Rock name to replace Houle?

• Dean of Education Marie-Josee Berger is on the short-list of two to be the next president of the University of Moncton (New Brunswick):

Nouveau recteur de l'U de M: deux candidats en lice

EN FRANCAIS::: L'affaire Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt -- Radio Coop media de Montreal

L'article

La bande sonore
.

Clickers for teaching, nothing for learning

Senator Joseph Hickey has exposed another administrative scam at the University of Ottawa (LINK).

The admin wants to tailor classroom practice towards more mindless technology that prevents or substitutes human interactions with technological gadgetry. And of course they want to media market the fact that they are doing this, as though it were a good thing.

The best way to manage the behaviours of professors is to offer research money and gold stars of funding for their annual reports...

Meanwhile the disease of PowerPoint has spread to epidemic proportions:

On the sacred space of the university classroom (link)

without any hope in sight.

Societal engineering of the sterile classroom...