St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: Ottawa Citizen characterizes champerty motion as an "attempt to derail the lawsuit"

In its latest of many articles about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit, the Ottawa Citizen newspaper has characterized Rancourt's champerty motion as an "attempt to derail the lawsuit", without reporting any of the arguments made by Rancourt in the champerty motion, or in the appeal of the champerty motion to the Court of Appeal for Ontario: LINK-to-Citizen-article.

The courts made no finding whatsoever that Rancourt's champerty motion was "an attempt to derail the lawsuit". Furthermore, the action is in case management by consent, which means that any unworthy motion is blocked from ever being filed.

The Ottawa Citizen has ventured into hyperbole based on a curt judgement by the Court of Appeal for Ontario, without reporting any of the facts or arguments, and without playing its role of critically assessing the court process. When this kind of media superficiality becomes the norm, there is no point having an open court system in Canada.

Background documents:::

• 2013-05-09 Rancourt serves and files appeal to ONCA, to appeal the decision on the champerty motion: Factum and Appeal Book, HERE.
• 2013-07-05 St. Lewis FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: StL-Factum-ONCA.
• 2013-07-05 U of O FACTUM for ONCA of champerty motion: UofO-Factum-ONCA.

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

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

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.

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::: Rancourt's Factum filed, motion for Leave to Appeal the Case Conference decision on the open court motion

A factum is a presentation of one's legal arguments.

In a motion for Leave to Appeal a judge's decision, a factum is required.

Rancourt's factum for his motion for Leave to Appeal the case conference judge's decision to not schedule or allow his open court motion was filed on March 19, 2012 and is HERE-LINK.

All court-filed documents are public by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The motion will be heard at 10:00AM on March 28, 2012 at the Elgin Street Court House in Ottawa. The hearing is open to the public and media, by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The court transcript of the February 8, 2012 Case Conference hearing in question is HERE-LINK. The transcript of the case conference is accessible and can be made public by virtue of the open court principle which is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Civil Liberties Association, National Capital Region's statement about Rancourt's open court motion is HERE-LINK.

The University of Ottawa president is refusing that his cross-examination on his affidavit evidence about how university public funds are being used to finance the litigation be accessible to the public and media. See his affidavit evidence HERE-LINK (at page number "34"). The Plaintiff through her lawyer is arguing that the open court principle does not apply to cross-examinations of affidavit evidence which itself is public.

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.

St. Lewis v. Rancourt::: 'Open court principle' appeal to be heard

Main updates in the Joanne St. Lewis v. Denis Rancourt lawsuit include:


(1) Self-represented Rancourt is advancing a motion to stay or dismiss the action as an abuse of process, the so-called "champerty motion".


(2) As next steps in the "champerty motion" Rancourt will cross-examine:

• U of O President Allan Rock
• U of O Chairman of the BOG Robert Giroux
• U of O Dean of Common Law Bruce Feldthusen
• Ottawa lawyer Celine Delorme

[Cross-examination dates to be set by a judge, see below.]
The University volunteered Rock as the person who directly made the funding decision, after Rancourt proposed to summon Rock as a witness. The Court offered the University an occasion to move that Rancourt's summons to Giroux be quashed but the University declined the offer.

(3) Rancourt has advanced an "open court motion" seeking that all the cross-examinations be open to the public and media.


(4) Rancourt's "open court motion" was quashed by a judge on February 8, 2012.


(5) Rancourt filed a motion for leave to appeal the judge's decision to reject the open court motion and called on the Regional Chief Justice to schedule the appeal prior to the cross-examinations.


(6) The cross-examination schedule was stayed in order for the motion for leave to appeal to be heard in court on March 28, 2012 at 10:00 AM at the Elgin Street Court House. All court proceedings are bilingual, following Rancourt's request to exercise his language rights.


(7) Civil society is reacting to the open court proposal:

The Civil Liberties Association - National Capital Region (CLA-NCR) has published a statement in favour of Rancourt's open court motion: HERE.

University of Ottawa Senate Member Hazel Gashoka has publicly called on Allan Rock to stop refusing a public cross-examination on the question of his decision to finance the St. Lewis litigation against Rancourt: HERE.

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.
.

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

The St. Lewis v. Rancourt litigation was covered in the University of Ottawa French-language student newspaper La Rotonde:

Rancourt exige des contre-interrogatoires publics -- La Rotonde

The article is mostly about Rancourt's open court motion to require that all out-of-court cross-examinations be public; starting with Rancourt's motion to stay the action on the basis of an alleged champertous relationship between the plaintiff and the University of Ottawa which is entirely financing St. Lewis' lawsuit.

St. Lewis' lawyer Richard Dearden is quoted in part as saying (translated from the French):

"Cross-examinations are private. I have never, never, never heard of a public cross-examination."

Both president Allan Rock and chair of the Board of Governors Robert Giroux are to be examined by Rancourt regarding the champerty charge.

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.
.