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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allan Rock administration lets accused rapist escape out of country

It turns out the U of O admin had a detailed complaint in-hand and let the accused rapist escape.

Maybe Allan Rock was too busy having a committee discuss rape culture, and firing an entire hockey team, to actually protect students...?

Another U of O student reported man now charged with sexual assault

That student – who spoke on the condition that her name not be published – shared with Metro a detailed complaint she emailed to the university about the same man identified by Morin.

The woman sent the complaint on Nov. 30 using her university email account to a member of the school’s Protection Services unit, which investigates crimes that happen on campus.

Courses ended Dec. 9. Fall-term examination period ended Dec. 22. Meanwhile, the accused rapist has escaped to Lebanon, and there is no word that the university asked the police to investigate the broader incidents.

More proof that the Allan Rock rape culture episode was indeed primarily an image management exercise, as reported by concerned students at the time.

Critical examination of Romeo Dallaire's role in Rwanda and connection to Allan Rock

Former Liberal Party of Canada heavyweight U of O president Allan Rock's previous stint was to push military interventionism, as Canada's ambassador to the UN. He then used the university to promote the "responsibility to protect" (R2P) doctrine directly to students and to the Canadian public.

Recently author/researcher Yves Engler critically exposed how R2P has been propped up by biased media coverage of former Liberal senator Romeo Dallaire's role in Rwanda:

"While two decades old, the distortion of the Rwandan tragedy continues to have political impacts today. It has given ideological cover to dictator Paul Kagame’s repeated invasions of the Congo and domestic repression. In addition, this foreign policy myth has been used to justify foreign military intervention as is the case with the current political crisis in Burundi. The myth of Dallaire in Rwanda is also cited to rationalize the Responsibility to Protect doctrine, when, in factm the true story illustrates the inevitable duplicitousness of foreign interventions."

Yves Engler, Romeo Dallaire in Rwanda: The Myth Continues, Dissident Voice, 28 December 2015.