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.
Glynnis Kirchmeier - and - Kirchmeier obo Others v. UBC 