UPDATE – On December 4, 2020, we filed Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Response to UBC’s Application to Dismiss. I can be found on the Documents page. Not included are the supporting documents filed at the same time, which are Attachments A to H; Jennifer Cocke’s Affidavit #2; Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Affidavit #1; and Kaitlin Russell’s Affidavit #1. The reason is that we attached hundreds of pages as evidence, and it would be a bear of a job to go through and replace certain Class Member names with the pseudonyms we are using, as well as redacting personal information such as email addresses. Generally, supporting documents for submissions like this don’t get publicly posted; the Tribunal website typically posts final decisions written by Tribunalmembers. In order to save a lot of headaches for everyone, we’ve requested that in written decisions, UBC and the Tribunal continue to use the pseudonyms for the Class Members who want them, which is consistent practice for the Tribunal on other matters.
I am extremely proud of this response because it explains why it matters in such vivid terms that this case should continue. The first part updates the facts alleged originally in our complaint, fleshing out the story with documents. We understand a lot better what happened at Green College than we did in 2016 when I filed the complaint. The middle part of the response goes over the legal discussion of what we legally need to show and why the case should not be dismissed. The last part establishes the adverse impact the University had on the women, that we have established a nexus between our sex as women and the adverse impact, and rebutting UBC’s arguments on nexus and its claim that a new sexual misconduct policy means there need not be a hearing. I think I will make separate posts in December highlighting some key arguments we make here.
————–Prior post below——————
We are preparing to meet the December 4, 2020 deadline for me to Reply to UBC’s Application to Dismiss from May 2018. I have prepared an affidavit which will describe the adverse impact UBC’s actions mishandling the Mordvinov reports had for me. Several class members have either already provided a statement, or they are assisting with affidavits as well. Clea and I would be happy to hear from any additional Class Members who wish to participate at this point, but in order to complete everything by Friday, please contact us by tomorrow, December 2 at the latest.
I am also locating documents out of the disclosures to support our arguments, while Clea is working on the bulk of the drafting and of course the legal argument. Later this week I will provide edits on the first draft and run down additional documents. This part of the legal case is incredibly time-intensive, but I’m lucky enough to be on parental leave and to have the support of my family.
I will post the final filing on the Documents page once we send it in. UBC will have two weeks to respond, and I will post that as well.
Finally, a programming note: I have updated the Definitions of the Class page. After reviewing the Amended Complaint and the Tribunal’s 2017 August Screening Decision, I realized that the definition I had put up for the General Class was wrong – it was too narrow. The General Class encompasses reports, disclosures, or communications about a male studying or employed at UBC. Previously, I had improperly written “male student” when the actual definition just says “male studying or employed.” (The Tribunalmember was the one who originally wrote this definition and invited me to amend the complaint with it, which we did.) Goes to show you that there’s no substitute for reading the primary documents.
Glynnis Kirchmeier - and - Kirchmeier obo Others v. UBC 