Author: kirchmeiervubc

Final Argument

Update #64: Complainants’ Final Submissions Sent to Tribunal on Friday, January 30. Read Them Here.

kirchmeiervubc

At the end of the day on Friday, January 30, 2026, Clea submitted the Complainants’ Final Submissions.

Part 1: Describes the statutory requirements for complainants to prove a claim under the BC Human Rights Code, describes how Member Prince should utilize the expert evidence of Dr. Laura S. Brown and Dalya Israel, Executive Director of Salal Sexual Violence Support Center (formerly WAVAW), describes on a high level how we proved UBC failed to be conversant with or consider the Code in any of its conduct, and previewed the layout of the following submissions.

Kirchmeier Final Subs Part 1Download

Part 2: Recounted the evidence about how the University responded to reports of sexual misconduct by Dmitry Mordvinov, including descriptions of his earliest harmful or unprofessional (but not sexually violent) conduct of which the University was aware, and the general culture of tolerance of sexual misconduct at Green College. This took place from 2011 (when he first arrived) through 2014. The evidence we had available showed that my report to the History Department January 8, 2014 was the earliest report of sexual misconduct by a student. Subsequently, Green College received a report from Student E May 1, 2014 about his sexual misconduct conduct towards her, very shortly before Mordvinov raped Student B at the end of May, and by June 2014 all the key operational personnel had knowledge of accounts by Students E and B. The evidence showed they took no effective action, and my report was buried.

Then the narrative discusses actions by the History Department female graduate students in the summer of 2014, as we grappled with news of Student B’s rape. Caitlin Cunningham came to the conclusion that the University would not act unless she complained about Mordvinov’s sexual misconduct towards her (from 2013). She decided to submit a complaint to Monica Kay of the Equity and Inclusion Office (EIO) shortly after graduating in December 2014, and I joined her complaint. The bulk of the evidence about 2014 discussed how the University talked itself out of acting, at Green College, at History, at EIO, at Campus Security, and at VP Students Office.

I will note the chronological narrative is frequently interrupted for long stretches of analysis as we critique the University’s failure to act effectively at various points; if you are not familiar with the basics of what happened, this might be more challenging. Unfortunately it was necessary, because no one took ownership of the process and we had to review the evidence from many administrators pointing the finger at each other.

The narrative continues in roughly chronological order through the events of 2015, when the University’s first meaningful action comes April 30, 2015 banning Mordvinov from campus (but not from continuing his PhD progress, which it continued to fund). It acted after male graduate student Stephen Hay complained about the risk Mordvinov posed. History graduate students petitioned the Department to speak honestly about the fact that they were concerned about sexual misconduct and risk, which was received by Chair Tina Loo as a threat to her authority. In contrast, a similar petition in Green College had a better result because Green College Principal Mark Vessey was more inclined to let students speak openly, even though he partly created the problem because he refused to consider banning Mordvinov from residence. The fall of 2015 covers the Non-Academic Misconduct hearing process and the students working with CBC’s fifth estate. When the “School of Secrets” documentary aired in November and after the press conference held by myself, Caitlin Cunningham, and Kaitlin Russell, Part 2 concludes with discussion of the aftermath.

Kirchmeier Final Subs Part 2 Mordvinov EventsDownload

Part 3: Part 3 describes the individual remedies complainants seek for the 10 members of the Mordvinov Class of complainants. It contains some evidence not included in Part 2, mainly about the impact for each individual who testified.

Kirchmeier Final Subs Part 3 Individual Remedies Mordvinov ClassDownload

Part 4: This describes the narratives of some members of the General Class. Unfortunately, due to the number of “Jane Doe” files – the documents related to General Class members for which we do not know who they are – Clea could not complete all of them in time, so we will supplement for the remaining Jane Does. The General Class members contained here are complete, including proposed individual remedies.

I will post the follow-on submissions for the General Class once it is received.

Part 4 begins with three General Class Members about which we have the most evidence. The first, Melanie Tremblay of Green College, reported sexual misconduct to Green College in 2014 and 2015 by another member of the College. While she did not testify, eventually she decided she wanted her name used by Member Prince in the final decision. We refer to her as “MT” in submissions. Second, we discuss the harrowing story of Tara McBryan of the Zoology Department, where she endured persistent stalking and harassment by a fellow Zoology graduate student that the Department never corrected; Ms. McBryan testified. Third, we discuss Lauren Fisher’s reports of sexual misconduct to various units at UBC, including residence staff, counseling, and medical, none of whom effectively supported them or expressed curiosity about the male UBC students who were abusing her. Mx. Fisher testified and uses she/they pronouns, preferring “they,” but the narrative uses she/her pronouns. We apologize for the error and will correct it with the Tribunal.

We continue with the Jane Doe files, the Class Members about which we only have documents, covering the stories of Jane Does 1, 2, 3A, 3B, 3C, 4, 5, 6. The Jane Doe files in the submissions so far, then, cover how the University reacted to reports of sexual misconduct at the following administrative units: (1) Green College, (2) EIO, (3) Campus Security, (4) VP Students, (5) the Zoology Department, (6) Residence Life, (7) Counseling, (8) Student Health, (9) Access and Diversity, (10) Department of Theatre and Film, (11) the Engineering Department, (12) the English Department, (13) the Irving K. Barber Learning Center, (14) the Department of Earth, Ocean, & Atmospheric Sciences, and (15) the Non-Academic Misconduct process run by Robbie Morrison in whatever office that is. Also, the RCMP on-campus detachment makes a brief appearance, but they were useless.

Kirchmeier Final Subs Part 4 General Class Section ADownload

Part 5: Part 5 discusses the Complainants’ proposed systemic remedies.

Kirchmeier Final Subs Part 5 Systemic RemediesDownload
Final Argument

Quick Update #63: (Updated Dec. 12) Extension Granted for Final Written Argument

kirchmeiervubc

Written closing argument for the complainants was originally due November 28. The deadline was first extended to December 15, 2025, and has been extended again by agreement of the parties.

The new deadlines for submissions are:

Complainant submissions: January 30, 2026

Respondent submissions: March 6, 2026

Complainant final reply: March 27, 2026

Hearing

Update #62: Evidentiary Part of the Case CLOSED.

kirchmeiervubc

Yesterday, we heard testimony from UBC’s witness Vi Addams, an administrator with the History Department (since January 2025, replacing retired staff Jocelyn Smith) with extensive experience throughout the University, particularly its financial systems. As frequently occurred with prior witnesses, Mx. Addams testified about relevant documents never disclosed to us and had to go search and produce them, and there was a little delay while they did that and while Clea reviewed the documents. However, this did not delay completing their testimony. They testified about money the University paid to Dmitry Mordvinov in the course of his time there, as well as about how money flows through UBC in a practical sense and the records it keeps about that. Mx. Addams completed their testimony in the afternoon. Member of the public Emma Cunliffe observed.

No further witnesses will be called nor documents admitted. The evidentiary portion of the case is over. I have a goal to do a post that summarizes the hearing with stats, e.g. X number of days of testimony, Y number of complainants covered, who testified when, etc. However, due to life circumstances, I have no sense of when I will be able to complete that.

Going forward, the parties and Member Prince agreed that the complainants would submit our written closing arguments on November 28, 2025. The University will submit its reply January 16, 2026. The complainants’ response to UBC’s reply will be due February 6, 2026. I filed the complaint in March 2016, completing my part of the advocacy just under the ten year mark. Member Prince will take probably 1-2 years to issue a decision, based on historical timeframes for turnaround times in complex matters. However, Premier Eby ensured that the BC Human Rights Tribunal has far more resources than in prior decades, so perhaps I will get a pleasant surprise and a decision more quickly than I expect.

Member Prince floated the idea of a required page limit of 80 pages. However, counsel for UBC and the complainants agreed (a rare event) that it would not assist her to enforce a low limit, because of the sprawling nature of the stories involved, that she would benefit from having counsel synthesize the evidence for her, and that there was evidence related to at least 30-ish complainants in the General Class, beyond all the evidence around the Mordvinov Class. Member Prince set a page limit of 350 for the closing arguments and 50 for the complainants’ response (the one due in February).

We briefly discussed anonymization, but without much to add since the last time it came up. The complainants argued (at an earlier date, not yesterday) that it would be illogical to anonymize Mordvinov’s name, given the notoriety of it now, and I recall the University counsel being somewhat agnostic on that point. It is almost certain that all the other men accused of sexual misconduct will be anonymized, as there’s no disagreement about that. The complainant witnesses who testified will be anonymized if they prefer, or have their names used, a preference they generally stated at the time of testimony and which I reflected in this blog. The General Class Members whose identities we do not know will of course be anonymized. (Assuming we prevail and these women receive an award, we would know them at that point for the purposes of paying them, though I think UBC’s counsel might handle the logistics of that.) We advised that General Class Member Melanie Tremblay chose to have her name used rather than anonymized, joining fellow non-anonymous General Class Members Lauren Fisher and Tara McBryan, although Ms. Tremblay did not testify. I don’t expect that any of the employees of the University will be anonymized but I don’t actually know the position of Member Prince or UBC on that. It would be weird, though, especially after I posted about them on this blog.

Hearing

Update #61: Chad Hyson Cross Exam Finishes. Only One More Day of Hearing on August 6

kirchmeiervubc

On July 14 and 15, 2025, Chad Hyson completed his cross examination. One additional witness remains for one day of hearing: UBC will call Vi Addams, an administrator from the History Department (without direct knowledge of the events of 2014/2015) who will give testimony regarding records.

The last day of hearing is set for August 6, although additional dates remain on the calendar in October in case some delay occurs.

The parties will begin written closing argument. As the complainants, we will go first, then UBC will respond, and we will reply. I understand the deadline for those submissions has not yet been set but will likely be later in 2025, given the tight schedules of counsel for both parties and the Tribunal.