Student Federation's Centre for Equity and Human Rights Releases Report alerting the University of Ottawa’s Common Law Section to serious concerns and offering recommendations

The Centre for Equity and Human Rights (CEHR), a service offered by the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa has released a public report which outlines concerns with regard to the University of Ottawa’s Common Law Section management of cases involving the duty to accommodate and students with disabilities. The vast majority of CEHR formal or informal cases occurring within the Common Law section of the Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, are reported to pertain to the prohibited ground disability.

Identified barriers include problems with the accommodation process, the lack of willingness to render appeals related decisions which consider human rights perspectives and obligations and the upper management’s refusal to meet with student advocates.

The Student Appeal Centre has been witness to many of the concerns raised within CEHR’s report and strongly support their recommendations.

Read the full report here

A long-overdue Iron Fist Award for Thierry Giordano, Vice-Dean Governance and Secretary, Faculty of Science

Every year, the Student Appeal Centre (SAC – Student Federation of the University of Ottawa) awards the Iron Fist to the University of Ottawa administrator having caught Student Appeal Officers’ attention for being most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students. This year, the Student Appeal Centre feels it has a duty to award the Iron Fist to Thierry Giornado for his egregious actions and threats made against former graduate student Philippe Marchand exactly five years ago today.

On April 27, 2007, then master’s student Phillippe Marchand met with Vice-Dean Governance and Secretary for the Faculty of Science Thierry Giornado. It was Giordano himself who had proposed the meeting following a public letter written by Marchand in which he questioned the Faculty’s refusal to add a motion to the agenda of its Faculty Council.

From the beginning of the meeting, Giordano treated Marchand in an aggressive manner, refused Marchand his right to be accompanied by another person to the meeting, and bombarded Marchand with a series of questions all the while interrupting him incessantly.

To make matters worse, Giordano then began verbally threatening Marchand with reprisals if he were to ever reveal the nature of their conversation to a third party. Giordano went on to say, “I am telling you right now, if at any time there is anything written about this conversation, or if I learn that you have used the content of this discussion to tell people ‘this is why they refused [to add the motion to the agenda of Faculty Council]’, if I hear that, I will attack you, is that clear?” (translated from French).

He also said: “Let it be very clear, first, I will not recognize, if you report anything, I will not recognize, but what’s more, I will ... I will attack you by saying it’s not true.”

This high-level intimidation by a member of the administration is not only horrifying and highly reprehensible, it is also prohibited under the Policy on Treatment of Graduate Students on non-academic and non-employment issues. Marchand immediately filed a complaint under this U of O policy but years later, the conflict remains to be investigated and is certainly not resolved. André E. Lalonde and Gary Slater, at the time the Deans of the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Graduate Studies, both contributed to delaying the process needlessly which only further aggravated the damage caused to the student. 

It is of additional grave concern that the deans and the university administration continued to refuse to investigate the student’s formal complaint even after learning that a sound recording of Giordano’s attack exists.

For having treated a student with the utmost disrespect, for his refusal to apologize when directly asked to do so by the SAC in December 2008, and for blatantly threatening to attack a student, Thierry Giornado amply deserves the Iron Fist Award. The Student Appeal Centre re-iterates its request to Professor Giordano that he formally apologize to Philippe Marchand forthwith and demands that the overdue investigation in view of possible discipline be undertaken immediately.

 

Canada's University on Trial : Three medical doctors file multimillion-dollar joint civil action against the U of O and several officials

(OTTAWA, January 30, 2012) – Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed a joint action against the University of Ottawa and several of its officials.

Discrimination, conspiracy to injure, malfeasance in public office, breaches of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, defamation, breach of contract, and negligence are claimed against the University and several of its officials.

Among the individual defendants are Dr. Jacques Bradwejn – Dean of the Faculty of Medicine, Dr. James Worthington – Ottawa Hospital’s Vice-President of Medical Affairs and Patient Safety, Dr. Paul Bragg – Associate Dean Postgraduate Medical Education, Dr. Eric Poulin – Chair of the Department of Surgery, Dr. Therry Mesana – Chair of the Cardiac Surgery Division, Dr. Richard Moulton – Chair of the Neurosurgery Division, Dr. Fraser Rubens – Cardiac Surgery Program Director, and Dr. John Sinclair – former Neurosurgery Program Director.

The claim casts a spotlight on the state of medical training of foreign medical residents at both provincial and national levels in Canadian universities and illustrates some of the hurdles faced by foreign doctors at the U of O.

The plaintiffs’ case had garnered media attention in the Spring of 2011 when they held a press conference to announce that they had filed a Human Rights Complaint against the University of Ottawa.

They are represented by lawyers Douglas Christie and Barbara Kulaszka.


For more details please follow the link to the statement of claim: Aba-AlKhail et al. v. University of Ottawa et al. CV-11-440336

Worst Administrator of the Year: And the winner is…Marie Josée Berger, Dean, Faculty of Education

After careful consideration involving many candidates the Student Appeal Centre (SFUO) awards its first yearly Iron Fist Award to Marie Josée Berger, Dean of the Faculty of Education since July 1, 2002.

The Iron Fist is awarded to the University of Ottawa Administrator having caught Student Appeal Officers’ attention for being most ruthless and/or unjust while showing little or no respect for students. The Award considers both long-term career contributions and particularly notable specific events.

In this case, Marie Josée Berger is well deserving of the Award, having been the object of several informal complaints at the Student Appeal Centre over many years.

For the 2010-2011 school year highlights include Marie Josée Berger’s refusal to respond and investigate at least three very serious complaints filed with her office, calling a student to her office only to belittle her after the case was already resolved in favour of the student, and threatening to impede her own graduate student’s progress in the program when the student expressed her desire to change supervisors.

For being the Dean of the Faculty that continually ranks first as the most frustrating and inefficient to deal with and for being all-round nasty and uncollegial, Marie Josée Berger is the winner of the 2010-2011 academic year’s Iron Fist Award.

Press Release: Three medical doctors jointly file human rights complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials

Dr. Waleed AlGhaithy (Neurosurgery Residency Program, University of Ottawa), Dr. Khalid Aba-Alkhail (Cardiac Surgery Residency Program) and Dr. Ms. Manal Al-Saigh (same) have filed Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario complaints against the University of Ottawa and several officials.

They are represented by freedom of expression and human rights lawyer Douglas Christie.

A joint press conference will be held at 10:30am on Wednesday March 9, 2011, in the entrance rotunda of Tabaret Hall (central administration building), 550 Cumberland Ave., University of Ottawa.

Discrimination, reprisal, and intimidation are alleged on the basis of evidence filed with the Tribunal.

Dr. Aba-Alkail affirms that Senator Dr. Wilbert Keon, Dr. Paul Bragg, Dr. James Worthington, Dr. Thierry Mesana, and others collectively intimidated him behind closed doors to drop a legal reparation case under threat of career obliteration.

The evidence for reprisal and targeting is unambiguous in the form of emails between hospital executives, including emails leaked by an inside source and sent to hundreds of faculty and residents.

For example, on July 11, 2009, Chairman of Neurosurgery Richard Moulton wrote to Dr. Paul Bragg (Associate Dean PGME) and Dr. James Worthington (VP Medical Affairs of TOH) about plaintiff Dr. AlGaithy:

“If the [discrimination] complaint against [Dr. Eve Tsai] is dismissed there are going to have to be some significant consequences for the involved parties (dismissal/suspension) or we are going to be facing this ad infinitum.”

AlGaithy was summarily dismissed despite his outstanding academic and professional standing.

The March 9^th press conference is organized by the Student Appeal Centre (SAC) of the Student Federation University of Ottawa (SFUO), following the SAC’s 2008 report about systemic racism at the University of Ottawa.

- 30 -

For more information about the press conference please contact:

Mireille Gervais, LL.L

Director, Student Appeal Centre, SFUO

case.cresac@sfuo.ca

cell: 613-261-6647

Freedom of Information Documents Show Joanne St.Lewis’ Lack of Independence from Central Administration

In 2008 the Student Appeal Centre published a report which focused on the many injustices and unfair treatment faced by students accused of academic fraud. Numbers revealed that the majority of the students who had consulted the SAC to seek advice concerning accusations of academic fraud were visible minorities – some of whom had openly been targeted because of their ethnic origin. The SAC had warned President Allan Rock of the problem months before but his administration failed to address the problem.

When the SAC’s annual report came out the upper administration asked one of its common law professors and then Director of the Human Rights Research and Education Centre, Joanne St.Lewis, to conduct what they referred to as an “independent evaluation” of the SAC’s report. Joanne St.Lewis accepted and her evaluation was emailed to every single professor and student at the University.

Within the first few lines of her report, Joanne St.Lewis claims her independence and immediately qualifies our annual report as unsubstantiated, inflammatory and inconclusive. Joanne St.Lewis’ conclusion was that the data we had provided was too limited to support our conclusion of systemic racism. She indicated that “the entire analysis and its conclusion are based on less than 1% of the total university population” and that the SAC data was “too limited to enable any analysis”.

However, this conclusion did not deter the Administration from requesting that the SAC provide all of its confidential data to Joanne St.Lewis. In a letter dated March 24, 2009 the then Vice-President Academic Robert Major informed the SAC that Mrs. St.Lewis had been asked to conduct an independent systemic review of the student academic fraud appeals process and asked the SAC to collaborate with Mrs. St.Lewis namely by sharing all of its data. The SAC responded that the University was in possession of the integral data on academic fraud and that the only information the University could possibly obtain that it did not already have was the identity of the SAC’s clients.

In the summer of 2009 the SAC filed a request under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to obtain all communications regarding the Centre’s work. The documents obtained confirmed our concerns regarding Joanne St.Lewis’ independence from the administration and revealed the following:

• Upon meeting with Robert Major, Joanne St.Lewis browsed through a few lines of the SAC report, was outraged by what she read, and immediately accepted to write an evaluation of the report.
• Joanne St.Lewis sent her draft evaluation to Robert Major and Allan Rock saying that she was “happy to respond to any suggestions that [they] may have.”
• Allan Rock commented on the wording of Joanne St.Lewis’ first recommendation saying “my only concern is with the first recommendation, the wording of which seems to assume that there is some racism present already. Since Professor St.Lewis already concluded that there is no evidence of it, such wording is wrong and inconsistent with her own report. […] One last point, I would like Robert to be the only point of contact for us with Professor St.Lewis. Although her report is excellent it may be criticized as not being “independent” from the administration. So far, our dealings with her have been through Robert, and have been scrupulously objective. We have simply sought her view, and have imposed no limitations, constraints or conditions. She has been entirely free to say anything she wants. In order to maintain this professional and objective relationship with her, I want Robert to be the only one in communication with her. Robert can simply observe that the first recommendation is inconsistent with her findings. It will then be up to Professor St.Lewis to decide whether to make a change. If a number of people all send emails and call, we will lose that focus of professionalism and independence.”
• The University arranged for Mrs St.Lewis to speak on CBC morning radio.
• Prior to the interview Robert Major emailed Mrs St.Lewis to say “a thought occurred to me and I’m sorry to have missed it. The report of the SAC deals with appeals in courses. In truth if one calculates the full time equivalent of students (each student taking a number of courses per year) the number of course registration is approximately 240 000! So we have a few possible cases out of a possible number of over 200K. And the SAC is slandering the whole University based on that sampling”.
• Joanne St.Lewis reported back to Robert Major after her interview with CBC saying that she “tried to work in the additional info on the context of courses versus individual cases so I hope that they keep it in.”
• In March 2009 Joanne St.Lewis wrote a lengthy letter to Robert Major thanking him for having appointed her to conduct a systemic review of the student academic fraud appeals process. In this letter Joanne St.Lewis asks the Administration to write a letter to the SAC “asking them to cooperate with me in the sharing of the data and reassuring them that I will be independent of the University and that all personal information provided will be strictly confidential and that any reports will not in any way reflect said information or be available for use by the administration.”

The access to information documents show a close collaboration between the Administration and St.Lewis in elaborating the final report, in securing media access, and in dealing with media messaging. In addition, there is troubling evidence of a cover up of the lack of independence engineered by the President himself.

Joanne St.Lewis was an untenured professor charged with a high profile task and she elaborated her final report and her media work in communication with the Administration, yet she wrote in her report that her evaluation was “independent”. She knew or should have known that her high profile public report about racism in academic fraud appeals could not be characterized as independent.

The most troubling aspect of the St.Lewis exchanges with the Administration and their report is a total lack of admitting the possibility of the systemic racism or unequitable procedure indicated by the SAC report.

Since the publication of the 2008 SAC report the University has introduced an accelerated process for dealing with academic fraud cases. In cases eligible to the accelerate process, students who agree to recognize guilt, whether voluntary of involuntary, receive the guarantee that their case will be dealt with within fifteen business days. For students wishing to defend themselves via the regular process, the administration continues not to be bound by any time limit for dealing with the case. The SAC has observed many cases where students opt for the accelerated process although they believe to be innocent in order to avoid having to deal with further administrative delays.

Our most recent data concerning academic fraud continues to show that more than half the students who consulted the SAC concerning accusations of academic fraud are visible minorities.

All Freedom of Information documents accessible here.

SAC writes to U of O President Allan Rock and Chair of Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur concerning Joseph Hickey's case

Our University campus is one where free speech, student space and freedom of association is protected and promoted. Ahem. Well, huh, not really.

After allegedly painting a political message (these walls belong to students) on the student art walls beside the Morrisett Library (now covered up by the university's selected Gee Gee's images) graduate student Joseph Hickey was charged under the Criminal Code of Canada, barred from campus by being served a blanket trespass notice even though he is a full time student with teaching assistant responsibilities and arrested on campus for trying to book an appointment with President Allan Rock and for brining a cake to his department's Christmas party.

The Student Appeal Centre shares these letters sent to President Allan Rock asking to ensure that the criminal charges are dropped and to the Chair of the Board of Governors Marc Jolicoeur who refused to receive Joseph Hickey's complaint for this serious case of targeted political discrimination.


******************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 10:09 AM
Subject: SAC Appeal to Allan Rock Concerning Joseph Hickey
To: Allan Rock
Cc: Diane Davidson , Alain Roussy , kathryn.prudhomme@uottawa.ca, Joseph Hickey , Sean Kelly , interne@gsaed.ca, university@gsaed.ca, Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear President Rock,

You have, on numerous occasions, proclaimed your role as a Defender of Human Rights and as a man of action in the “service of the world”. Such a noble stance is indeed indispensable at the University of Ottawa, for which you act as President, and which has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. How disturbing it is, then, that you have repeatedly taken action to deny University of Ottawa students their natural rights, including the right to be innocent until proven guilty, the right to freedom of expression, and the right to freedom of education.

Your administration has put University of Ottawa graduate student Joseph Hickey in the absurd situation of facing a criminal charge for mischief, being trespassed from all campus property, being threatened with denial of work, intimidated, and harassed, all because of allegations of painting a political message on a cement poster backing wall on campus (that has since been covered by a university propaganda poster).

Mr. Hickey’s No Trespassing Notice was revoked without apology, only after weeks of letter writing including firm protests from the Graduate Student Association (GSAÉD) and from the Union of Teacher Assistants (CUPE-2626). Many of the abuses of power that occurred while Mr. Hickey was trespassed, such as his arrest at your office while attempting to make an appointment, his removal from the Physics Department Christmas Party by Protection Services, and threats by the Department of Physics to remove his Teacher Assistant work, have given rise to a CUPE grievance and a Policy 110 complaint addressed directly to the Chairman of the Board of Governors, Marc Jolicoeur.

The criminal charge laid on Joseph Hickey is ludicrous and is an example of misplaced police resources to attack politically active students. The SAC denounces the despicable behaviour of Protection Services personnel who chose to covertly gather “evidence” rather than actually “protect” the property that they allege to be concerned with by engaging directly with students. Colourful and politically messaged cement backing walls hidden behind corporate propaganda posters cannot legitimately be considered “damage to property” on a university campus and certainly such messaging should never lead to a criminal charge against a student.

The University is claiming $1038.19 in damage costs from Mr. Hickey, for the removal of the paint, which read “These Walls Belong to Students”. This absurd cost is a disgusting attempt to use student tuition money to exert punitive measures against a University of Ottawa student. There was absolutely no necessity to remove anything from the poster backing walls. The University’s recent (February 4, 2010) installation of propaganda posters over top of student-made chalk messages on the same walls attests to this fact.

Mr. Rock, we ask you to recall the Student Appeals Centre’s October, 2009 appeal to you concerning the political discrimination inflicted by you and your administration against undergraduate student Marc Kelly. Mr. Kelly had been charged with multiple illegitimate criminal offences stemming from his political activity on the University of Ottawa campus. Directly following our letter of protest to you, the Crown Prosecutor decided that Mr. Kelly’s case was “not in the public interest” to pursue, and all charges were dropped. This decision came after one year of sustained intimidation, harassment, interference, and discrimination of Mr. Kelly by your administration.

We repeat: the University has a societal mission to educate students and to foster and maintain an environment where freedom of expression and critical thought are welcomed and protected. Whereas the University should never have called Ottawa Police onto campus in the first place, and should be lobbying the Courts to rescind Mr. Hickey’s charges, it is now pursuing the maximum punishment possible against Mr. Hickey, including criminal charges and extreme and unnecessary damage costs.

Mr. Rock, the SAC now urges you to once again take action and back down from exerting illegitimate criminal punishment against a University of Ottawa student. The SAC asks you to petition the Crown Prosecutor to drop the charges against Joseph Hickey, and to remove the fabricated damage costs that you are forcing him to pay.

Sincerely,

Zachary Fouchard, Student Appeal Officer

Mireille Gervais, Student Appeal Officer

Karine Hébert, Student Appeal Officer

Student Appeal Centre
appeals@sfuo.ca
tel: 613-562-5800 X 2350
fax: 613-562-5767
UCU 101
www.appeals.sfuo.ca

****************************************************

From: Mireille Gervais
Date: Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 10:31 AM
Subject: Joseph Hickey's Policy 110 complaint addressed to Marc Jolicoeur
To: MJolicoeur@blgcanada.com
Cc: Allan Rock , Diane Davidson , Joseph Hickey , Karine Hébert , Zachary Fouchard

Dear Maître Jolicoeur,

Joseph Hickey has shared with the Student Appeal Centre your March 8, 2010 response to his Policy 110 complaint addressed to you.

We, Student Appeal Officers of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa, were surprised to see that you state that Policy 110 is ''meant to address matters arising from the relationship between a graduate student and his or her supervisor and the graduate student’s relationship with the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. It has no application to the substance of your complaint concerning the issuance of a notice of trespass by the University’s Protection Services and the subsequent letter revoking the notice.''

Your interpretation is not in accordance with the policy itself which states ''The University recognizes the many contributions of graduate students to this institution and is committed to offering them protection from abuse in all aspects of their relationship with the University.'' (Preamble 1)

Policy 110 also states ''The procedures for recourse in this policy may be used as well in any circumstance where any other policy of the University of Ottawa is applied'' other than in cases involving appeals concerning academic decision which are under the purview of the Faculty of Graduate and Post-doctoral Studies or issues subject to a collective agreement.

Furthermore, the policy clearly states that no member of the academic community shall be subject to discrimination by reason of political belief. The facts show that Mr. Hickey's ill-treatment by the University is based on his political beliefs. If the targeting of Mr. Hickey were not political then it would be arbitrary or unjustified and disproportionate discrimination; it would constitute harassment by those involved in the decisions. More documents pertaining to the nature of Mr Hickey's mistreatment by the University can be provided if need be.

It is our positions that to paint Mr. Hickey's complaint as one that is outside the jurisdiction of Policy 110 is wrong and in contradiction with the Policy itself. To refuse to receive the policy 110 complaint based on a contrived and incorrect reason would only amplify the University's mistreatment of Mr. Hickey.

We trust you will review Policy 110 and receive Mr. Hickey's complaint without further delay.

Sincerely

Zachary Fouchard
Mireille Gervais
Karine Hébert

Student Appeal Officers
Student Appeal Centre
tel: 13-562-5800 x 2350
appeals@sfuo.ca
www.appeals.sfuo.ca