See the blogpost on Activist Teacher, here:
https://activistteacher.blogspot.com/2019/01/the-matters-in-dispute-between.html
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Monday, June 25, 2018
U of O's first law dean was an unprincipled creep
MEDIA ARTICLE:
Pratt: Why it's time to rename University of Ottawa's Fauteux Hall
UofOWatch reaction:University of Ottawa - L’Université d’Ottawa's first law dean was an unprincipled creep.
Keep the building name Fauteux as a reminder.
Law students should be reminded to consider a different career path.
Two Gee-Gees hockey players found not guilty of sexual assault
The trial verdict is::: Not guilty.
The reaction of the University of Ottawa was to put out a press release defending former president Allan Rock's decision to punish the entire hockey team with indefinite suspension.
The University decided to further defame the hockey players rather than admit that Rock over-reacted in a politically motivated move to manage liability to the university's image:
The University of Ottawa will not comment on the decision rendered today by the Ontario Court of Justice in the sexual assault trial of two former Gee-Gees hockey players.
As we have stated previously, the University’s 2014 decision to suspend the men’s hockey program was based on the serious nature of allegations against team members and following the results of an independent investigation into the events in Thunder Bay that illustrated widespread misconduct unbecoming of University representatives. Today’s court ruling has no impact on that decision.
Additionally, the University has presented its statement of defense in a related class action lawsuit. Our statement speaks for itself and the University will not comment further on its substance.
Since 2014, the University of Ottawa has taken several key steps to counter sexual violence and harassment on campus, including the creation of a Task Force on Respect and Equality, along with an Action Team to implement the Task Force’s recommendations.
The University followed up on these efforts with the development and adoption in 2016 of a campus-wide policy on the prevention of sexual violence. This survivor-centric policy aims to maintain a campus culture that fosters respect for every individual in a University-wide environment that is free of harassment, discrimination and sexual violence. This policy takes into consideration how difficult it is for survivors to come forward.
Following the suspension of the hockey program, the University implemented new measures to provide student-athletes, coaches, administration and support staff in all varsity and competitive club sports with the support they need to ensure respectful and appropriate conduct. The University believes that these measures have fostered a positive environment for student-athletes and coaching staff.
The men’s varsity hockey program was relaunched in 2016 and this past season, the team made the playoffs for the second consecutive season under the leadership of Patrick Grandmaître.
LINKS TO MEDIA REPORTS ABOUT THE VERDICT:
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/former-university-of-ottawa-hockey-players-not-guilty-of-sexual-assault-1.3988142
http://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/former-uottawa-hockey-players-found-not-guilty-of-sexual-assault
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/guillaume-donovan-david-foucher-live-1.4716283
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2018/06/25/former-university-of-ottawa-hockey-players-acquitted-on-sex-assault-charges.html
Thursday, April 5, 2018
It happened at the University of Ottawa: Psychiatrist Louis Morissette Should Be Barred From Practice
By Denis Rancourt, PhD
This article was first published on Dissident Voice (LINK).
The Quebec medical tribunal will decide if psychiatrist-for-hire Louis Morissette was allowed to provide a hatchet job based on hearsay.
The review committee of the medical tribunal of Quebec will decide within 90 days whether or not anyone anywhere, such as a political party or institution or individual in any province or state, can hire a Quebec expert psychiatrist to render a medical opinion about an opponent without interviewing or even informing the individual.
The said medical opinion could be made without any medical record or clinical evaluation or verification of information, and then used publicly or otherwise for political or institutional purposes.
This happened to me, with devastating consequences.
I only found out by chance, years later, thanks to an investigation into my 2008 dismissal from the University of Ottawa, which is still in litigation.1,2,3
I filed a complaint to the medical tribunal as soon as I could. I have publicly posted the entire complaint, the intake investigator’s conclusions, and my appeal of the said conclusions.4
This is what occurred, in the most neutral terms I can muster.
Dr. Louis Morissette, a psychiatrist licenced by the province of Quebec, agreed to conduct a secret medical evaluation of an individual who was critical of his employer. The psychiatrist evidently agreed to the employer’s request that he work without informing the individual. The psychiatrist never contacted the individual, never tried to contact him, and never even claimed that he tried to contact him.
The psychiatrist did not use any medical records whatsoever. Instead, he relied entirely on false intimate personal information provided by the employer, which he never attempted to verify, and on media reports selected by the employer.
On this basis alone, the psychiatrist wrongly labelled me a dangerous person, causing me to be exiled from my community, following his definitive recommendations to that effect. Years later, when I found out that the psychiatrist had medically evaluated me, he refused to give me a copy of his report.
Morissette has a long documented record of evidence-based alleged and proven violations that the Collège des médecins du Québec has ignored.
These include the following that I added to my complaint, with the evidence:
I filed an appeal on April 2, 2018, and the review committee has 90 days to make its decision about whether this sort of thing is allowed.
It must not be allowed. Otherwise, we are no better than any totalitarian regime that mines rumours and false accusations to legitimize state actions, and psychiatrists are no better than opportunists-for-hire in such a system.
It is also of note that the vice-president-governance of the University of Ottawa who coordinated the collection of hearsay about my intimate personal information, for use by the hired psychiatrist to render his secret “psychiatric opinion”, was Nathalie Des Rosiers.
Des Rosiers subsequently became Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) for a time and is now an elected member (MPP) of the Ontario parliament and a minister in the government.
The university did not inform me of its actions, and vigorously opposed my access to the psychiatric report until the final hour of an appeal in litigation for access in 2017.5
This article was first published on Dissident Voice (LINK).
The Quebec medical tribunal will decide if psychiatrist-for-hire Louis Morissette was allowed to provide a hatchet job based on hearsay.
The review committee of the medical tribunal of Quebec will decide within 90 days whether or not anyone anywhere, such as a political party or institution or individual in any province or state, can hire a Quebec expert psychiatrist to render a medical opinion about an opponent without interviewing or even informing the individual.
The said medical opinion could be made without any medical record or clinical evaluation or verification of information, and then used publicly or otherwise for political or institutional purposes.
This happened to me, with devastating consequences.
I only found out by chance, years later, thanks to an investigation into my 2008 dismissal from the University of Ottawa, which is still in litigation.1,2,3
I filed a complaint to the medical tribunal as soon as I could. I have publicly posted the entire complaint, the intake investigator’s conclusions, and my appeal of the said conclusions.4
This is what occurred, in the most neutral terms I can muster.
Dr. Louis Morissette, a psychiatrist licenced by the province of Quebec, agreed to conduct a secret medical evaluation of an individual who was critical of his employer. The psychiatrist evidently agreed to the employer’s request that he work without informing the individual. The psychiatrist never contacted the individual, never tried to contact him, and never even claimed that he tried to contact him.
The psychiatrist did not use any medical records whatsoever. Instead, he relied entirely on false intimate personal information provided by the employer, which he never attempted to verify, and on media reports selected by the employer.
On this basis alone, the psychiatrist wrongly labelled me a dangerous person, causing me to be exiled from my community, following his definitive recommendations to that effect. Years later, when I found out that the psychiatrist had medically evaluated me, he refused to give me a copy of his report.
Morissette has a long documented record of evidence-based alleged and proven violations that the Collège des médecins du Québec has ignored.
These include the following that I added to my complaint, with the evidence:
- judicially proven lying while giving expert testimony in court;
- giving expert opinion in a criminal proceeding without consulting the relevant scientific research literature;
- an appellate court finding of his reprehensible behaviour;
- giving an in-court expert opinion of the harmlessness of mass-murderer Karla Homolka based on 3½ hours of interview;
- being in conflict of interest while recommending release of double-child-murderer Guy Turcotte;
- destroying his appraisal-session interview notes immediately and prior to termination of criminal legal proceedings and engaging in such disallowed practice since 1983;
- requesting double payment for the same service by claiming the same accused person both as patient and legal client;
- performing such a large amount of opinion-for-hire contracting for clients as to affect his professional independence, put him in conflict of interest, and influence the quality of his practice; and,
- exercising his profession in a jurisdiction in which he is not a certified practitioner.
I filed an appeal on April 2, 2018, and the review committee has 90 days to make its decision about whether this sort of thing is allowed.
It must not be allowed. Otherwise, we are no better than any totalitarian regime that mines rumours and false accusations to legitimize state actions, and psychiatrists are no better than opportunists-for-hire in such a system.
It is also of note that the vice-president-governance of the University of Ottawa who coordinated the collection of hearsay about my intimate personal information, for use by the hired psychiatrist to render his secret “psychiatric opinion”, was Nathalie Des Rosiers.
Des Rosiers subsequently became Director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) for a time and is now an elected member (MPP) of the Ontario parliament and a minister in the government.
The university did not inform me of its actions, and vigorously opposed my access to the psychiatric report until the final hour of an appeal in litigation for access in 2017.5
- “Academic Freedom? How Nasty Can a University Be?” by Denis Rancourt, Dissident Voice, February 17, 2018.
- “Denis Rancourt’s letter to president Jacques Frémont, University of Ottawa”, with three attached supporting letters from Hazel Gashoka, Jean-Marie Vianney, and Cynthia McKinney, January 8, 2018.
- “Did University of Ottawa Persecute a Professor on Its Faculty? A Petition in Support of Denis Rancourt”, March 2018.
- “Book Of Complaint Against Psychiatrist Louis Morissette With Appeal To CdR CMQ”, by Denis Rancourt, April 2, 2018.
- “Book: All arguments of parties and intervener in Dr. Denis Rancourt’s constitutional challenge of Section 65(6)3 of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, at judicial review, in the Divisional Court for Ontario, Court File No.: 17-DC-2279”, Ontario Civil Liberties Association, March 2018.
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Denis Rancourt's letter to president Jacques Fremont of the University of Ottawa, Canada
This is about my own case of the University of Ottawa's egregious violations of my academic-freedom, civil and Charter rights, over many years. One rarely has the evidence of how far they can go.
This post is from my main blog, here: http://activistteacher.blogspot.ca/2018/02/denis-rancourts-letter-to-president.html
Sunday, January 21, 2018
Doctor Donald Kilby disciplined by CPSO following allegations of sexual exploitation of sick Black foreign student at U of O
 |
| Dr. Donald Kilby accepting the Nelson Mandela Humanitarian Award in 2014. |
Recent criminal charges of a medical doctor covertly filming a young female patient at University of Ottawa Health Services causes one to examine that institution.
U of O Watch has discovered that the Director of Health Services, Dr. Donald Kilby, has been disciplined by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) for alleged financial coercion of a Black foreign student and patient for sexual service.
In its October 19, 2017 discipline report, the CPSO puts it this way:
[...] A patient (whose country of origin is outside Canada) complained to the College that after initiating financial support for the patient’s studies in Canada, Dr. Kilby said he would not continue to support the patient unless they were sexually intimate. The patient was also concerned that Dr. Kilby treated him for a certain condition and offered to give him a related vaccine, but then said the vaccine would cost $1500; the patient also claimed that Dr. Kilby did not tell him of risks associated with the patient’s condition.
Dr. Kilby denied the patient’s claims. He said he absolutely never made any suggestion to the patient that his financial support was conditional upon entering into a sexual relationship. He acknowledged treating the patient’s condition, but said he never gave him incorrect information and that he offered the patient employment at a clinic to help pay expenses, which could include a vaccine.
[...] As to the concern that Dr. Kilby threatened to withhold funds from the patient unless they engaged in a sexual relationship, the Committee concluded that a referral to the Discipline Committee was not warranted in all the circumstances of the case, as there was no reasonable prospect of successfully prosecuting the concern.
However, the Committee stated that it did have concerns about Dr. Kilby’s overall understanding of boundaries with patients, noting:
• The investigative record describes how Dr. Kilby has funded many students to come to Canada for university education, and how (among other forms of support) he has arranged (and often paid for) things such as part-time work and housing for them.
• By Dr. Kilby’s own admission, he provided episodic treatment to the patient (whether he made statements attributed to him about a vaccine was unknown to the Committee),and he admits to treating some of the other students for whom he provided financial support.
• Dr. Kilby indicated that, on reviewing the College policy, Physician Treatment of Self, Family Members or Others Close to Them, he recognized it could be perceived that the students fell under the definition of “others close to him.”
• Dr. Kilby indicated he has taken steps to ensure he will not treat the patient and he has drafted a letter to the other students under his care advising he was making arrangements to transfer their care.
The Committee noted that while it was important that Dr. Kilby has recognized the problem in treating the students whom he sponsored and often continued to support financially, the Committee was concerned by his actions to begin with, which reflected poor judgement on his part. The Committee said it needed reassurance that Dr. Kilby will not treat these students going forward, and that he fully understands his obligations in not treating those close to him and maintaining appropriate boundaries with patients at all times. The Committee decided the two-fold disposition set out above was appropriate in all the circumstances of this case.
Friday, June 16, 2017
Former U of O Chancellor Michaelle Jean luxuriously "represents" francophone Africa
Paul Arcand (98.5 FM, Montreal) recently interviewed former Governor General of Canada and former Chancellor of the University of Ottawa (under the Allan Rock presidency) Michaelle Jean about her expenses and her role as Secrétaire générale de l'Organisation internationale de la Francophonie (OIF):
Her justifications are exactly what they sound like (in French).
The interview was in response to disclosures in the Monreal popular press (LINK), and was followed by more (LINK).
Radio Canada this morning commented that her travel and living expenses are excessive, that her professional capacities are not up to the task, compared to her OIF predecessor, and that the Arcand interview illustrates these points.
Her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond recently made a National Film Board feature-length documentary film about her: HERE. Lafond defended his project to the media HERE.
A 2010 CBC profile of Jean is HERE.
Other U of O Watch blogposts that mention Michaelle Jean are HERE. Her Rock appointment at U of O was done in secrecy and had some controversy.
Her justifications are exactly what they sound like (in French).
The interview was in response to disclosures in the Monreal popular press (LINK), and was followed by more (LINK).
Radio Canada this morning commented that her travel and living expenses are excessive, that her professional capacities are not up to the task, compared to her OIF predecessor, and that the Arcand interview illustrates these points.
Her husband Jean-Daniel Lafond recently made a National Film Board feature-length documentary film about her: HERE. Lafond defended his project to the media HERE.
A 2010 CBC profile of Jean is HERE.
Other U of O Watch blogposts that mention Michaelle Jean are HERE. Her Rock appointment at U of O was done in secrecy and had some controversy.
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Rancourt's union refused leave by the Supreme Court of Canada
The latest development in the Rancourt academic freedom case is reported on the Activist Teacher blog:
Latest development in my academic freedom case: Supreme Court refuses to fix administrative tribunal law (LINK)
Sunday, September 11, 2016
Professor Jan Grabowski expresses concern about historical precision
uOttawa called itself "Canada's university" under Allan Rock, and
"Canada's university" showed itself to be very concerned about Israel's
image, via many notable events.
"Jan Grabowski is Professor of History at the University of Ottawa and
Senior Invitational Scholar at the Advanced Holocaust Studies Center at
the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. He received the 2014 Yad
Vashem International Book Prize for Holocaust Research for his book
Judenjagd."
Here (September 11, 2016 -- Haaretz), professor Grabowski suggests that a country would use the "powerful machinery of state" to shape history to its advantage and to make laws to facilitate such. He's referring to Poland of course:
The students need to organize an academic debate between professor Jan Grabowski and doctor Norman Finkelstein, author of the authoritatively documented book The Holocaust Industry. The topic of state interference on historical precision is too important to leave to opinion media articles.
Here (September 11, 2016 -- Haaretz), professor Grabowski suggests that a country would use the "powerful machinery of state" to shape history to its advantage and to make laws to facilitate such. He's referring to Poland of course:
The students need to organize an academic debate between professor Jan Grabowski and doctor Norman Finkelstein, author of the authoritatively documented book The Holocaust Industry. The topic of state interference on historical precision is too important to leave to opinion media articles.
Friday, July 8, 2016
Professor Yoni Freedhoff writes about Palestinian terrorism, on his nutrition and healthy diet blog
University of Ottawa's professor Yoni Freedhoff (Faculty of Medicine) has a popular blog about nutrition and body weight (link on image). Every Saturday he draws his readers' attention to a few articles of broad societal interest.
Last Saturday (July 2) he recommended this article about "Palestinian terrorists in Israel".
I look forward to his upcoming recommendation about US-funded "Israeli terrorism perpetrated by Israel". I wonder if he will make that reading suggestion, since he usual recommends a balanced diet?
Friday, June 17, 2016
Allan Rock 'hopes' to become a law professor
Allan Rock's 8-year presidency at the University of Ottawa (Canada) ends this month (June 2016).
There has been some speculation about whether or not the newly elected Trudeau government would give the former federal minister and former Liberal candidate for Prime Minister a status job such as ambassador to a G8 country or Senate seat or high-level judgeship.
It appears that none of that is to pass (see below). Allan Rock is too much of a continued liability for the Liberal Party. Voters have not forgotten his three major political fiascos: the Irving ethics saga, tainted blood victim abandonment, and the gun registry costs manipulation.
Following his demotion from the Canadian ambassadorship at the UN, Rock continued to have a "shit magnet in his pocket" at the University of Ottawa where he decided that it would be a good idea for his family to start a legal marijuana enterprise in anticipation of a Trudeau legalization.
Furthermore, his actions at the U of O have led to unresolved legal cases, such as his unilateral dissolution of the entire student hockey team as part of his image management of sexual assault charges, which gave rise to a class action lawsuit against him and the school.
It is therefore not surprising that Trudeau is staying away from Rock, and is in no rush to legalize marijuana.
Yesterday, we learned in the school's alumnus magazine that:
Therefore, in the tradition of Liberal nepotism, Rock "hopes" to be hired in the Faculty of Law where his "boss" would be dean Nathalie Des Rosiers, the dean he recently placed in that very position, after a period of allowing her to be in charge of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
One problem is that Rock does not have any graduate degree and is therefore not eligible for a tenure-track professorship position, if the rules of peer-committee selection are followed, which apply the academic standards on hiring.
Is Rock's planned "semester at a U.S. law School" intended to provided him with a "graduate degree", or experience that a peer-committee could interpret as equivalent to a graduate degree? If so, the value of a graduate law degree will have been degraded significantly.
Furthermore, how can Rock's "semester" be part of a "sabbatical" if he has not already been de facto hired as a professor, prior to any academic committee review?
I would recommend that a media organization make a freedom of information request to learn about the new agreement that the U of O (which Rock still heads) has made with Mr. Rock about his future.
Academic standards in the Faculty of Law are at stake, as is the very principle of university collegial governance.
There has been some speculation about whether or not the newly elected Trudeau government would give the former federal minister and former Liberal candidate for Prime Minister a status job such as ambassador to a G8 country or Senate seat or high-level judgeship.
It appears that none of that is to pass (see below). Allan Rock is too much of a continued liability for the Liberal Party. Voters have not forgotten his three major political fiascos: the Irving ethics saga, tainted blood victim abandonment, and the gun registry costs manipulation.
Following his demotion from the Canadian ambassadorship at the UN, Rock continued to have a "shit magnet in his pocket" at the University of Ottawa where he decided that it would be a good idea for his family to start a legal marijuana enterprise in anticipation of a Trudeau legalization.
Furthermore, his actions at the U of O have led to unresolved legal cases, such as his unilateral dissolution of the entire student hockey team as part of his image management of sexual assault charges, which gave rise to a class action lawsuit against him and the school.
It is therefore not surprising that Trudeau is staying away from Rock, and is in no rush to legalize marijuana.
Yesterday, we learned in the school's alumnus magazine that:
"Rock is so deeply embedded in the University that he will not be gone for long. After a sabbatical, during which he will spend a semester at a U.S. law school, he hopes to teach in the Faculty of Law."
Therefore, in the tradition of Liberal nepotism, Rock "hopes" to be hired in the Faculty of Law where his "boss" would be dean Nathalie Des Rosiers, the dean he recently placed in that very position, after a period of allowing her to be in charge of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association.
One problem is that Rock does not have any graduate degree and is therefore not eligible for a tenure-track professorship position, if the rules of peer-committee selection are followed, which apply the academic standards on hiring.
Is Rock's planned "semester at a U.S. law School" intended to provided him with a "graduate degree", or experience that a peer-committee could interpret as equivalent to a graduate degree? If so, the value of a graduate law degree will have been degraded significantly.
Furthermore, how can Rock's "semester" be part of a "sabbatical" if he has not already been de facto hired as a professor, prior to any academic committee review?
I would recommend that a media organization make a freedom of information request to learn about the new agreement that the U of O (which Rock still heads) has made with Mr. Rock about his future.
Academic standards in the Faculty of Law are at stake, as is the very principle of university collegial governance.
Tuesday, June 7, 2016
Academic supression in the U of O Faculty of Law: Zabo v. University of Ottawa
 |
| Zeph Zabo (left), Denis Rancourt (right), with M. Zabo's new book about his ordeal |
M. Zabo was subjected to an egregious case of suppression of his academic freedom. Two external thesis evaluators accepted his PhD thesis for defence but two internal U of O law professors wanted him to write a different thesis, one about economic rather than legal analysis. Then "our" Canadian courts refused to recognize that he had a contract with the university that had formally accepted his originally planned thesis topic. Despicable case of academic abuse and legal discrimination.
I support M. Zabo's vehement quest for reparation and justice. Enough is enough. The U of O must be accountable.
Related post: Book.
Court decisions are here.
Wednesday, June 1, 2016
U of O's Stéphane Émard-Chabot thinks the secrecy laws are just fine
U of O's law professor Stéphane Émard-Chabot thinks the secrecy laws are just fine.
Émard-Chabot is a former chef of staff of president Allan Rock and, as such, was subjected to an access request in the past (link) (link). The important stuff was never disclosed.
Recent article:
Editorial: The shroud of secrecy at the Ottawa Police Services Board (LINK):
Émard-Chabot is a former chef of staff of president Allan Rock and, as such, was subjected to an access request in the past (link) (link). The important stuff was never disclosed.
Recent article:
Editorial: The shroud of secrecy at the Ottawa Police Services Board (LINK):
That makes the exemption sound broad, but Stéphane Émard-Chabot, a municipal law expert at the University of Ottawa and former city councillor, says it’s actually quite a high bar.
“The fact that you’re dealing with contentious issues, that’s certainly not a reason in itself to go in private,” he says. “You have to show the ‘outweigh’ factor: the fact that keeping it private is paramount or of such importance that it outweighs the principle of keeping things open.”
Friday, May 13, 2016
Monday, May 2, 2016
U of O breaks gender-washroom apartheid
Finally, something we can all get behind.
U of O Watch endorses this new institutional opening allowing more student freedom. Just don't be calling in the police every time there is a hiccup.
New 'all-gender' washrooms set to open at University of Ottawa: 'We are leaving it up to individuals to use the facility they feel most comfortable with'
-- CBC News, 1 May 2016
U of O Watch endorses this new institutional opening allowing more student freedom. Just don't be calling in the police every time there is a hiccup.
New 'all-gender' washrooms set to open at University of Ottawa: 'We are leaving it up to individuals to use the facility they feel most comfortable with'
-- CBC News, 1 May 2016
U of O's socially responsible lawyer, Amir Attaran: Patients killed by goverment negligence
Durham Region, 29 April 2016:
Cancer Care Ontario ‘covering up’ casualties by hiding stem cell data, critics charge
U of O's socially responsible lawyer, Amir Attaran, uncovers another distasteful institutional misbehaviour. This time, refusing to disclose how many patients are killed by bad decisions and failing to take corrective action.
" "They're covering up," said Amir Attaran, a professor in the faculties of law and medicine at University of Ottawa. "It is a cynical abuse of privacy law, to shield a callous and incompetent agency from disclosing how many Ontarians its inattention and bad management have killed. Simple as that." "
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.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
Rancourt v. St. Lewis: Supreme Court judgement harms freedom of expression and fair trial rights in Canada --OCLA
EN FRANCAIS ICI
Release: Rancourt v. St. Lewis: Supreme Court judgement harms freedom of expression and fair trial rights in Canada
(OTTAWA, February 18, 2016) – The Ontario Civil Liberties
Association (OCLA) opposes the Supreme Court of Canada’s judgement
released today, which denies the appeal application of Dr. Denis
Rancourt. (Links below.)
The judgement erodes freedom of speech and fair trial rights in Canada:
• The Court condoned permanent censorship (enforceable by jail) of future and unknown expression if the defendant cannot afford to pay possible damages.
• The Court allowed the defendant to be barred from any defence because he chose to rely solely on the plaintiff’s evidence.
• The Court refused to consider the defendant’s argument that court-ordered legal costs themselves are an unconstitutional infringement on the right of freedom of expression when the plaintiff’s legal costs were paid by the University of Ottawa.
• The Court violated its own constitutional duty by refusing to hear that the Ontario appellate court itself had violated Dr. Rancourt’s French language rights.
• The Court refused to hear that the Canadian common law of judicial bias is contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Dr. Rancourt will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, as allowed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified.
Links:
Supreme Court judgement of February 18, 2016: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/en/item/5165/index.do
Closing submission: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-11-06-RvStL-SCCLTA-Reply.pdf
Originating application submission: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-09-28-RvStL-SCCLTA-Application.pdf
About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) defends civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are being eroded in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that deprive individuals of their personal liberty or exclude individuals from participation in the democratic functions of society.
Contact:
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
The judgement erodes freedom of speech and fair trial rights in Canada:
• The Court condoned permanent censorship (enforceable by jail) of future and unknown expression if the defendant cannot afford to pay possible damages.
• The Court allowed the defendant to be barred from any defence because he chose to rely solely on the plaintiff’s evidence.
• The Court refused to consider the defendant’s argument that court-ordered legal costs themselves are an unconstitutional infringement on the right of freedom of expression when the plaintiff’s legal costs were paid by the University of Ottawa.
• The Court violated its own constitutional duty by refusing to hear that the Ontario appellate court itself had violated Dr. Rancourt’s French language rights.
• The Court refused to hear that the Canadian common law of judicial bias is contrary to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Dr. Rancourt will appeal the Supreme Court’s decision to the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations, as allowed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which Canada ratified.
Links:
Supreme Court judgement of February 18, 2016: http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/news/en/item/5165/index.do
Closing submission: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-11-06-RvStL-SCCLTA-Reply.pdf
Originating application submission: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2015-09-28-RvStL-SCCLTA-Application.pdf
About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) defends civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are being eroded in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that deprive individuals of their personal liberty or exclude individuals from participation in the democratic functions of society.
Contact:
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
Thursday, February 4, 2016
Justice corrompue, Zabo vs. Université d'Ottawa --ebook
Justice corrompue, Zabo vs. Université d'Ottawa: Connaître vos droits et savoir vous battre pour rétablir la justice (Volume 1). (French Edition) Kindle Edition
"Basé sur une histoire vraie, macabre et très dévastatrice, ce livre constitue le fruit du combat herculéen de l’auteur pour le rétablissement de la vérité et de la justice dans cette affaire judiciaire connue et répertoriée sous le nom Zabo vs. Université d’Ottawa. Il vise aussi à préserver la justice, la liberté, l’égalité, l’excellence et les valeurs morales au sein des institutions universitaire et judiciaires concernées.
Il fait le récit d’une histoire de barbarie, de corruption, d'une culture de violation des règlements, de violation abusive du contrat université-étudiant, de parodie et déni de justice en milieu universitaire.
Dans ce récit émouvant et plein de rebondissements, qui s’appuie notamment sur les affidavits sous serment des deux directeurs du programme de doctorat en droit de l’Université d’Ottawa témoignant en faveur de l’étudiant concerné, l'auteur dénonce vigoureusement la crucifixion dont il a été victime et le calvaire vécu."
Friday, January 22, 2016
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
