Rock administration loses another access-to-information decision - Seven more Allan Rock emails ordered disclosed - IPC Order PO-3540-F

The University of Ottawa's poor record of systematically opposing access to information has been documented many times on this blog.

On October 15, 2015, the University of Ottawa lost another Information and Privacy Commissioner (IPC) decision (LINK to Student's-Eye View report). Seven (7) more Allan Rock emails were ordered disclosed: IPC Order PO-3540-F.

Here are excerpts from the decision:

[5] In this order, I do not uphold the university's decision to withhold the records pursuant to section 17(1) of the Act, and I order it to release the records to the appellant.

[8] The university argues that the records contain commercial information supplied to it by third parties and are exempt pursuant to the mandatory third party information exemption at section 17(1) ...

[12] The university goes on to submit that disclosure would result in such information not being provided to the university again. It submits that, at the commencement of or during the relationship between the university and a third party, high level exchanges of communications will often take place between the third party and senior executives of the university, Including the President. The university submits that it is important to these discussions that third parties be able to share information freely, and that if they learn that information which they provide may be disclosed, they may not be willing to engage in similar high-level strategic discussions. As a result, the university will be prejudiced in its ability to negotiate new projects and undertakings with third parties.

[14] The appellant submits that these records do not relate to "informational assets". He points out that the subject of record 164 is "visit to country", and the subject of record 209 is "country". ...

[25] I conclude that the university has not discharged its onus and that there is no reasonable expectation of the harm identified by the university occurring if the records are disclosed. Therefore, section 17(1) does not apply to them. ...

I order the university to disclose records 143, 164, 209, 219, 270, 271 and 272 to the appellant ... This disclosure is to take place by November 20, 2015...

Sophistry 101 -- Allan Rock on what is not an "academic program"

When lawyers run the world... It's not every day that the president of "Canada's university" overtly manufactures a novel mental construct to circumvent the statute (law) that defines the mission and governance structure of the institution.

There you have it, as reported by Student's-Eye View:

Video of Allan Rock Interview with La Rotonde

November 17, 2014

by Student's-Eye View

 

La Rotonde has posted a video (in french) of its recent interview with University of Ottawa President Allan Rock.

At 1:40 in the video, Allan Rock is asked why the university’s new Security and Policy Institute (SPI) program was not approved by the university Senate or Board of Governors.

An English translation of this segment of the video (beginning at 1:40 and ending at 3:34) is as follows (free translation):

LR: Our next question is about the Security and Policy Institute.
Rock: Yes.
LR: So, since the Board of Governors and the Senate were not consulted, we would like to know who approved the program and why there were no consultations?
Rock: Yes. Generally, when we launch a new program, whether it’s in Science, or the Faculty of Arts, or somewhere, we have a consultation and then we also have an analysis and discussions at the level of the Senate and its committees. In this case, we are talking about a program that is non-academic, in the sense that it’s not credited, it’s a program which is offered to people who are implicated in the domain, so that they can perfect their skills, in the professional sense. So, given that it’s not an academic program, we don’t need approval from the Senate and we did not initiate a consultation like we would do with an academic program. The Continuing Education Centre exists in order to give people who are already in the job market a means of improving and perfecting their professional skills — we hire people mostly from outside the university as teachers — so it’s not an academic program as such. We use the framework of the university to offer professional programs, and we also hope to generate additional revenue for the university.

Video by La Rotonde:

Student's-Eye View reports Allan Rock sham to circumvent Senate and BOG

Only a former politician could devise such a sham at a university: "our 'professional training' here is not an 'academic program'... it's just a money-maker to support our academic mission..." ah hummm.

New Interview with Allan Rock

November 10, 2014

by Student's-Eye View

La Rotonde has published a new interview with U of O President Allan Rock (see here).

Security and Policy Institute (SPI)

The university’s new “SPI” program was unveiled at a posh reception at the end of last summer, and has been criticized as a project of geopolitics and globalization, in part due to its funding that comes from Symantec, a major U.S. company with military ties in the U.S. and Israel.
La Rotonde asked President Rock why the SPI program was not presented for approval to the university’s Senate or Board of Governors. His reply is as follows (free translation):

“It’s a service offered by the Centre for Continuing Education. The Centre’s objective is to offer non-credited professional training. Programs are not approved by the Senate because the programs are not academic. It’s not an academic activity in the sense that it would have to have approval of the Senate because a degree is awarded. [The training] is aside from the central mission of the university and it’s a means of generating revenue to help us in our main mission, which is the academic programs. According to us, we don’t need approval from the Senate or Board.”

Rock further explained that the upper administration of the university approved the SPI program.
One would think that programs that are not academic do not belong in a university, but then again one might think the U of O is not much of a university.
For comparison with the President’s statement, S. 17 of the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, the Ontario statute that governs the U of O, establishes that the university Senate is “responsible for the educational policy of the University and… has power, (a) to control, regulate and determine the educational policy of the University…; [and] (b) to determine courses of study…”

Student Code of Conduct

The spectre of a student code of non-academic conduct has returned to U of O.
La Rotonde asked for Mr. Rock’s comments about the possible re-introduction of a student Code. His response (free translation) was as follows:

“It’s up to the Working Group to decide exactly what they will recommend. I think it was in 2007-2008 that the university proposed the code of conduct, and it was not well-received. There were inadequate consultations, and all that, but I would rather not prejudge the Working Group’s report. It’s up to them to decide what their judgment is concerning the appropriate steps at present. And I imagine it’s possible that they will recommend a code of conduct, but we will have to wait for the report.
I think the most appropriate thing for me to do is wait for the Working Group’s report and to not influence their analysis or pre-judge what they will recommend. It’s up to them [the members of the Working Group] to analyze the current situation and come up with their recommendations. And naturally, we will make their report public, and we will have a discussion — we will decide what to do, but it’s not up to me to judge. I will wait for their report.”

Meanwhile, the SFUO has begun organizing to oppose the re-introduction of a student Code, according to a recent article in The Fulcrum.

On technology in the classroom at U of O, and on paternalism

Drop the iPad and get back to basics, says University of Ottawa professor Cameron Montgomery
--Ottawa Sun, March 17, 2013

U of O Granting Program Gives $80 000 / year for Clickers, etc.
--Student's-Eye-View, December 20, 2011

On the sacred space of the university classroom
--Activist Teacher, October 3, 2009

"The University of Ottawa is till fine-tuning their new online policy, and expects to release their findings by the end of the year." --Sun article, March 17, 2013

Findings? Some profs want to close in-class student laptops on demand, as in paternalistic control of in-class behaviour of adult students who are suppose to have the academic freedom to optimize their own learning as they see fit...

U of O Watch looks forward to the U of O's "findings" on this delicate question of student adaptation to dreadfully boring classes delivered by PowerPoint slides.

The student union has been waiting for the University's "findings" for a full year:
Student union letter
--SFUO, April 2, 2012

Latest article on Student's-Eye View

Judge Accused of Conflict of Interest Loses Decorum and Withdraws from Case

July 24, 2012

by Student's-Eye View

Inside look at the Rock administration -- ATI records posted

“We need to push uottawa team! Less than 30% towards team goal!

What to do? Bribes? Empty promises (it works during elections!)…” 

  - U of O President Allan Rock, June 7, 2011 (record 142)

This is how it works -- Court costs arguments against student

UofO and Professor St. Lewis File Costs Replies (link)

More public demands that Rock and St. Lewis drop their legal cost demands against student

Striking Quebec Students Denounce Joanne St. Lewis’ Legal Fee Demands (link)


uOttawa Students to Joanne St. Lewis: “Outrageous and Unjust” (link)


Student Appeal Centre Protests uOttawa’s Demand for Lawyer’s Fees from Student (link)

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Students co-sign a letter asking law prof St. Lewis to abandon her legal costs demand against co-student

Twenty three students and community members have co-signed a letter to law professor Joanne St. Lewis asking that she abandon her cost submission to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against physics graduate student Joseph Hickey:

Petition to Social Justice Prof. Joanne St. Lewis to Drop Legal Fees (link)

Hickey sought to have public and media access to the live testimony of public official Allan Rock regarding his use of public funds and student-tuition money to fund a private matter.

The claimed legal costs are for Hickey's court motion to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear an open court motion that requested that public attendance be allowed at the out-of-court cross-examinations of the evidence of U of O president Allan Rock and others in a "maintenance and champerty motion" in which Rock has stated that it was his decision that the university is entirely funding a private libel litigation of St. Lewis as the plaintiff.

Hickey's stated only interest was to have his say on the open court question of public and media attendance at the cross-examinations. Hickey had attended previous such cross-examinations and the Court had barred the public from a re-examination at that time.

For Hickey to have his say in court would probably have taken 15 minutes, as allowed by the judge for an intervener in this case. Instead, the St. Lewis and U of O lawyers argued during half-a-day before the judge against Hickey having his say. The judge then ruled that Hickey would not be allowed to make his statements or bring his evidence and received costs submissions from both St. Lewis and the U of O.

As background, a link to the court documents in the main action and all the court motions is HERE.

Gashoka publicly scolds Rock on accountability

Allan Rock, “Why do you refuse to answer?” (link)

Two recent posts about the open court matter in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation

Two elected members of the Senate of the University of Ottawa have sent open letters posted at the Student's-Eye-View blog:


Letter to Prof. Joanne St. Lewis from Kilamanjaro Black Student Association President: “A Travesty of Justice” (link)



Professor Joanne St. Lewis Maintains Demand for Legal Fees from Student (link)

Student pursued with punitive court costs by U of O for arguing transparency

On March 29-30, 2012 University of Ottawa Senate Member and physics graduate student Joseph Hickey posted these reports on his Student's-Eye-View blog:

• Ottawa Judge Robert J. Smith Excludes Student Media Reporter from Court Transparency Issue

• UofO and Professor Joanne St. Lewis want $5,500 in Legal Fees from Student

Hickey made a motion before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice on March 28, 2012 to intervene in a motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not hear a motion to allow public and media access at the cross-examinations of public officials U of O president Allan Rock, U of O chair of the Board of Governors Robert Giroux, and others.

Hickey argued that he has a Charter right to attend the cross-examinations in order to blog-report about the sessions which are held under Court supervision at a private court reporter's offices.

Hickey had attended two previous such cross-examinations in the same St. Lewis v. Rancourt action and had blogged his observations and opinions. Hickey and other members of the public had then been barred by court order to not attend two specific re-examinations in the same action.

This had been followed by an "open court motion" served by the defendant (Rancourt) which was barred from being heard on its merits, leading to Rancourt's motion for leave to appeal, at which Hickey sought to intervene.

It seemed clear to this observer, that Hickey had standing to intervene as both a member of the public and as a member of the media seeking access to a court process, but the judge sided with the plaintiff (St. Lewis) and the U of O.

The U of O had not moved to intervene in the motion for leave to appeal or in Hickey's motion to intervene but was given "automatic" leave to intervene in both motions in the "private" action and used this intervener status to argue (in the person of lawyer Peter Doody) against Hickey and then to claim costs against Hickey for having forced it to argue against Hickey.

St. Lewis (via her lawyer Richard Dearden), whose legal costs are entirely paid by the University of Ottawa, also seeks costs against Hickey, at a punitive level, for having forced her to argue against Hickey's request to have his say.

Justice Robert Smith ruled that Hickey did not satisfy the test to have his say on the matter of his (and public and media) access to court processes pursuant to the Charter. Justice Smith reasoned that Hickey's contribution to the "private" libel action would not serve justice.

“I do not find that Mr. Hickey has an interest or perspective different from the Defendant’s. The nature of the case is also a factor to be considered, and in this case it is a libel action between two individuals. I do not find that Mr. Hickey would make any useful contribution to the resolution of the dispute between Mr. Rancourt and Ms. St. Lewis, or make a useful contribution towards resolving the question of whether or not Leave to Appeal should be granted of Justice Beaudoin’s order or Master MacLeod’s order.”

“I also find that Mr. Hickey would not be adversely affected by the judgement in favour of either Ms. St. Lewis or the Defendant, Mr. Rancourt since this is a private dispute between two individuals.”
– Smith J, March 28, 2012

Justice Smith also explained to Hickey, regarding costs, that an individual who attempts to intervene in a lawsuit must expect a certain financial risk which counters the costs imposed on the opposing parties.

St. Lewis and the university seek to hit the student with one third of his annual salary for asking to have his say about public access to a court process, as a citizen directly affected.

The university has a duty, enshrined in jurisprudence, to defend academic freedom.

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Responding Factums filed, Joseph Hickey intervenes for public and media on open court motion Leave to Appeal

Elected University of Ottawa Senate Member and physics graduate student Joseph Hickey has filed a Motion Record and a Factum as an affected-person intervening member of the public and media in the Defendant's (Rancourt) motion for leave to appeal a judge's decision to not allow an open court motion to be heard on it merits.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- Plaintiff's lawyer's Factum (Richard Dearden): HERE-Factum.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- University's lawyer's Motion Record and Factum (Peter Doody): HERE-Motion-Record, HERE-Factum.

2012-03-22::: Motion-9 -- Intervener Joseph Hickey's Motion Record and Factum filed: HERE-Motion-Record, HERE-Factum. And Hickey's report: HERE.

The public in-court judicial hearing of the arguments for and against granting leave to appeal will be held at 10:00 AM, March 28, 2012, at the Elgin Street Courthouse, Ottawa.

The central issue is whether court proceedings such as the cross-examinations of the submitted evidence of university president Allan Rock and common law dean Bruce Feldthusen will be public (with media access) or strictly private.

The first matter is for an appeal to be granted towards allowing the arguments for and against public access to be heard.

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: U of O Senate shuts down rather than discuss open court principle

Is it the governing academic body at "Canada's university" or is it a lemonade stand?

Two elected Members of the University of Ottawa Senate duly submitted a motion to their Senate -- the highest governing body of the institution on all academic and freedom of expression matters -- to discuss the open court motion submitted to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice which would make the anticipated cross-examination of U of O president Allan Rock open to the public and media, regarding why the President decided to fund plaintiff Joanne St. Lewis' private litigation against defendant Denis Rancourt.

Instead of adding the Senate motion to the agenda, as required by the rules, VP-Governance Diane Davidson, an outsider hand-picked by Allan Rock, decided instead to simply shut down Senate and not have the April meeting of the institution's largest and most significant democratic body.

Davidson justified her move by asserting that the courts had already ruled on the open court principle as it applies to cross-examinations, in contradiction to a recent Statement from the Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region:

Diane Davidson Creates Veto Power to Hide Allan Rock?

Sophistry at the Highest Level: Diane Davidson’s Cancellation of UofO Senate

Of course Davidson's "reason" is just bad lemonade because: (1) the Court allows the cross-examinations to be public if both sides agree, and (2) the Court's decision in question is scheduled for leave to appeal.

This follows the recent sudden departure without notice or explanation of second-in-command VP-Academic Francois Houle, to which the academic community's response was... deafening silence.

Not democracy's finest hour at the institution once known for integrity and institutional continuity.

Clickers for teaching, nothing for learning

Senator Joseph Hickey has exposed another administrative scam at the University of Ottawa (LINK).

The admin wants to tailor classroom practice towards more mindless technology that prevents or substitutes human interactions with technological gadgetry. And of course they want to media market the fact that they are doing this, as though it were a good thing.

The best way to manage the behaviours of professors is to offer research money and gold stars of funding for their annual reports...

Meanwhile the disease of PowerPoint has spread to epidemic proportions:

On the sacred space of the university classroom (link)

without any hope in sight.

Societal engineering of the sterile classroom...

GSAED out to get a student University Senate member for ... ?

"WTF" seems like the natural response to this craziness:

GSAED Councillors Wish to Discipline Student Senator over Pay Equity Request (link)

How a disgruntled physics student could get this far against another physics student using the graduate student union is, well, difficult to understand. Are the GSAED Council members eager to participate in mindless mobbing and why?

We might conclude that the brilliant administration of the university has inspired high quality student governance. Oiyoiyoi.

"Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog" -- Student's-Eye View

As a recent development in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt matter, University of Ottawa student university-senate member Joseph Hickey reports "Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog" and has posted an email exchange with counsel for St. Lewis Richard Dearden, initiated by a Notice of Libel sent to Hickey, on the blog "Student-s-Eye View":

Joanne St. Lewis Threatens to Sue Student Senator over Blog

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

"Author Jeff Schmidt apologizes to Professor Joanne St. Lewis" -- U of O student senator reports

Following his PREVIOUS REPORT, University of Ottawa student senator Joseph Hickey has reported a latest development related to the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit (link):

Author Jeff Schmidt apologizes to Professor Joanne St. Lewis

Note: U of O Watch reports all prima facie significant developments in the on-going St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit, from all sources, and posts all identified and non-trivial comments relevant to the given post. Such reports do not imply agreement with or endorsement of the linked items.

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

"Author Jeff Schmidt campaigns for just treatment of Professor Joanne St. Lewis" -- Student senator reports

University of Ottawa student senator Joseph Hickey has reported this development related to the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation lawsuit:

Author Jeff Schmidt campaigns for just treatment of Professor Joanne St. Lewis

As background, all related posts about the lawsuit are HERE.

Links to all pleadings and court documents in the lawsuit are HERE.

A Law Times media article about the lawsuit is HERE.
.

Irregular U of O selection of Michaelle Jean as Chancellor -- Student Senator report

Interference in Selection of Michaelle Jean as Chancellor by Senate Chair Allan Rock (LINK)

Will the new Chancellor-to-be intervene as requested?

Related post on Michaelle Jean about systemic racism at U of O: HERE.