"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.

Hearings into dismissal of Rancourt reveal much

There have now been fifteen days of hearings before labour arbitrator Foisy into the wrongful dismissal case at the University of Ottawa of tenured full professor of physics Denis Rancourt.

The hearing dates have been scattered over the last year and as many more hearing days are foreseen until June 2013. The last four days of hearings were May 14, 15, 16, and 17. The next hearing date is in May 2013.

The University has closed its case after only three witnesses: Two students who complained about the teaching method in an advanced solid state physics course given by Rancourt to twenty three students in the winter 2008 semester and former dean of the Faculty of Science, Andre E. Lalonde.

Most of the week was taken up by the cross examination of Lalonde by counsel for the union Sean McGee, and re-examination of Lalonde by counsel for the university Lynn Harnden. Rancourt started giving his evidence at the end of the week.

The cross examination of Lalonde has revealed what many observers had already inferred about the dismissal:

1. The November 2008 unannounced lockout of Rancourt and his graduate students and post-doctoral associate from their laboratory and offices was meant to permanently render the laboratory unusable (essential materials were permanently removed).
2. The "context" of this November 2008 permanent shut-down, as the former dean explained, was that an upper management group including President Allan Rock had already decided that Rancourt was to be fired; in advance of both the dean's December 2008 "recommendation for dismissal to the Board" and the Board's April 2009 "decision to dismiss". (Allan Rock chaired the April 2009 Board meeting that made the "decision".)

At the time of the lockout, the university had advanced the pretext of a simple change in radiation safety protocol, unannounced to radiation license holder and principle investigator Rancourt. The "new safety protocol" was not written in time for a meeting involving Rancourt's union that followed the lockout.

The cross-examination of Lalonde also revealed that science student Maureen Robinson (aka, Nathalie Page; false Facebook and Google-group identity) had been hired by the university in 2007-2008, was given access to the dean's email account to compile emails about Rancourt, and gave regular reports to both the dean and former university legal counsel Michelle Flaherty (now a co-Chair at the Ontario Human Rights Tribunal) that included:

• Surveillance of Rancourt and students.
• Gathering information from third-parties on false pretense.
• Minimizing the "paper trail" of her activities.
• Reporting on student electoral events.
• Reporting on the presence or absence of Rancourt and others at campus and off-campus events.
• Transcribing Rancourt's campus radio show recordings.
• Obtaining recordings of Rancourt's talks on other campuses.
• Attempting to obtain class notes and class communications from Rancourt's courses.
• Using her former contacts at the Fulcrum (student newspaper) to transmit the Fulcrum's information.

These activities were performed with the full knowledge of both Lalonde and Flaherty. Indeed, Robinson routinely joked about what "Nathalie" (her false identity on Facebook and in Google-groups and by email) had been up to and her coming projects.

For example:

"Hi, it's Nathalie. Haha.
(You know, posing as a smiling schoolgirl to get information makes me feel like those police officers who pose as 9-year old girls online in order to catch pedophiles...)"

Several more emails HERE.

Lalonde stated that he had the login name and password to Robinson's fake account (that she had provided only to him) on a 3M sticky note in his office for many months. Robinson wanted him to have it for the periods when she was absent from her work.

Lalonde stated under oath that he discouraged Robinson from performing her surveillance, that she only did this out of "personal interest", and that he accepted receiving the information she provided because of the "climate of fear" that prevailed on campus at the time.

Lalonde explained that science student Marc Kelly had appeared on campus in a white costume and playing "ominous" music ("The institution controls your mind") from a portable sound box, that part of the white costume had been found in Rancourt's laboratory, that he had seen a picture of Kelly in-costume on Rancourt's office door, and that a biology professor had expressed security concerns a-la-Fabrikant to him. Lalonde further explained that if some unauthorized person "anarchist activist" had access to a laboratory with radioactive materials that this had great potential to create "fear in the community". Lalonde also sought advice from a psychiatrist, to advise him regarding Dr. Rancourt's mental state and the risk that he and/or others represented to the University community, regarding these events. For these reasons Lalonde felt that he was justified in using the information gathered by Robinson.

Many of the emails involving Robinson that were disclosed by the university under the requirements of the arbitration had never been disclosed as required by law following an access to information request made by Rancourt in 2008, even under a subsequent appeal with the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario, not even their existence in the required table of non-disclosed records. It is difficult to understand how this could have occurred. As a result, the access to information request gave essentially no results.


Background articles and links:

• Targeting dissident professor Denis Rancourt, HERE.
• Tribunal hearings page on academicfreedom.ca, HERE.
• All UofOWatch posts about the dismissal hearings, HERE.
• Reports on University's covert surveillance practices, HERE.
• Recent Student's-Eye View reports about the hearings, HERE1, HERE2, HERE3.
• Globe & Mail letter from concerned parent Julia Debono observing Rancourt's 2006 class, HERE.

[2012-06-22: Correction/clarification: "Lalonde also consulted a psychiatrist regarding these events." was changed to "Lalonde also sought advice from a psychiatrist, to advise him regarding Dr. Rancourt's mental state and the risk that he and/or others represented to the University community, regarding these events."]

U of O officials featured in the "This is Canada" series

Allan Rock, Nathalie Des Rosiers, and Michelle Flaherty have been featured in the "This is Canada" series: HERE and HERE.

See all the "This is Canada" posts

Ethically challenged Michelle Flaherty, judge, HRTO --- video

This is part of a new video series about individual examples of ethically challenged professionals. It is intended to expose ethically challenged high-ranking officials who participated in the administrative mobbing of tenured physics professor Denis Rancourt. (Background HERE.)



This clip features ethically challenged Michelle Flaherty, judge, Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

As Legal Counsel at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada), Michelle Flaherty oversaw a broad and illegitimate covert information gathering campaign from 2006 to 2008 against Denis Rancourt and several students, in violation of the principle of academic freedom and of established labour rules in the academic environment.

The campaign also involved student journalist Maureen Robinson, dean of the Faculty of Science Andre E. Lalonde, VP-Academic Robert Major and others. The present Allan Rock administration continues to cover up the campaign.

Extensive information and links to media reports are provided HERE.

Michelle Flaherty then left the University of Ottawa to become a judge at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (Canada). She continues to occupy the latter position.

RELATED POSTS:
All UofOWatch posts about Michelle Flaherty
All academicfreedom.ca reports about the covert information gathering campaign 2006-2008

Report on IPC in Rancourt case: Dean lied to cover up

INTRODUCTION - ONGOING RANCOURT CASE

The Denis Rancourt case at the University of Ottawa (Ottawa, Canada) is a major ongoing academic freedom case being presently investigated by a Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Independent Committee of Inquiry and expected to go before the courts as a significant labour dispute. [LINK]

The case has been covered by national and local media in both Canada and the US (New York Times -twice, Globe and Mail -twice, National Post, CBC radio The Current, TV Ontario). [LINK]


LATEST DEVELOPMENT - ACCESS TO INFORMATION RULING

On September 29, 2010, the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario issued a decision in a notable access to information (ATI) case involving Rancourt and Rancourt has written a report about the matter: HERE.

These machinations of the U of O administration are only the latest example of an event in the administrative mobbing of Rancourt described in the independent report by academic workplace expert Professor Kenneth Westhues: LINK.


CONCLUDING HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE REPORT

Rancourt's report is based on several original documents now made public. Concluding highlighs from the report are as follows.

"Beyond demonstrating that the Dean of the Faculty of Science is ethically challenged, this case shows that the Dean, the VP-Academic and Legal Counsel conspired to send a dubious letter questioning a dissident professor’s ‘physical and mental well-being’ based on no record other than communications between themselves and bosses at human resources."

"The IPC Order [2], together with the IPC Mediator’s Report of July 27, 2009 [3], the University’s revised ATI decision letter of August 27, 2008, with index of respondent records [4], and Lalonde’s signed affidavit of September 18, 2009 [5], shows that:

(1) Lalonde lied about the records during the formal IPC mediation step;

(2) Lalonde or his staff meticulously removed at least six records from his office computers and files; and

(3) Lalonde lied in affidavit [5] apparently to cover up his first lies about the records and his removal of records."

CONNECTION WITH ALAIN ST-AMANT

From Rancourt's report:

"The only grievance filed against a professor was a grievance filed by Rancourt against then Chairman of the Department of Chemistry Alain St-Amant for “harassment” and “derogatory and threatening behaviour” [6]. The latter grievance was filed on January 3, 2007 [6].

The only discipline in this matter would have been possible discipline of Alain St-Amant and the resulting order from the dean to St-Amant to stop his unacceptable behaviour [7].

Therefore, it appears that the University was using the problem of St-Amant’s behaviour as its pretext for sending its dubious letter of September 6, 2007, to Rancourt, without providing Rancourt with any indication to this effect."

CRITICISMS FOR THE IPC

Rancourt leveled several criticisms towards the IPC Adjudicator and the IPC herself. One example is a s follows:

"IPC Adjudicator Frank DeVries condoned the fact that Pamela Harrod simultaneously acted as: (1) University FIPPA/FOI Coordinator, (2) VP-Governance (then “University Secretary”) and immediate supervisor of University Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty directly involved in the ATI matter, and (3) “Commissioner for Taking Affidavits, etc.” (sic), signing the [fraudulent] affidavit of Lalonde in particular."

RELATED POSTS ABOUT THIS MATTER
Alain St-Amant's response to the present post
Rancourt's October 2010 Report
U of O's discovery of instant psychological evaluations
U of O executives spontaneously develop psychological evaluation capabilities

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa (Lalonde, St-Amant), IPC (Ann Cavoukian) and public domain (Conrad Black).]

Human rights judge spied on university students – National civil rights association director covers it up

New records have been released.

The UofOgate is disturbing enough even as the access to information (ATI) battle rages on but now the plot really thickens. LINK TO ALL POSTS about UofOgate.

One of the student victims of the University of Ottawa covert information gathering campaign of 2006-2008 against student politicians, student activists, and one professor has obtained and released ATI records.

These new records are damning for both the student spy (former science student and student journalist/editor Maureen Robinson, aka Nathalie Page) and the university officials who supervised the spying

• Dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde

• Former Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty

but also for those who supervised the supervisors

• Former VP-Academic Robert Major

and who appear to be participating in the cover up

• President Allan Rock

• VP-Governance Diane Davidson

• Former VP-Governance and FIPPA Coordinator Pamela Harrod

• Former VP-Governance Nathalie Des Rosiers

• Legal Counsel Alain Roussy

• Human Resources Assistant Director Jean-Yves Leduc

• Former Human Resources Director Louise Pagé-Valin

Nathalie Des Rosiers is now General Council (i.e., director) of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA), while presumably retaining her salary from the University of Ottawa; whereas Michelle Flaherty is now a Vice Chair (i.e., judge) at the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO).

The CCLA has been asked to investigate Nathalie Des Rosiers regarding several alleged civil rights abuses: LINK.

For this post, consider just two specific newly released ATI documents and their implications.

Recall that it has already been established that student journalist Maureen Robinson was hired by the University of Ottawa as “agent of Legal Counsel”, working directly under Flaherty, to covertly gather information (SEE REPORTS AND DOCUMENTS HERE). But it’s always nice to actually see their correspondence, as revealed pursuant to ATI law.

DOC-3

DOC-3 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 12, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law). Here we see a detailed report by the student spy about a student political event: An all candidates’ debate for the Graduate Student Association Études Diplômée (GSAED).

Note that the subject line is marked “privileged and confidential”, as were all communications between Maureen Robinson and Flaherty. “Privileged” communications in law are protected under solicitor-client confidentiality. The University argued that all Robinson-Flaherty communications were protected in this way by virtue that Robinson was a hired “agent of Legal Counsel” (see REPORT). A web law dictionary (under)states “Privileged communications are controversial because they exclude relevant facts from the truth-seeking process.”

In the exchange (DOC-3), former Legal Counsel Flaherty appears to be enjoying the report, as she states:

“I’m laughing out loud-- I’ll miss the severin updates. Thanks [XXX].”

This shows that there were several updates, that Legal Counsel received them and commented them (severed parts), and that the reports were precisely about student politics in anticipation for elections and possible student political pressure for the activism course (SCI 1101). Another document from Robinson appears to be a transcript from a voice recording of the GSAED event, with lengthy quotes from student politician “severin”.

Flaherty “will miss the reports…” She left to take up her new HRTO position on or around March 31, 2008.

DOC-8

DOC-8 (LINK) is an email exchange dated March 5, 2008 (severed pursuant to ATI law).

Recall that student spy Maureen Robinson used a false Facebook identity (Nathalie Page) to infiltrate student activist electronic lists and discussion groups (see REPORT).

Well, here you have it: An email presumably from “Nathalie Page” (severed but the ATI request was for Maureen Robinson only) with Maureen Robinson as a recipient, along with Flaherty and the ever-present Dean of Science.

It starts: “Hi, it’s [XXX]. Haha.”

The exchange also contains a forwarded email from a private activist student Google Group (“Reinstate the Activism Course”) that Robinson was not a member of but that “Nathalie Page” was allowed to join (see REPORT).

This appears to show that both the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel Flaherty knew that Maureen Robinson was using a false identity to infiltrate activist student groups in order to provide them information while acting as “agent of Legal Counsel”. Ah if only the severing could be uncovered and all the communications were released…

In addition, DOC-8 shows the student spy informing the Dean of Science and Legal Counsel that she is using her media connections to attempt to secure a voice recording of a coming talk by the spied-on professor at a student conference to be help at UBC. It would not be the only time: LINK. (It should not take an Independent Committee of Inquiry to see that this is a violation of the legal principle of academic freedom.)

It seems to us that the Dean of Science should explain himself. There is enough smoke from this smoking gun to fill a mineralogy lab.

Maybe an investigation by The Law Society of Upper Canada would be in order? After all, Canadian lawyers have some of the strongest professional ethics rules in the land: LINK. In particular, lawyers have 100% professional responsibility for their juniors; that would be the “agent of Legal Counsel” we presume…?

We have asked both Lalonde and Flaherty to correct or comment on our reports: Neither has replied.

Maureen Robinson has repeatedly denied everything to the media: LINK-1, LINK-2, MORE-MEDIA. Well at least she did not directly threaten a libel lawsuit as did her former student editor colleague Appleyard: LINK.

When will the Ottawa Citizen cover these matters? It was eager to please Allan Rock with “editorial support” in the dismissal of the spied-on professor but it has not touched UofOgate? Not news worthy? Humm. Maybe if its publisher, James Orban, got off his seat at the University of Ottawa Board of Governors?

[Photo: Michelle Flaherty, Vice Chair, HRTO]

Postscript: Nathalie Des Rosiers provided a response (on April 20, 2010) which is posted ON THIS PAGE: HERE. Denis Rancourt's reply to Nathalie Des Rosiers is posted HERE.

UofOgate: New VP-Governance Diane Davidson and President Allan Rock join in the cover up

A detailed public report shows that the University of Ottawa practiced extensive covert surveillance against one of its professors and several students between 2006 and 2008 [LINK-Post about Report].

The U of O also mounted a cover up which has been strengthened and extended under the Rock administration [LINK-Report] [LINK-Formal request for investigation]. See media reports HERE.

It is a cover up when an institution or organization, over a period of several years:

1. never acknowledges any of many direct questions and formal queries about the alleged wrongdoing,
2. continuously refuses to answer any of many questions about the alleged wrongdoing, even when required to do so by the established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations (here the Collective Agreement),
3. repeatedly refuses to investigate the alleged wrongdoing, despite several informal and formal requests to investigate and despite established administrative procedures, rules, and regulations to do so (here Policy 92),
4. refuses to accept as “arbitrable” a formal grievance (labour lawsuit) against the alleged wrongdoing and in the face of a union asking that the established grievance procedure be respected (Collective Agreement),
5. refuses to provide any and all documents about the alleged wrongdoing even when required to do so by access to information law,
6. arranges to delete or remove a sensitive and incriminating voice recording about the alleged wrongdoing,
7. contrives elaborate excuses for rapidly disappearing electronic records of all staff who leave the institution or organization so as not to be vulnerable to access to information requests,
8. contrives elaborate narratives to guard the electronic records of contract staff using the organization’s computers from access to information searches, and
9. uses contrived narratives in its legal representations to the access to information enforcement agency (Information and Privacy Commissioner) in order to continue denying access to all records about the alleged wrongdoing.
   

The University of Ottawa has done and continues to do all of the above.

The persons involved in the cover up have included:

• André E. Lalonde, Dean of the Faculty of Science

• Louise Pagé-Valin, former Director of Human Resources

• Robert Major, former VP-Academic

• Pamela Harrod, former Secretary of the University and former FIPPA Coordinator

• Nathalie Des Rosiers, former acting VP-Governance and director of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA)

• Michelle Flaherty, former Legal Counsel and vice-Chair of the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)

In addition, President Allan Rock was in cc to formal requests for investigation and one would expect him to have been fully briefed about the matter.

Recently (see full email string below), science graduate student Wayne Sawtell (a victim of the University’s covert surveillance while an undergraduate) put the matter squarely to Rock and asked for a full investigation. The new VP-Governance Diane Davidson answered for Rock – the usual “no comment”.

This puts Rock and Davidson squarely in the camp of the perpetrators of the cover up.

Will public pressure eventually solve this problem? You would think that the University officials involved would want an independent investigation (including the filed labour law grievance) to clear their names of any wrongdoing and to defend academic freedom in Canada?

[E-MAIL STRING START]
[Editor's emphasis in bold]

From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: 28 January 2010 21:24
Subject: Re: FW: response requested
To: "Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance"

That doesn't give me any reassurance the U of O adminstration isn't still spying on me. I will have graduated by the time this case makes its way through the legal channels. Meanwhile, I have to live with the Rock administration operating in a manner consistent with a corporate security state instead of fostering the kind of independent thinking that breeds true success in life.

Wayne Sawtell


On 27 January 2010 09:25, Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance - Vice-President, Governance wrote:

Dear Mr. Sawtell:

Your e-mail of January 22, 2010 to the President has been forwarded to me for reply.

The matters you raise are subject to ongoing proceedings. Unfortunately, the University cannot comment at this time.

Diane Davidson
Vice-rectrice à la gouvernance / Vice-President, Governance
Pavillon Tabaret
550 Cumberland (208B)
Ottawa, ON K1N 6N5
Tel: 613-562-5950
Fax: 613-562-5178
Email: vr.gouvernance@uottawa.ca / vp.governance@uottawa.ca



From: Wayne Sawtell [mailto:]
Sent: Friday January 22, 2010 10:37 PM
To: Allan Rock
Subject: response requested

Dear Mr. Rock,

Still awaiting a response, I am writing to remind you of the letter I sent January 6th of this year, bringing to your attention the compelling evidence that the previous administration conducted covert surveillance of a professor and student activists by hiring student Maureen Robinson to spy on them. I am sure that you deplore this kind of repressive behaviour as much as I do and will want to distance your administration from those kinds of practices. A quick and unambiguous denunciation of covert surveillance and suppression of activism would provide a fresh break from the blight these allegations have brought upon the University of Ottawa and help restore some of the damage done to its reputation. However, the international university community will not be fully satisfied until a full, independent investigation is conducted into the affair. Now is your opportunity, Mr. Rock. Do not miss it.

Sincerely yours,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology (xxxxxxx)


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: Wed, Jan 6, 2010 at 10:21 AM
Subject: Covert surveillance at Ottawa U
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Cc: Denis Rancourt <>, editor@thefulcrum.ca, Sean Kelly , Fulcrum News Editor , info@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca

Dear Mr. Rock,

Thank you for your Dec. 4 response to my letter of Nov. 16. I appreciate the fact that you are not at liberty to comment on the substance of issues surrounding the dismissal of Denis Rancourt because of the legal implications.

I would however respectfully challenge the notion that all the required procedures were followed in this case. I should say, there was a demonstrable lack of good faith on the part of the administration, and some very dubious procedures were followed by the administration that contravene the university’s constitution and violate the collective agreement with APUO. Specifically, I am personally alarmed by the recent evidence from the university’s files (http://rancourt.academicfreedom.ca/background/reportoncovertsurveillance.html) that has come to light showing that the administration conducted covert surveillance of Professor Rancourt and activist groups on campus. There is concrete evidence that the administration engaged a student of Ottawa University to spy on Professor Rancourt and certain student activist groups and to report on her findings to the administration. Science student and then-Fulcrum news editor Maureen Robinson was used by the administration to impersonate someone else and tape record meetings, for example. I like to think that I live in a democratic country where one does not have to worry about the authorities at any level spying on people, that surveillance cameras are used for people’s protection and not to track the activities of people who disagree with corporate control over public institutions like universities. Such actions directly contradict previous statements by the administration that support student activism and even activism courses in certain faculties of the university.

I call on you as President of the university to publicly denounce such tactics and to initiate a full, independent investigation into the actions taken by the previous administration in the years leading up to the decision to dismiss Professor Rancourt. I believe it is also important and of interest to students to make the results of this investigation public.

Yours truly,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology, xxxxxxx


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Office of the President
Date: 2009/12/3
Subject: RE: appeal of dismissal
To: Wayne Sawtell

Dear Mr. Sawtell,

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your concerns regarding the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt from the University of Ottawa.

While I appreciate the perspective from which you have positioned your arguments, please be assured that the Executive Committee gave careful consideration to Mr. Rancourt’s dossier before recommending dismissal with cause to the Board of Governors. Moreover, all procedures required by the collective agreement with the Association des Professeurs de l'Université d'Ottawa (APUO) were followed.

To respect confidentiality and legal obligations surrounding this matter, I cannot comment further. However, I continue to stand by the dismissal recommendation made previously this year.

Thank you once again for your interest and understanding.

Kind regards,

Allan Rock
President and Vice-Chancellor


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Wayne Sawtell <>
Date: Mon, Nov 16, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Subject: appeal of dismissal
To: allan.rock@uottawa.ca
Cc: Denis Rancourt <>

Dear President Rock,

As a an alumnus and a current graduate student in the Science Faculty at the University of Ottawa, I am writing to ask you to reconsider a major decision that you made this summer: the dismissal of Professor Denis Rancourt of the Physics Department. Dr. Rancourt made unique and valuable contributions to the university not only through teaching Physics for 20 years and performing productive, high-level research, but also through a weekly campus radio show, ‘The Train’, and a weekly documentary film series, ‘Cinema Academica’, both of which are about social and political issues of concern to everyone.

Despite mixed feelings amongst the student body and teaching faculty about the issues championed by Professor Rancourt, I believe that looking at the record from a different perspective would actually strengthen the university. I agree with Dr. Rancourt’s position that criticism of institutional behaviour is healthy and constructive even though it may sound harsh, and there is a striking lack of institutional analysis both at Canadian universities and in society in general. It seems to me that many people in the university administration and teaching staff possibly took too personally comments that Dr. Rancourt made over the past few years for the sake of enhancing learning within the university and for the sake of justice in our broader society. Therefore, the advice that you were given by others in the administration was most likely very biased.

Several initiatives that Dr. Rancourt undertook during his tenure at the University of Ottawa aimed to generate more independent thinking and activism amongst the student body. The pedagogical literature is overwhelming in pointing out that unequal power relations within the classroom pose a sever impediment to learning and critical thinking. The several courses that Professor Rancourt established, all of which were a variation on the theme of activism in work and study, were of enormous importance. As an undergraduate, I witnessed firsthand how the Science in Society course attempted to redefine the classroom setting and to set aside proven ineffective traditional teaching methods in favour of an approach led by the students themselves. SCI1101 broadened my view of the role of science and the scientific method and made me think about the impact that my work as a scientist might have in the future on power relationships among groups in Canada and abroad.

Unfortunately, before the novel approach of SCI1101 had a chance to take hold and have an effect across the entire university, the course was cancelled by the previous administration even before the two-year pilot project was completed. The course was never given a chance to be offered in French after the first year in English. This was extremely unfair to the large Francophone population of students, whom I feel form a crucial part of the university and Canadian society in general.

I also enjoyed the weekly film series, Cinema Academica that Dr. Rancourt started. I attended most weeks and participated in the discussions after the films, which were always more animated and lengthy than any discussion I have witnessed in any lecture course at the university. Furthermore, I developed an appreciation for the unique perspectives brought to the discussions by general members of the community. I feel that I derived a benefit that was more connected to wider Canadian society and that was unavailable in traditional courses at the university. This was important to me because in my program concentration there is no possibility of co-op work terms and I had therefore been lacking a connection with the wider community that teaches students how their studies are related to real-world issues.

The manner in which Professor Rancourt was dismissed also does not sit well with many people in the University of Ottawa community because a spirit of fairness and equity was not followed. Professor Rancourt filed no fewer than 24 formal grievances against the administration for a variety of unfounded actions taken against him. Fewer than one third of these many grievances have been resolved, languishing in the system for an unreasonable amount of time (some since 2007). As a lawyer, Mr. Rock, you are surely aware that the speed at which a process of justice is carried out is a crucial element of justice itself. Furthermore, the larger issue of academic freedom, which Dr. Rancourt has championed tirelessly, is still being investigated by an impartial body of three external professors who will be reporting on whether Dr. Rancourt’s academic freedom was indeed violated by the previous administration. Professor Rancourt was claiming the right of a professor to grade students in the best manner he saw fit. The university has dismissed him for his actions based on this claim, flying in the face of pedagogical research that has discredited the effectiveness of the grading system as a means of teaching students. Therefore, the dismissal of Professor Rancourt before the submission by an independent body of a report on whether his academic freedom as a professor was violated is an act that lacks legitimacy.

The Board of Governors of the university acts on the recommendations that you, Mr. Rock, as President, put on the table. By taking into account the above-mentioned processes of arbitration surrounding Dr. Rancourt’s case as well as the totality of his contributions to the university, I urge you to consider recommending to the Board the re-instatement of Denis Rancourt as a full professor of the university.

I optimistically await your reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours,

Wayne Sawtell
M.Sc. candidate in Biology

[E-MAIL STRING END]

[Photo credits: University of Ottawa; Diane Davidson, Allan Rock]

U of O admin spies on prof and students using hired student journalist; false Facebook identity; covert voice recordings; extensive cover up

Two union grievances (teacher assistants and professors) have been filed against the University of Ottawa for extensive covert surveillance practiced between 2006 and 2008.

The violations of civil and academic workplace rights were exposed through several access to information law requests and appeals to the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario.

A detailed report and supporting evidence were made public HERE by former physics professor Denis Rancourt who was fired in March 2009.

The covert surveillance campaign is unprecedented on a Canadian campus. Undergraduate student and student journalist Maureen Robinson was hired as an “agent of University Legal Counsel” and took on a false Facebook identity to infiltrate student groups, especially ones supportive of Rancourt’s activism course.

Former University Legal Counsel Michelle Flaherty abruptly left the University at approximately the time when a covert voice recording went missing from the access to information record. Flaherty is now a Vice Chair (judge) with the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Several high executive officers of the university were also involved; in recruiting the student spy and in receiving and using the covertly collected information.

Rancourt’s talks about anarchism in pedagogical development were covertly recorded at conferences on other campuses (Kingston and Quebec City) and the recordings were exchanged among university high officials.

The University’s actions were violations of legally-defined academic freedom, the labour law collective agreements with two unions, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Law Society of Upper Canada, and accepted professional norms for journalists.

The University also enacted an extensive cover up and has steadfastly ignored requests to investigate, including several requests which predated Rancourt’s dismissal.

These findings are in stark contrast to President Allan Rock’s repeated statements that all due procedures were followed in Rancourt’s dismissal. Rancourt has consistently stated that his dismissal was politically motivated.

[Photos: Who's who?]

U of O’s discovery of instant psychological evaluations: Mineralogist dean wants all the credit

Recall that back in 2007 the University of Ottawa’s dean of the Faculty of Science André E. Lalonde, who is a mineralogist by training, made a fundamental advance in labour management by spontaneously developing a capacity for instant psychological evaluations of his academic staff [LINK].
..
Such progress in management methods can only be of use to society at large if it is shared into the public domain so that other managers can learn these skills. Therefore, UofOWatch investigated this development in human knowledge by making an access to information (ATI) request on April 30, 2008, to identify all records (emails, letters, notes, reports, etc.) related in the broad sense to the dean’s September 6, 2007, LETTER [LINK].
..
The University was obliged by law to search for the requested records and to provide them within 30 days. The University replied on May 15, 2008, that “Access is denied to your request since no such records exist.”
..
UofOWatch appealed the University’s denial of access to the Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) of Ontario on June 4, 2008. The appeal was accepted and the case went into mediation. Mediation lasted more than one year and was terminated with the Mediation Report. On July 30, 2009, the case was then moved to adjudication.
..
It is the position of UofOWatch that any “mediation privilege” should not be used as a pretext to prevent unethical or illegal behaviours of institutions from being disclosed.
..
As is shown in the Mediator’s Report and supporting documents (available to media and investigators on request), during mediation the University, in the person of Pamela Harrod, first reaffirmed its position that “no records exist.”
..
The University informed the Mediator that the dean had initiated the LETTER on his own initiative and based entirely on informal verbal conversations with one or more colleagues in the hallways or in his office: The dean had no respondent records.
..
At this point, the University also informed the Mediator that it was prepared to ask the dean to state his position in an affidavit.
..
Wow. Taken at face value, this means that the dean had discovered a way to single-handedly perform a psychological evaluation based entirely on hearsay, of sufficient reliability to write a formal letter insinuating a mental health problem. [From a statistical perspective, given the nature of hallway conversations in academia, the dean presumably would have sent out many such letters?]
..
However, it was not that simple.
..
UofOWatch then asked the Mediator to indeed secure the proposed affidavit and to also secure affidavits of non-involvement from those that the dean might have consulted, such as Pamela Harrod (VP-Governance), Legal Counsel, Robert Major (VP-Academic), and Louise Pagé-Valin (Human Resources). The Mediator also transmitted a list of thirteen University offices where respondent records might be found.
..
At this point, the University refused to provide any affidavits and instead provided an index of eleven respondent records that it now mysteriously found, some four months into the process.
..
The University has refused to provide the records themselves but the index shows that the records are emails between the dean, Major, Michelle Flaherty (Legal Counsel), Pagé-Valin, and others, exchanged mainly during June and July 2007, in obvious preparation for the September 6, 2007, LETTER. Several exchanges have the index subject line “A different tact?”
..
Since Legal Counsel Flaherty is involved in virtually all the emails, it is difficult to understand how her immediate supervisor Pamela Harrod could repeatedly report in the name of the University that “no such records exist,” while required by law to search for and produce all records within 30 days.
..
Oh my my, so the dean, although he does not like to admit it, needs at least a lawyer and his immediate supervisor the VP-Academic to accomplish his feat of psychoanalysis? What is most surprising is the length to which the University is prepared to go in order to not disclose its secret of newfound management abilities.
..
It appears that the dean was prepared to lie to cover the whole mess, but that asking everyone involved to lie under oath (in affidavits) was too much.
..
The next questions are:

• Will the University be ordered to perform another search?

• Will the University be ordered to disclose some or all of the found records?

• Will the IPC Adjudicator use her legal powers to get to the bottom of the case?

• Will the records be disclosed by a parallel legal adventure or investigation?

..
And finally, will those involved in subverting the ATI law in Ontario (FIPPA) suffer any consequences?
..
[Photo credits: Andre E. Lalonde, comet; University of Ottawa, Andre E. Lalonde.]

UofOWatch Blog Too Much for UofO – Board to Decide on Suspension of Professor

This very blog, which should be celebrated by the University of Ottawa as an example of open self-criticism and vibrant discourse (e.g., see Professor St-Amant’s many contributed comments to the previous post), has in fact been threatened with legal action on two counts and its creator, Professor Denis Rancourt, has been disciplined and is now under review for suspension.
.
Professor Rancourt’s final supplementary brief (posted HERE) in the matter of his suspension for the blog was deposited today. The Board of Governors (BOG) of the University of Ottawa has 40 working days to provide its decision and its reasons therefor. BOG meetings are public.
.

A brief history of the University’s reactions to the UofOWatch blog is as follows.
.
First, on August 20, 2007, University of Ottawa’s VP-Resources Victor Simon initiated a “private” action against Rancourt using the third largest national law firm in Canada, Borden Ladner Gervais (BLG), which is known to specialize in libel and defamation cases. The Chairman of the BOG of the University of Ottawa is a Partner in BLG.
.

The BLG letter of threat “Notice under the Libel and Slander Act” is posted HERE. It is signed by BLG Partner J. Bruce Carr-Harris who has been involved in high-profile fund raising activities for the University.
.

The letter states:
.

“Mr. Simon hereby demands that you immediately remove the two blogs [THIS ONE and THIS ONE] … from your U of O Watch blog, failing which we expect to receive instructions to commence the requisite legal proceedings to do so.
.

In addition, we require a full, absolute, and unequivocal and fair apology and retraction of all defamatory statements…”
.

Similar letters of threat of legal action, in this matter of Victor Simon and UofOWatch, were sent to graduate students Jean-Paul Prévost and Severin Stojanovic (for allegedly providing material support) and to three (student) staff members (Editor-in-Chief, Director General, and the journalist covering the Victor Simon matter) of the student newspaper La Rotonde (presumably to intimidate the paper away from publishing on the matter).
.

La Rotonde bravely published a full spread on September 10, 2007, with copies of some of the BLG letters. Rancourt did not budge, trusting truth as the ultimate defence. The lawsuits never materialized.
.

Next, on August 28, 2007, came a letter from the University of Ottawa’s Legal Counsel (Michelle Flaherty). This letter is posted HERE and states: “the University of Ottawa hereby requires that you immediately remove the images of Tabaret Hall, of the President of the University of Ottawa with Mr. Telfer and of the President of the University of Ottawa and Mr. Lau from the U of O Watch blog site … If you fail to remove these images by August 31, 2007, the University of Ottawa may take whatever action it deems necessary to protect its intellectual property rights.”
.

The Flaherty letter explained that it is University policy that the images “may be used by faculty, staff, students, and the news media solely for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.”
.

Having been informed of the University policy, Rancourt responded by making more widespread use of copyrighted University images, which greatly enhanced the blog.
.

The Dean of the Faculty of Science, André E. Lalonde, next enthusiastically took on the job of “protect[ing] [the University’s] intellectual property rights.” The Dean initiated his own investigation on November 23, 2007 (see letter posted HERE). In his letter, the Dean explained “I am concerned that your refusal to remove the copyrighted images from the U of O Watch website constitutes insubordination.”
.

What followed was a long series of meetings, exchanges of letters, and procedures (see Rancourt’s brief HERE for a summary) in which Rancourt tried to explain to the dean that both criticism and allowing criticism were positive and that, consequently, the University policy was not being violated.
.

The Dean disciplined Rancourt and warned of more discipline if the images were not removed. The Dean then appealed to the good judgement of VP-Academic Robert Major to ask that Major schedule the continuation of the investigation in order to pursue a suspension of Rancourt. Major obliged – leading to the present evaluation by the Board.
.

The Executive Summary of Rancourt’s BRIEF to the Board reads as follows.
.

The University of Ottawa has a stated policy of allowing professors to use its copyrighted images from its web site “for the positive promotion of activities related to the University of Ottawa.” (See Legal Counsel’s letter to Denis Rancourt dated August 28, 2007.)
.

Denis Rancourt uses credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site in the UofOWatch blog that he manages (see attached item-1).
.

The UofOWatch blog features commentary and critical articles about activities of the University of Ottawa (see attached item-1).
.

The credited copyrighted images from the University’s web site significantly enhance the UofOWatch blog (a picture is worth a thousand words) and show a positive image of a university open to self-criticism.
.

University professors have academic freedom in their research and communications, including in criticisms of the university itself. The university has a duty to support the work of its professors, within the usual limits of resource constraints.
.

The University has disciplined Professor Denis Rancourt (Letter of Reprimand dated February 5, 2008) for not removing the copyrighted images from the UofOWatch blog.
.

Dean André E. Lalonde presently seeks further discipline (a one-day suspension) to be approved by the Board, before a grievance (filed on February 24, 2008) against the first discipline has been heard.
.

The University’s discipline and the on-going attempt to further discipline are not legitimate and appear to constitute attempts at ideological (political) censorship. The actions of the dean (and of Legal Counsel) appear to be petty and contrary to fostering a vibrant and critical university intellectual environment in a free and democratic society.
.

In addition, there are many procedural anomalies that point to serious problems in ethical and responsible management. These include illegal gathering and use of personal information and unwarranted legal threats.
.

In wrapping up his BRIEF, Rancourt states:
.

“Criticism is positive, healthy, and necessary to produce change. Congratulatory niceties only support the status quo. Not exposing known problems encourages their continuation. Criticism is vital work that needs to be encouraged rather than censored and attacked.”
.

Let us hope that the Board, in its collective wisdom and mandated fairness, will find a way to celebrate freedom of expression and inquiry at the University of Ottawa.
.

[Photo Credit: University of Ottawa. Mr. Marc Jolicoeur, BLG Partner and Chairman of the University’s Board of Governors.]