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)

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.

Profs sue uOttawa over executives' pay hike --Ottawa Citizen

Profs sue uOttawa over executives' pay hike

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen More from Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: December 17, 2015 | Last Updated: December 18, 2015 10:49 AM EST

“In its application APUO alleges that these raises are illegal under the Broader Public Sector Accountability Act, which the Ontario government passed in 2010,” the association said in a news release. “This law stipulates that compensation paid to senior administrators such as Dr. Nemer and Dr. Bradwejn ‘cannot be increased’.”

The APUO represents 1,250 full-time faculty and librarians at the University of Ottawa. It’s the first time the association has taken the university to court, Dekker said. The university was served with the papers Thursday and the application is expected to be filed in court on Monday, Dekker said.

“The university insists that faculty have to prepare for cuts to programs, teaching assistants, library services and so on — students are also paying among the highest tuition fees in the country,” she said. “So we are reasonably asking why the administrators are awarding themselves massive raises while the province has made it clear that administrators are not to receive pay increases.”

"Maureen Robinson ... went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as 'posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile'" --Divisional Court Judge

Union wins interim motion in appeal of the Rancourt dismissal

A short background summary of this recent leg of the protracted battle over the University of Ottawa's dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt was given in this October 9 post (LINK).

Following the October 8 hearing of the university's interim motion to strike the union's affidavit in support of the union's application for judicial review... (the university wanted to deprive the union of evidence about what actually happened during the lengthy labour arbitration that upheld the dismissal)... Divisional Court (appellate court) Justice Robert Scott released his decision on October 26, 2015.

Justice Scott's decision is HERE.

Rancourt's union won the motion completely and unequivocally. The union's affidavit of evidence survives in whole, and is appended to the judge's decision, as "Appendix A" (HERE). This is the first significant positive judgement since the 2009 dismissal.

The judge's ruling gives an indication of how the university's extensive use of a hired student spy -- using unethical methods such as assuming false cyber identities and advancing false pretexts for collecting information from third parties, all condoned by the university and its legal counsel -- will be viewed by the higher courts, whereas the Arbitrator in the labour arbitration refused to accept its relevance (LINK).

Justice Scott put it this way (LINK):

MAUREEN ROBINSON

[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robinson's written notes were referred to "the report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa student"

[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the editor of the student newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office, without his input on her hiring.

[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her "report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.

[18] The University referred to the "report" thereafter as a transcript which such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which was not evidence.

[19] Given the unique circumstances, paragraphs 3 - 13 are necessary and in keeping with Keeprite and Kingston Utilities, this affidavit evidence should be admitted on the judicial review to "show an absence of evidence on an essential point".

DEAN LALONDE'S CROSS-EXAMINATION AND THE TESTIMONY OF STUDENTS P AND V

[20] It is difficult to separate the input of the evidence or lack of evidence of Ms. Robinson and the circumstances of her somewhat bizarre involvement in this matter, from the other areas of concern identified by the Applicant, APUO. [...]

And see the background about the motion hearing itself: HERE.

Maureen Robinson did her BSc in chemistry at the University of Ottawa, graduating in 2010. She then moved to Australia to do her MSc, and is now employed at Golder Associates, in West Perth, Australia. The university did not make her available to be cross-examined during the labour arbitration that ended in 2013.

Maureen Robinson's fake Facebook identity was "Nathalie Page". In her regular email reports to the dean of science and to the then university legal counsel Michelle Flaherty, Robinson would joke: "Hi, It's Nathalie...", when sending emails from a fake gmail account. This was the fake Facebook profile picture for "Nathalie":

Fake picture for the false cyber identity "Nathalie Page" created by Maureen Robinson

These exhibits (LINK) describe some of Robinson's detailed reports to the university.

Happenings in the U of O’s “motion to strike”, in the judicial review of the Rancourt dismissal

Update:  Rancourt's union won the motion and won costs. The October 26, 2015, judicial decision of the Divisional Court is HERE.

Denis Rancourt at the courthouse on October 8, 2015

By Denis G. Rancourt

On October 8, 2015, there was the first hearing before the appellate court in the matter of the 2009 dismissal of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt, in Ottawa before Divisional Court Judge Robert Scott (who travelled from Belleville for the hearing).

The Divisional Court hearing was to decide a university’s motion to strike (remove, disallow) the union’s affidavit of evidence about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings, for which transcripts do not exist. After the hearing, Justice Scott said he would study the motion record further and provide his decision as soon as he can.

Justice Scott made interesting comments during the October 8th hearing, and the university’s tactics in the motion are also of note.


Brief history of the case

Tenured professor Denis Rancourt was fired by the Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa in 2009 over his grading of students in one advanced physics course. This TVO video interview from 2009 is a vivid summary of the academic dimension of the conflict:



A lengthy labour arbitration followed, in which it was shown that the university had employed a student spy (Maureen Robinson, using the false cyber identity “Nathalie Page”) who made extensive surveillance of professor Rancourt and of students and gave weekly reports to both the dean of science and University Counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK).

During the lengthy arbitration hearings, the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden spent most of the time presenting professor Rancourt’s political and professional views in a negative light. He went so far as to repeatedly suggest that professor Rancourt’s writings incited students to violence, and even showed this video at the hearing, since he had found it in one of the professor’s Playlists on YouTube:



On the central question, the arbitrator disregarded the hard evidence of grading (examination copies, and grading sheets), disregarded the dean’s admission that he had no evidence that any student did not deserve his or her grade, and upheld the dismissal in 2014.

The professors’ union announced in 2014 that it would appeal the arbitrator’s decision (LINK):

“While the decision not only upheld the Employer’s unjust dismissal decision, the arbitrator also made some troubling statements concerning Academic Freedom which can have a profoundly negative impact on academics everywhere.”

Happenings in the motion hearing

Following the union’s filing of its application for judicial review, the university brought a motion to strike the union’s affidavit about what occurred during the labour arbitration hearings. After much delay, the motion was finally heard on October 8, 2015.

Despite the fact that there is a large amount of documentary evidence (many exhibits) that Ms. Robinson was hired for surveillance and gave regular reports about her activities (including details about her use of a false cyber identity, and her misrepresentations in requesting information from third parties) (LINK),

and despite the labour arbitrator himself finding (LINK, see paragraph 58) “[a] report on Professor Rancourt’s address prepared by a University of Ottawa student and editor to the students newspaper (attending the talk with the purpose of monitoring the communication by Professor Rancourt), was entered into evidence”,

the university’s hired lawyer Lynn Harnden argued at the hearing that the dean of science had hired Ms. Robinson solely to help him organize his office.

Justice Scott (J) expressed some reservation about this. His exchange with lawyer Lynn Harnden (H) went like this:

J: This is where I’m confused about Ms. Robinson – she’s the editor of a newspaper and she’s sent in to tidy up his office?

H: That’s what Dean Lalonde testified he engaged her to do. He explained she also had another hat on as editor of student newspaper and took certain initiatives related to Professor Rancourt’s activities.

J: Any evidence how she was chosen, or just happened to be there? Seems a little unusual to me, that’s the only thing I noticed.

H: That she had this dual hat on? Not on the record how he chose her, but did take her on to organize this voluminous evidence and she took other steps.

J: There’s a reference somewhere in the materials to how she equated her role as a young woman trying to trap a pedophile?

H: There was reference in Prof R’s testimony of that allegation. She didn’t testify so we don’t have that. We …

J: Where did that reference come from then? She never said that? It’s not part of the record?

H: No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that or it’s said somewhere I’m not aware – she didn’t testify. […]

“No it’s only a statement by Professor Rancourt alleging that she had said that …” Here, Mr. Harnden appears to have forgotten about a lot of damning exhibits (LINK), including Ms. Robinson’s "pedophile email" report to the dean of science and to counsel Michelle Flaherty (LINK), and appears to have also forgotten that the "pedophile email" was described in the union's factum for the very motion being heard (LINK, see paragraph 41(a)). This lapse of memory was acknowledged later in the hearing and corrected by the union’s lawyer.

Justice Scott was also somewhat baffled that the parties had allowed the labour arbitration to proceed without a recording or transcript of the lengthy hearings:

J: Let me stop you. I’m confused – in your affidavit material it indicates the nature of the hearing – you started off by giving us the breakdown on that – “28 days, 160 documents.... Rancourt there 13 days...” – doesn’t that fly in the face of the reason why arbitrations aren’t recorded? They’re recorded because they’re short, to the point, get done in reasonable time – but when you have a really complicated one such as this one, it would be necessary for anyone to make sense of it later on to have it recorded. Do you see what you’re faced with – or what I’m faced with – ultimately the Divisional Court faced with – how do you review, just take a look at it? Assume?
[…] My point was that technology is there that would allow for accurate recording. Might be helpful for someone sorting it out later. I also understand what this thing is built on.

Note that it is precisely because there is no transcript or recording that the union needed to file an affidavit about what occurred in the labour arbitration hearings in order to appeal the labour arbitration decision, exactly the affidavit that the university wants to strike.

Put simply, if the university succeeds in convincing the motions judge to strike the affidavit, then the union will be deprived of its necessary evidence about what it affirms actually happened at the arbitration, and the appeal will be almost guaranteed to fail.

The test for allowing the affidavit is that the affidavit evidence is otherwise not available, and is necessary to attack the arbitration decision on allowed grounds for appeal. In common language, this "test" is called a “no-brainer”.

The actual arguments as to whether or not to strike the union’s affidavit were very interesting, in that they diverged somewhat from this test.

The union argued that the affidavit evidence was not otherwise available, was essential for its appeal, and that the stated grounds for appeal were legally allowed grounds for appeal.

Mr. Harnden, for the university, argued that the affidavit should not be accepted because the university will contradict evidence in the affidavit with its own affidavit, later in the actual judicial review hearing, and because to accept the evidence in the affidavit would amount to the court inferring that the arbitrator had “blundered”:

H: Let’s just think about the significance – she’s [the affiant is] telling this court that the decision maker heard all of those comments of Professor Rancourt. She’s making it clear that the Arbitrator heard those concerns from Professor Rancourt, then the Applicant would have the court that the expert Arbitrator disregarded those concerns, disregarded comments by APUO in closing submissions, and blundered. They’re asking this court to draw the inference from the fact that the Arbitrator didn’t go out of his way to state ‘look I’m referring to fact that Professor Rancourt conceded accuracy because that means I can rely on those portions of the documents’. Given how rare it should be that affidavit evidence is heard, it would not be appropriate to make that exception in a case where this court would have to find, in effect, that Mr. Foisy [the arbitrator] didn’t exercise the expertise that should be held by any competent decision maker with respect to a document that has not been identified by a witness, and which has been identified with respect to its potential failure many times in the proceeding. We know Mr. Foisy heard Professor Rancourt’s comments. The court should not be too quick to infer that he made the blunder that my friend suggests.

Basically, as I read it, the university's hired lawyer Lynn Harnden is saying that the affidavit should be blocked here and not be seen by the panel of three Divisional Court judges that will hear and decide the actual appeal itself that claims arbitrator errors because to allow the affidavit to pass would be equivalent to Justice Scott “inferring” that the arbitrator “blundered”.

In other words, the affidavit evidence is so damning of the arbitrator's decision that it should not be allowed to be considered by those judging the arbitrator's decision.

Despite Mr. Harnden's high intelligence and despite his well crafted argument, the word “circular” comes to mind.

Overall, in my opinion, Mr. Harnden very ably worked to “shift” the question before the motions judge away from the rational and practiced legal test for accepting affidavit evidence and towards questions that properly belong to the appeal itself: 1. What evidence about what occurred during the arbitration is reliable, if it is opposed by a university’s own affidavit?; and 2. Did the arbitrator make errors, and were these errors serious enough for his decision to be set aside?

The university’s court-filed factum (i.e., written argument) for the motion is HERE-LINK.

The union’s court-filed factum for the motion is HERE-LINK.

Rock administration refuses to appoint the duly chosen director of the School of Political Studies -- It's political!

Professor Christian Rouillard

The U of O School of Political Studies academic staff is outraged by the machinations of the Rock administration in refusing to appoint the duly chosen next director of the School.

The School's top administrative members have co-signed THIS OPEN LETTER (LINK) to Allan Rock (in French, dated October 5, 2015), outlining outright machinations to avoid appointing the duly selected new director.

The said duly selected candidate (92% approval within the School) just happens to be Professor Christian Rouillard, the recent president of the professor's union (2011-2015), who has been a needed bulwark against the transgressions of the Rock administration.

The Open Letter explicitly describes a litany of moves that would make Kafka uncomfortable, and expressly identifies conflicts of interest, and breaches of procedural and natural justice.

[big mess big mess - university administration misbehaving] ... nous faisons donc appel, monsieur le recteur, à votre sens de responsabilité envers notre communauté universitaire, de justice procédurale et d’équité de traitement, de respect des processus collégiaux et de la convention collective, et vous demandons d’intervenir personnellement en appuyant la solution précédemment décrite pour mettre un terme à cette situation déplorable et inutilement conflictuelle.

Faculty association asks province to investigate raises given senior uOttawa administrators --Ottawa Citizen (media)

Faculty association asks province to investigate raises given senior uOttawa administrators (LINK)

Blair Crawford, Ottawa Citizen 

Published on: October 6, 2015

The University of Ottawa faculty association is asking the province to investigate a $132,000 raise given to a senior university vice-president, a raise that came, the association says, while the university was required by law to keep salaries frozen.

In a letter to Minister of Training, Colleges and Universities Reza Moridi, the association urges a “transparent public investigation” into the raises given to vice-president of research Dr. Mona Nemer and to Dr. Jacques Bradwejn, dean of the School of Medicine, the person who approved the raise.

Nemer’s pay jumped to $392,058 in 2014, from $259,754 in 2012 according to Ontario’s sunshine salary disclosure list, an increase of 50 per cent in two years. The association complained about the increase to the university’s board of governors this summer.

The university says $120,000 of that increase comes from four years’ worth of a $30,000 annual stipend that was paid in a lump sum to Nemer for her work as a cardiovascular scientist and is not related to work as an administrator.

“The salaries provided to our executives remain compliant with provincial law,” university president Allan Rock said in a July 13th letter to the Board of Governors. [...]

Professors' union rebukes U of O for irresponsible increases in executive salaries

Jennifer Dekker, President, APUO (professors' union)

The University of Ottawa, under the control of Allan Rock, has been exposed by its employee unions for playing an unethical "shell game" to cover up an alleged illegal and arbitrary salary increase. This is the opposite of sound public management. It is the kind of thing political parties are known for, not publicly funded service institutions.

The matter was initiated with THIS open letter, and developed as reported here:

“We don’t accept it as a valid argument,” said Jennifer Dekker, president of the APUO, which represents 1,250 employees at the university, including professors, counsellors and librarians.

“When she was originally hired as vice-president of research, one would expect that her portfolio as a researcher would have been taken into account in her terms of offer,” said Dekker. “And so to say that she’s getting an extra stipend for doing things that would normally be expected of a (vice-president of research) doesn’t make sense to us.”

The university declined requests for interviews with Nemer and the board of governors’ chair.

The Association of Part-Time Professors of the University of Ottawa, the Support Staff University of Ottawa and the Canadian Union of Public Employees local 2626 also stand behind the APUO’s position.

In a open letter published July 16, the APUO alleged that Nemer’s annual stipend was paid out in a lump sum “retroactively during a period of wage and benefit freeze” for university vice-presidents, contrary to the Strong Action for Ontario Act (Budget Measures).

“I would characterize it as a shell game,” said Dekker. “The money obviously all comes from the same source and goes to the same source.”

She said what Nemer earned last year “far exceeds” what senior university executives ought to be paid per year. And she said the extra yearly payments are troubling amid the administration’s “rhetoric” about a structural financial challenge at the university, claims the APUO disputes.

Source:

Professors' union rebukes University of Ottawa over 'redundant' pay for top exec

Adam Feibel, Ottawa Citizen

Published on: July 26, 2015 | Last Updated: July 26, 2015 6:18 PM EDT

Profs at the University of Ottawa vote 82% in favor of strike mandate

From the professors' union web site, regarding today's strike vote:

APUO VOTES MASSIVELY IN FAVOUR OF A STRIKE MANDATE

Dear APUO members,

Members have voted 82% in favour of authorizing the Executive Committee to call a strike if necessary. 691 ballots were cast, 563 voted “Yes,” 127 voted “No,” with one spoiled ballot.

The APUO remains committed to negotiating a fair deal that promotes the quality of education and fair working conditions at the university. Mediation is scheduled for August 3rd and 4th.

We sincerely thank our members, our union partners on campus, and student associations for this strong show of support.

Sincerely,
The Executive Committee

Profs' union at U of O files application to the Ministry of Labour: Seeks an order and award of damages

The University of Ottawa is arguably experiencing its most tense labour relations circumstances in its institutional history. The professors' union finds itself forced to sue the institution in order to recover the rule of law...

On July 29, 2013, the professors' union (APUO) had this to say to its members:

Dear APUO members,

Throughout these negotiations, the APUO believes that the employer has acted in many ways that contravene both the spirit and the letter the Ontario Labour Relations Act. Such actions have included stating false information; refusing to share data they are legally obligated to release; communicating in ways that constitute attempts to negotiate directly with the membership; and now, seeking to intimidate members in order to influence the strike mandate vote planned for July 31.

Since the beginning of this process, it has been clear to the APUO that the employer has been using its vast institutional resources to wage a battle against members and the APUO. Up to this point, the APUO has assumed that members would prefer that we focus on negotiations rather than use the legal system to respond to the employer’s unacceptable actions. We had also hoped that, even if the employer continued its dishonourable actions, it would have at least ceased the ones we believe to be unlawful.

As you all know by now, this has not been the case. With its communications on Thursday and Friday of last week, the APUO can no longer ignore the issue. Peter Simpson (one of CAUT’s most seasoned advisers with more than 20 years experience) said that the employer’s communication was “unprecedented” in his experience, and that “it is hard to read it as something other than an attempt to interfere in the union’s credibility and its communications with its members ahead of a strike vote”.

Therefore, this morning the APUO has responded in the only way possible under the Ontario labour law. We have filed an application to the Ministry of Labour requesting that it (a) investigate the employer’s violations of the Ontario Labour Relations Act; (b) force the employer to disclose information required by the APUO for bargaining and insist that the employer respect the law regarding its communications; and (c) award the APUO damages to compensate for the employer’s illegal activity. You can find more detailed information about this in the Bargaining Bulletin #9.

and continued HERE.

University's lawyer Lynn Harnden wants to ban the reasons for a ban in hearings of the Rancourt dismissal case -- video

Have you ever noticed that every time a lawyer makes an argument for some crazy thing he always starts by saying that he doesn't want the crazy thing?

In this video, University of Ottawa's hired lawyer Lynn Harnden provides a brilliant example, at the May 2, 2011, first day of labour arbitration hearings into the wrongful dismissal case of Denis Rancourt.

Lawyering 101: "He doesn't want a publication ban on the hearings."

Just a ban until the hearings are done and a decision is rendered, two years or more say, since he agrees this is of public interest... ah humm. Oh, and he doesn't want to show his arguments as to why such an "enriched exclusion" is necessary...

This passes for reasonable arguments in this world.



See another video of Lynn Harnden in action HERE.

See all UofOWatch posts about the arbitration hearings HERE.

See links and details about the arbitration hearings at academicfreedom.ca HERE.

U of O arbitrary deadline on harassment policy repudiated

And again... Once again all the unions and associations of students and professional workers at the University of Ottawa have judged it necessary to call the university administration on one of its half-baked and ill-motivated plans...

See the letter posted on the Student's Eye View blog: LETTER HERE.

The letter is signed by eight unions and associations representing all the university community members except the executive officers.

It says:

Stop imposing arbitrary deadlines without reason which harm the democratic collegial governance process of the university. Back off and take a deep breath and tell us that you will actually have a fair and open process...

Will the administrative culture of "Canada's university" be perturbed by yet another reasoned request for reason?

Labour Board retains Allan Rock as a responding party and asks for final submissions, again

Former physics professor Denis Rancourt's on-going adventure with the Ontario Labour Relations Board (OLRB) to force the Allan Rock administration of the University of Ottawa to recognize several of his outstanding labour law grievances is document HERE.

(The broader overall context of Rancourt's struggle is described HERE.)

Allan Rock argued (HERE) that he should not be a responding party. The OLRB in its most recent Decision (Decision 2567-10-U) retained Allan Rock as a responding party and decided to first consider Rock's motion as a preliminary motion to dismiss Rancourt's OLRB Application.

The University of Ottawa and the professor's union (APUO) have been added as responding parties and all parties were invited to submit final submissions on the motion by strict deadlines (Decision 2567-10-U).

Rancourt's July 26, 2011, submission is HERE.

Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa, and the APUO have since chosen to not submit submission pursuant to the OLRB Decision 2567-10-U and have informed the Board accordingly.

We now await yet another (final?) OLRB Decision about the motion to dismiss Rancourt's OLRB Application.

U of O neurosurgery malfeasance::: ALL SEVEN (7) employee and student unions denounce president's inaction

All the professional and student unions at the University of Ottawa have written a joint letter (co-signed by seven union presidents, sent today June 2, 2011) to the members of the Board of Governors and to the members of the university Senate denouncing the university's inaction in the overt malfeasance and reprisals case involving three medical residents who were targeted by the Faculty of Medicine.

See all related posts HERE.

This is an unprecedented action at the University of Ottawa indicating the malicious character of this prima facie case of administrative malfeasance and cover up, possibly involving criminal acts.

An accurate translation (from French) of the co-signed letter follows.

Re: Discrimination and reprisal complaints at the University of Ottawa

Dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate of the University of Ottawa,

As the representatives of the professional and student unions on campus, we wish to express in a unified voice our concern regarding certain events reported recently in the national and regional media. Three students in the Faculty of medicine appear to have complained for reason of discrimination and to have been subjected to significant academic and professional reprisals following the filing of these complaints. Emails made public have shown that at least one student was removed from his study program despite his excellent academic performance in order to deter other students from filing complaints.

As union bodies formed by a common interest to improve work and study conditions of our members which represent 95% of the university community, we insist on denouncing all practices intended to impose reprisals against those who decide to make complaints. Such a practice could, by creating a climate of fear and intimidation, incite our members to not demand their rights and protections foreseen by many federal and provincial laws as well as by our university policies. In addition, this practice is forbidden by the Human Rights Code of Ontario.

Our concerns are exacerbated by the existence of an official rule which guarantees, to each of our members, access to a transparent and fair process to make complaints without fear of reprisals.

Note that our organizations hereby commit, via our representation, to activate a serious follow up of the development of procedures and policies at the University of Ottawa concerning the cases of intimidation and reprisals to which our members can be subjected.

In the hope that this situation will be resolved as soon as possible, please receive, dear members of the Board of Governors and of the Senate, our distinguished salutations.

In solidarity,

Micheline Lessard – APUO [professors]
Greer Knox – APTPUO [part-time professors]
Amalia Savva – FEUO [undergraduate students]
Jonathan Duguay – GSAED [graduate students]
Marc Fortier – PIPSC [professional employees]
Richard Hogan – PSUO [support employees]
Félix Grenier – SCFP 2626 [teaching assistants]

A first at U of O: Professors' union goes public against central administration

Never before seen at the University of Ottawa. What does it mean?

The school's Association of Professors University of Ottawa (APUO) union has, for the first time in its history, been publicly critical of the university's central administration.

Read the April 15, 2010, media-reported criticism HERE.

This suggests particularly bad leadership by former Minister of Justice now university president Allan Rock but may also reflect a momentary lapse in the union's longstanding posture or a fundamental underlying shift in institutional culture?

The APUO union is a typical Canadian professors' union that seeks to collaborate with the administration in order to best secure and maximize the relative societal privileges of the majority of its members.

As with virtually all such professors' unions (e.g., see No Ivory Tower by Ellen Schrecker), ass kissing and hierarchical obedience have been found by experimentation to be the surest route to job security for aligned professors and to the proverbial three P's: Parking, pay, and pensions.

But now this. Novice APUO president Lessard actually talking to the media and going after the admin's mission of the moment: Control by budget restructuring. This in a context where the number of contract-protected professors' salaries over $100,000 per year rose by 25% last year: HERE and HERE.

In other words, there is no obvious reason for the APUO to stand up at this time in this dramatic and public way, after decades of mute collaboration. Maybe the Rock administration's authoritarianism is starting to make its mark on even the most privileged group of the university community? Maybe the appearance of solidarity with students would have been difficult to avoid?

For the first time in the history of the institution, the traditional power of the VP-Academic (normally second in command, as per the University of Ottawa Act, 1965) has been replaced by an outside Rock appointment, Diane Davidson, in the newly created position of VP-Governance.

For the first time in the history of the institution, the CEO and his executive staff are mostly not from the professorial ranks, mostly don't have PhDs, and are mostly not familiar with undergraduate teaching or academic research.

As pointed out by Lessard, administrative costs rose by 23.7% last year [not to mention executive salaries... or the fact that the former president is still collecting (2009) his full CEO salary of $351,120. per year plus benefits and has been nowhere to be found since Rock took over]. We note that this administrative cost increase occurred under Rock as corporate-style control was implemented, including unprecedented uses of branding and media relations, campus police, surveillance, and hired corporate lawyers. Rock has written more Op-Eds than one can shake a stick at.

Rock is also always "out of town", either promoting "the responsibility to intervene" in Africa or creating academic exchange programs with Israel or using his university-paid-for flat in Toronto.

The U of O is being put to waste and its reputation shredded (e.g., Coulter fiasco, police-state measures against student Marc Kelly) while Rock appoints his cronies and is out of town. To fix it Rock wants to impose budget restructuring which, again for the first time in the institution's history, has not proceeded via the required collegial governance process.

By not grieving (lawsuit under labour law) the Rock budget plans as having violated the legally established fundamental principle of collegial governance (of universities), the APUO is abandoning its legitimate power and its social responsibility, while publicly posturing to avoid deeper scrutiny.

Just my opinion.

RELATED POSTS:
Rock's corporatization of the U of O
All UofOWatch posts on corporatization of the U of O

Arbitration Ruling Makes Academic Squatting Legal in Canada

On June 25, 2008, Arbitrator Michel G. Picher released his 65-page ruling in the matter of the University of Ottawa vs. the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) regarding Professor Denis Rancourt’s discipline grievance related to the Fall 2005 offering of the course PHY 1703 “Physics and the Environment” (Physique et environnement), popularly known as the Activism Course.
.
The University had taken disciplinary action against Professor Rancourt charging that he had misrepresented his course in a detailed web posting, in such a way as to have described a dramatically different course not compatible with the official course description. The Arbitrator rejected the University’s charges, finding that the described course was within the purview of academic freedom.
.

The then dean of the Faculty of Science, chemistry professor Christian Detellier, had barged into the classroom on September 21, 2005, to suspend the course, causing a strong student reaction that was amply reported in the media. The University has since apologized for the Dean’s in-class intervention: LINK.
.

The public arbitration hearings were held in Ottawa on November 5, 8, 14, and 26, 2007. The Arbitrator refers to the Activism Course in his decision as having been made “something of a ‘cause célèbre’” (p.27 of the June 25th decision).
.

The ruling is a landmark award that strengthens and broadens the scope of academic freedom in Canada. The full text of the Award is available HERE.
.

The ruling establishes that pedagogical innovation and implementation are fully protected under the academic freedom enjoyed by a professor, including the choice of grading system – considered an integral part of the pedagogical method.
.

In the specific case, the protected pedagogical innovations included:
.

(a) A large fraction of the class time used to present societal and political material – in a physics course intended to deliver fundamental physics concepts as the only required physics course in an environmental studies program – as a way to motivate student learning and to position the science in the broad societal context. This was achieved using invited scientist and non-scientist speakers that included activists, politicians, community workers, etc. The ruling clarifies that no “exception [was] taken to the use of activism and social and political issues as catalysts to learning.”
.

(b) Parallel student workgroups with evolving themes and freely changing student memberships and town-hall-style whole-class discussions instead of traditional lectures delivered by the professor.
.

(c) An open invitation to all community members to freely and fully participate in the class, without necessarily officially registering and paying tuition, as a way to bring in the community to enrich class discussions and strengthen relevance and community connections. This brought in a variety of perspectives and expertises that would otherwise not have been available.
.

(d) Large latitude in individual student decision making regarding: order in which to learn things (e.g., workgroup membership and topic), depth of treatment, method of study, method of reporting progress, degree of cooperative work, etc. (Sharing was not considered cheating.)
.

(e) A satisfactory/non-satisfactory (S/NS) grading system rather than the traditional letter grade system (used in all other science courses given that term).
.

Having examined the long list of University complaints about how Professor Rancourt had, in his web communications (see ruling), subverted the “spirit, content, and function” (translated from French) of the course, the Arbitrator found that “that position cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and that all the innovations communicated and implemented by Professor Rancourt fell within his rights under academic freedom.
.

The ruling therefore again puts to rest the backward notions that hard sciences must be studied in isolation and that tunnel-vision specialization is the only acceptable way.
.

The Arbitrator added: “… the major change being with respect to the pedagogical innovation of independent group studies, the involvement of the students themselves in identifying areas of interest and the introduction of the satisfactory/not-satisfactory grading system. The Arbitrator is satisfied that those pedagogical initiatives were legitimately within the purview of the academic freedom enjoyed by Professor Rancourt …”
.

The ruling therefore also lays to rest the doctrinal view that only grades can motivate students in the hard sciences and that students must be “forced to learn”, least our technological society fall in ruin. LINK. (If that is true, then Canada’s new academic freedom is indeed a dangerous freedom.)
.

In addition, the Arbitrator’s award also affirms that (consistent with actual practice) a course can, through a process of pedagogical choices, be significantly different in its use of class time and in topics covered than a literal and restrictive reading of the official (Senate-approved) course description would suggest: How much class time a professor chooses to use on what is a matter of pedagogical freedom, in the professor’s attempt to achieve the best possible end results; keeping in mind a professor’s right to be political in the classroom, as already well established in Collective Agreements across the country and in past rulings.
.

In the words of the Arbitrator, “The assertion … to the effect that the publicized descriptions of the course contained a ‘radically different content’ as compared to what was contemplated in the official description of the course cannot be sustained by the Arbitrator” and “there is simply no equitable basis upon which the University, or Dean Detellier, could assert … that Professor Rancourt ‘…brought major changes to the content of his courses…’ (Arbitrator’s translation) … the evidence before this tribunal confirms that … [the changes] fell legitimately within the scope of his academic freedom in pursuing a different pedagogical approach …” (p.60-61 of the decision).
.

The Arbitrator’s ruling is in sharp contrast to Professor (on leave) Christian Detellier’s hearing statement that “‘squatting’ is not an appropriate means to implement curriculum change within a university” (p.19 of the decision).
.

Professor Rancourt won the decision on every major point. Even on the minor point of the course title, the ruling explicitly established that a professor can describe his course with a dramatically different title: “Activism Course: Understanding Power and its Contexts” (web call-out) versus “Physique et environnement” (official Senate-approved title).
.

If your conclusion is “In the classroom, the students and professor rule!”, then you get an S for satisfactory, and you deserve an A+. Let’s make our education…
.

Epilogue: Legal Counsel for the University, Michelle Flaherty, apparently quit or was fired some months after the hearings, leaving her voice-mail greeting on the University phone for a week or so after she left; and without any official announcement of thanks or recognition or acknowledgement of departure from the University, leaving the position vacant to this day. Legal defence for the APUO was assumed by labour lawyer Sean T. McGee of Nelligan O'Brien Payne, who built the case around the principle of academic freedom. Christian Detellier went on academic leave for two years in 2006 before going back to being a regular professor in the Department of Chemistry. The Faculty of Science is on its fourth dean or interim-dean since 2005 (one died of cancer). Dean André E. Lalonde is presently the University’s defender of academic freedom in that faculty and is actively pursuing Professor Rancourt for alleged departures from the official course description in SCI 1101, Science in Society, Fall 2006, and for the professor’s teaching methods and grading practices in PHY 4385 and PHY 5100, Solid State Physics, Winter 2008.

.

LINKS

CAUT Policy Statement on Academic Freedom

Academic Squatting

Ottawa Xpress feature article

Ottawa Sun feature article

Did the dean lie? – Profs’ union doesn’t want to know

Has anyone never lied? Is everyone a liar?

Back in September 2005, as part of his critical pedagogy method, Professor Denis Rancourt made a bold open invitation to his students of the first Activism Course:

“I am looking for irate or frustrated or angry or discouraged or depressed graduate or undergraduate students to be interviewed live on The Train, CHUO 89.1 FM. I want to counter the plastic smile Apathy-U marketing campaigns … with some gritty reality about student life.” (The invitation to all students still stands.)

The then dean of the Faculty of Science was clearly annoyed and immediately asked for “explanations”. The dean then initiated a disciplinary process claiming he had received a student complaint about the radio invitation.

Professor Rancourt pointed out his right to see the student complaint. The dean claimed that showing any part of the student complaint would identify the student and stated that he was therefore dropping the entire process and removing all related letters and documents from Professor Rancourt’s file.

Professor Rancourt insisted that no letters or documents be disappeared and grieved to see the student complaint. The grievance process showed that a separate student complaint about the radio invitation did not exist. The dean produced the only student complaint ever received about the Activism Course, a student complaint about course content, method, and use of language – all concerns that the dean was pursuing separately but now without the use of a student complaint.

An obvious case of “complaints musical chairs”...

At this point, Professor Rancourt filed a new grievance that the dean had lied in order to justify a baseless disciplinary process. Disciplinary processes are tedious and stressful and the same dean initiated three other bogus disciplinary actions (all unrelated to each other; that were either dropped or successfully grieved) within the same two-week period.

Does one detect a pattern? Does the term harassment come to mind? Would this have happened if Professor Rancourt was not promoting activism and was not critical of the institution and its methods?

On these questions, the professors’ union (the APUO at the UofO) is unclear or undecided at best: You see, lying involves intent to make a false statement and intent is difficult to prove. One cannot read a person’s mind so one must rely on the documented circumstances. That the “separate” complaint was about the radio invitation appears to be false but did the dean realise it was false? He could have simply misinterpreted the student complaint to be about the radio invitation…

The grievance that the dean has lied was recently evaluated by the executive committee of the union and has not been retained by the APUO, effectively leaving no other legal recourse to obtain arbitration.

In the words of the executive of the union: “The dean read what he saw in a certain way … it may also be part of a pattern. However, this is difficult to show. It seems as though the dean is dancing close to the line but, it is difficult to prove lying … Maybe it was an attempt by the dean to be deceptive, but the complaint could be open to interpretation … An accusation of lying is serious and requires strong evidence.”

It’s called the preservation of class interests…

Voila.

RELATED LINKS:
YaYa Canada on lying in academia...

.

[Photo credit: University of Ottawa]