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?