Category: Applications

Since my last update, I have had my baby (and wrapped up my professional work before my parental leave, and submitted my spouse’s green card application).

I also completed my primary task of assessing what was included in the July 31, 2020 document disclosure from UBC. While I have not read every word of the documents, I have a general sense of them. They consisted of 19 folders ranging from one one-page document to dozens and several hundred pages, sorted by the originating person. Clea and her staff are still reading some of the Outlook files that I was not able to open. We’ve got some questions to UBC about redactions and additional missing documents – but, fortunately, the lion’s share of this part of the case is finally about done.

On September 10, the Tribunal sent a letter to the parties setting deadlines of October 8 for me to reply to UBC’s Application to Dismiss, and UBC the deadline of October 22 to reply. The Tribunal did not check with Clea before issuing the deadlines; I am not sure if UBC was consulted. In any case Clea wrote to inform everyone that we could not meet them, as she had a Hearing the week of October 8 (and I have been preoccupied with childbirth and a newborn). The Tribunal also did not ask us if we are satisfied with UBC’s production. She proposed dates in November for us to answer the long-lingering Application to Dismiss. I have not been able to catch up with her this past week, but when we spoke earlier in October the Tribunal had not replied to her letter.

FURTHER UPDATE AS OF OCTOBER 16: The Tribunal canceled the October dates and gave us until October 15 to advise on whether document disclosure was complete, which we did. We named a number of categories of documents that we think still need to be disclosed, but indicated that we are nonetheless ready to address the Application to Dismiss and proposed December 4 as our deadline. Today, October 16, the Tribunal agreed to December 4 for us, and December 18, 2020 for UBC’s written reply.

Forward progress!

On April 24, Tribunalmember Norman Trerise finally rendered a Decision on my Application for Documents and Costs that I filed in June 2019. Although the conclusion section is not as definitive as I hoped, the discussion throughout clearly indicates a win for me. The Tribunalmember indicated that the only permissible redactions would be names of Class Members or potential Class Members – in my view, taking rather too seriously the argument of UBC that it was protecting the privacy and confidential trust of women who disclosed misconduct (the process already provides that I’m not supposed to share or misuse this information and any identifying information revealed at a future Hearing could be protected with a publication ban). Still, this means that if (and when) UBC redacts either the substantial content of disclosures to me, or the names of non Class Members and employees (revealing that they were in the loop about Mordvinov’s misconduct), UBC would be in clear violation of a Tribunal order.

The Tribunalmember articulated yet another process by which UBC and I are to attempt to “work out” our disagreements about disclosure. My choice was to provide UBC notice of the Class Members who had indicated to me directly that they consented to my representation of them. For those Class Members who have remained silent, UBC will redact their names, but painstakingly go through the documents and replace their names with “either numerical and/or alphabetical designations,” so that we can understand to whom a particular document refers. British Columbia’s tax dollars and tuition money at work! At least I will finally understand exactly how many women UBC knows Mordvinov assaulted.

Here is where we currently stand:

1. As of today, June 7, 2020, UBC has disclosed only one major document dump from May 2018. Paula Butler’s investigation and full report were not provided. The documents were obviously incomplete, clearly missing from key persons (like Chad Hyson or Mark Vessey) or events (such as Mordvinov’s disciplinary hearing in October 2015), out of order, and substantially redacted.

2. Despite its claims to the Tribunal, UBC has NOT provided me a list of additional documents that it intends to provide, although it conceded that its disclosure to me is not complete.

3. It is also currently in violation of three orders from the Tribunal: one from November 14, 2017, where it will provide me with the number of persons (Class Members) who it sent the initial communication letter; one from December 5, 2017, where it was ordered to canvass all administrative staff for relevant documents in the relevant time period “regardless of the concerns expressed by UBC of doing so”; and one from January 17, 2019, where it was ordered to “investigate what occurred respecting the failure to provide the Package [initial letter to Class Members] to those individuals and will advise Ms. Kirchmeier respecting the information it received in that investigation and will provide each person named by Ms. Kirchmeier, who is within the Class, the Package.”

4. UBC has not provided me with Paula Butler’s investigation or full report, despite agreeing to do so in August 2019. In the Documents Decision, the Tribunalmember mistakenly asserts that he understands UBC provided them – it did not.

5. On May 13, Clea and I sent a letter to UBC’s counsel with the names of the Class Members (Mordvinov and General) who communicated directly to me that they consented to or supported this human rights complaint. We also expressed our expectations about receiving the documents, canvassing, and the orders with which UBC hasn’t yet complied. Counsel did not reply.

6. On June 1, Clea again nagged UBC’s counsel Jennifer Devins and Michael Wagner at Roper Greyell LLP. To date they have not replied.

OTHER NEWS:

Stephanie Hale’s hearing was originally set for the end of March. However, the general shutdown due to the pandemic pushed it to the summer, and it is now set to be heard July 30 and 31, 2020.

UBC is set to revise its Sexual Misconduct and Assault Policy. This was created as Policy 131. However, in its usual bureaucratic strategy of deterring people from being able to follow the thread (typically by posting documents online then breaking links, changing the site, taking down previously created resources, “notifying” the public only by posting it on the UBC counsel website, etc.), the latest iteration is now going to be called the Sexual Misconduct Policy SC17. What is interesting is that at the same time, UBC is also developing two brand new, but related policies which I believe will significantly address the practical safety issues for sexual violence victims – the At-Risk Behaviour Policy SC13, and Retaliation Policy SC18.

Pre-pandemic, SC17 was presented to the Board of Governors in November 2019, a public comment period opened to the end of January 2020 (so, when students are mostly gone from campus), and then the committee would consider the public comments to present revisions in March and eventual rubberstamp by the BOG by June. I have no idea whether they are on track for that post-pandemic or what happened with the revisions at all. My bandwidth to keep track of these things in my free time is simply not there anymore (another way institutions successfully “win” against individual reformers). However, due entirely to promotion by Julia Burnham, Max Holmes, and the Ubyssey on Twitter, I was able to review and submit a comment in January 2020 on the new Policy, which you can read here and in the Documents page (copies of the draft policies are also preserved there).

The At-Risk Behaviour Policy SC13 was developed without any apparent consultation with the committee working on the Sexual Misconduct Policy SC17, and it’s certainly not clear to me that people responsible for enacting these policies will understand they both exist. However, every student should read them – and demand UBC follow them – together. I think the At-Risk Behaviour Policy will provide a path to safety for victims without the formality of process required by the Sexual Misconduct Policy, because it basically allows a reasonable administrator to limit a perpetrator’s actions or presence on campus for up to 3 weeks – after which a formal process MUST begin, including investigation of that conduct, if the restrictions were to stay. This would allow, for instance, stalking to be addressed immediately without all the hand-wringing, because it merely requires (in draft form) reasonable people to act to reduce risk.

That these policies exist now is 100% due to the constant pressure and commonsense advocacy by the Ubyssey, the AMS and undergraduate students who have relentlessly told administrators that sexual violence is not an acceptable side effect of seeking an education at UBC. While these policies have the distinct quality of spooking from the ghosts of professors who think sticking things inside students is a perk (professors alone get special treatment and excessive reference to employment law/unions, though staff and students are also members of unions and also can be employees), they are better than the alternative of nothing. I remember, on the day the Butler report summary was gloatingly released in February 2016, sitting in a forum with administrators and faculty talking about how UBC should address sexual misconduct, including retaliation for reporting. Janet Mee, Janet Teasdale (who was unceremoniously fired last year), Lisa Castle, and a few other admins there rolled their eyes at the suggestion. (“The faculty union will just kill it,” one of the Janets said, I no longer recall which.”) Now, a mere four years later, and with so many other promises broken (still no rape kit access, welcome wagons for John Furlong and white supremacists) – UBC has a set of policies that a motivated victim with a giant support system can use to get some parts of a safe, discrimination- and harassment-free education.

BLOG HOUSEKEEPING:

Now that the case is moving again, I will be resuming the monthly updates, or more frequently as developments occur. Given the timing of this post, it makes sense to update at the beginning of each month, rather than the 15th. I do apologize for the lack of updates in 2020. Around the time the Decision was sent out in late April, I began to move across the US yet again. On top of that, I am sure I am not alone in the disruption due to the pandemic, and while I hoped to make this post last weekend, the urgency of joining the actions against racist police got in the way.