Category: Hearing

Hearing

Update #57: Complainants’ Case CLOSED. UBC begins to bring its defense witnesses.

kirchmeiervubc

The last block of hearing dates took place November 14, 15, 18-22, and two weeks in December from December 2-13. In that time, we heard from four new witnesses and from myself:

  1. A member of the General Class wholly unconnected to the History Department or Green College testified and was cross examined on November 14 and 15.
  2. Mark Vessey, Principal of Green College from 2008-2023. Vessey was called by myself as an adverse witness when UBC refused to call him. Vessey testified as to his decision-making respecting Dmitry Mordvinov, as well as General Class Members. Like the other adverse witnesses the university forced me to call (Monica Kay, Steve Bohnen, and Clark Lundeen), Vessey’s evidence did not undergo true cross examination.
  3. Tina Loo, then-Chair of the History Department in 2014 and 2015. She testified only with respect to events surrounding Dmitry Mordvinov and the History Department, not any General Class Members.
  4. Leslie Paris, Associate Professor of the History Department, who supervised two Mordvinov Class Members directly. She similarly testified related to the Mordvinov Class/the History Department, not about any General Class Members.
  5. I (Glynnis Kirchmeier) returned to the stand to give direct testimony about expenses incurred since I first testified back in February 2023, and to be cross examined on all the expenses.

Two notable moments in the expense testimony. First, UBC sought, and received, an order from Member Prince ordering me to obtain my resignation letter from my employer this past year, because I quit my job earlier than planned in order to attend the July hearing dates. In order not to delay the hearing progress, though, I’ll make efforts to produce it and testify about it in the spring. Second, I claimed lost wages and expenses for buying health insurance for myself and my spouse in May 2018, because I pushed back the start date for that same employer solely to fly to Vancouver to review UBC’s first tranche of documents, which was incredibly deficient in terms of missing documents and documents so redacted as to be unreadable. (Had I not done so, I would have started work May 1 – for Americans, health insurance coverage kicks in on the first of each month.) The cross exam on this claim was vigorous. UBC objected specifically to me buying health insurance for my spouse and suggested that it wasn’t a necessary expense. My reply was basically that it was, in fact, a necessary expense for me: if he had gotten hurt at that time and needed health insurance, that would have hurt me, too. We’ll see if Member Prince agrees. I found it notable that UBC, an organization which has an annual budget in the billions, belittled me for loving my spouse and being willing to pay money to maintain his health, all so they could maybe save a few hundred bucks. UBC also vigorously complained about a handful of alcoholic drinks I had with meals while in Vancouver – less than the alcohol I consumed at UBC events, paid for by UBC, over my years as a grad student.

Mark Vessey was the last witness for the complainants, and all the evidence from our side is now in (save the last little thing about my resignation letter).

In human rights cases, defendants have the choice of whether to provide an opening statement at the beginning of the case, or at the beginning of their defense witnesses. Here, UBC opted to waive its right to provide an opening statement. Thus, the precise nature of the legal arguments they intend to make will be done in writing, after the witnesses finish.

After witness testimony, both sides will prepare our written closing arguments, which Member Prince will utilize as she considers her ruling.

UBC intends to call the following witnesses in 2025:

  1. Robbie Morrison, who acted as Chair of the Non-Academic Misconduct Committee for Mordvinov and for General Class Members. He will begin testimony on January 7, 2025.
  2. Chad Hyson, the staff in VP Students who “investigated” NAM cases and referred them to the NAM Committee, and seems to have handled post-NAM Hearing elements of cases as well.
  3. [Potential] A staff member who will testify as to the money UBC paid to Dmitry Mordvinov. We were surprised that Tina Loo was unable to testify about this area when we put the (late-disclosed) documents to her.

At various points during the litigation, UBC indicated that it intended to call from the History Department Michel Ducharme, Laura Ishiguro, Leslie Paris, and Tina Loo; from Green College, Clark Lundeen; from NAM/VP Students, Robbie Morrison and Chad Hyson; from the Equity and Inclusion Office, Sara-Jane Finlay and Monica Kay; and from SVPRO Carly Stanhope, Alicia Oeser, and/or Habi Ba.

Finally, due to a scheduling error by my counsel, most of the January 2025 dates are no longer available. The next Hearing dates are:

January 2025: 7

March 2025: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

April 2025: 22, 23, 24, 25

July 2025: 9, 10, 11, 14, 15

October 2025: 14, 15, 16, 17

Please note that we are very hopeful the later dates will not be necessary. UBC’s counsel has generally been faster with witnesses than their provided estimates. At this point we are also hopeful that there are no more batches of previously undisclosed documents to be discovered only in the midst of testimony.

Applications, Hearing

Update #56: Monica Kay testimony completed. Only 2 complainant witnesses left, to be heard in November. Stephanie Hale removed from the General Class.

kirchmeiervubc

From July 16 to July 31, the former Director of Conflict Management for the Equity and Inclusion Office at UBC, Monica Kay, testified. She had previously testified for two days this past April, covering her background, coming to UBC, her knowledge of UBC policies at that time, and establishing some baseline information to understand her later testimony about specific cases. The July testimony covered her knowledge of General Class matters – including a large number of General Class Members whose identities are unknown to us, and only revealed after Steve Bohnen produced a large number of documents during his questioning. It also, of course, covered the events of the Mordvinov case. Although Ms. Kay did testify as to the existence of documents which we not produced (such as her notes of meetings with Zoology Head Bob Shadwick, or running summaries of active cases she sent to her boss Sara-Jane Finlay every two weeks), unlike with Mr. Bohnen, we did not get bogged down in the production of more documents during testimony.

Member Prince on occasion asked Ms. Kay a few questions, and she permitted almost all questions put to her. Part of the reason the testimony took so long was that the witness (reasonably!) wanted to review written documents before she testified to them, and some of the documents were quite long. Her memory also needed refreshing by reference to the documents. After about a day of the usual course of witness testimony that UBC had insisted upon – that the witness exhaust the memory before being brought to a document, because UBC takes the position it is “oath-helping” otherwise – UBC’s counsel eventually permitted Clea to bring Ms. Kay to the documents right away.

On July 24, 2024, Member Prince issued a Decision excluding Stephanie Hale as a member of the General Class for the Kirchmeier action. As a quick reminder, Ms. Hale prevailed in her own standalone human rights complaint against UBC in August 2023 for its mishandling of her multiple reports of rape and for how it forced her through the deficient Non-Academic Misconduct process. However, she was also a member of the General Class in this case, because some of her allegations fell in the timeframe specified in the General Class, and the Tribunal stated her standalone complaint liability timeframe was later than the Kirchmeier General Class timeframe. Ms. Hale was prepared to testify here as a General Class Member, but UBC made an Application to oppose her testimony and her membership here, which Member Prince granted. Therefore, Ms. Hale will not testify, nor will she be entitled to any compensation that Member Prince might order. As the representative complainant for both Classes, I decided that I will not appeal Member Prince’s order excluding Ms. Hale. Ms. Hale has the ability to choose to appeal whether or not I do so.

Although her claim as a General Class Member has merit and I think that she deserves recompense, and although I do think there is a possibility of prevailing in an appeal, I am limited by two considerations. First, I do not have the funds to launch a new legal action. Second, I believe the interests of the other Class Members in completing the Hearing as soon as possible must be balanced against the limited upside for Ms. Hale. If an appeal prevails, more Hearing time for her testimony would need to be scheduled. Her liability period in the Kirchmeier matter was a few months, meaning her possible financial compensation would be relatively low. UBC’s strategy in her case was to dwell heavily on her unrelated personal traumas with the effect of making testimony as unpleasant for her as possible. (I listened in to much of the Hale Hearing.) Ms. Hale understands my thinking.

There are two more witnesses we will call before UBC officially begins its case. The order is not yet set. One is a General Class Member who is completely separate and apart from all the other General Class Members discussed in testimony to date, who approached me after the Hearing had started and eventually decided to testify.

The other remaining witness is adverse witness and Green College Principal Mark Vessey, who permitted Dmitry Mordvinov to conduct himself in an “exclusive” residence in the manner that he did, as well as permitting the general sexist environment at Green College, where he has been as a leader for decades, and Principal from 2008-2023. If Member Prince makes any findings about Green College, after hearing months of facts about it from many, many witnesses, the public should know Green College was and is that way because Mark Vessey wanted it to be.

Due to the availability of counsel, the next dates for the Hearing are:

November: 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22

December: 2-6, 9-13

January 2025: 6-17 [tentative]

March 2025: 3-14 [tentative]

Applications, disclosure, Hearing

Update #55 – Summary of Testimony in February and April – Finished Kaitlin Russell and Steve Bohnen, started Monica Kay. UBC Revised Witness List – Hale Submissions Schedule

kirchmeiervubc

Kaitlin Russell, who testified in December 2023 and January 29-31, finished her cross examination testimony on February 5.

On February 6, Mr. Bohnen returned to continue his direct testimony through February 9. He later returned to testify April 22 through April 25, 2024. His testimony was finished for the General Class member previously discussed, and he testified as to his involvement in the Mordvinov matter. Then his testimony moved on to focus on other members of the General Class, specifically those members for whom the University disclosed relevant documents in the past few months. We have an outstanding request to ensure these particular, new to us (and unknown, because their names are redacted) General Class members were properly notified of the existence of the complaint. It is troubling that, a year into the Hearing, the University has still not transparently provided such basics.

As a representative of the Classes, one of my concerns is that if/when we prevail and are awarded monetary compensation, one or many Class Members will be excluded from receiving money to which she is entitled by the fact that she was never informed she was in the Class. UBC successfully argued before Member Trerise back in 2017 that it need not provide the names of the Class Members (though not third parties who are not Class Members – see Kirchmeier No. 2) to me, and it obviously failed to keep a list of the actual women it contacted as Member Trerise ordered (instead, it says keeping a list of the University employees it tasked to reach out to an unknown number of women is sufficient). It hasn’t disclosed proof that it contacted anyone. UBC’s counsel have argued at various moments that the Tribunal should not consider documentary evidence by Class Members who do not personally testify, as they say there’s “no way” the Tribunal can reasonably find harm accrued to someone unless that individual personally shows up to the Tribunal to say so. UBC’s counsel also informed us that they are going to argue in writing that the Class formation process in this case was incorrect. It’s not clear right now what Member Prince’s posture is on such arguments. I would encourage the Class Members not to worry about it, as these are defenses we will have to deal with in argument. Practically speaking, if every Class Member had to testify in order for them to receive compensation, this Hearing would probably not end for some time, maybe when the sun explodes. I certainly do think Member Prince would like to see the Hearing wrapped up before any major extinction events.

There were a lot of breaks in Mr. Bohnen’s testimony for argument amongst the lawyers. Some of the argument was not contentious, such as an agreement reached on how to discuss the General Class members in the Hearing, and eventually in Member Prince’s final decision such that their identities would be protected. Also, it seems likely that most of the males discussed will not be named, other than Mordvinov, whose name is already out in the world (though it is possible Member Prince will choose to anonymize him too in the final decision). A big area of argument centered around redactions in disclosure, as UBC’s counsel took it upon themselves to censor quite a bit more than was permitted by Member Trerise’s order. At one point Mr. Bohnen stated he could not testify more because he could not understand the document in front of him due to the redactions. He was then excused, and Clea took point on a long argument that involved referring to Member Trerise’s second order on the topic and going through it together. There was also late disclosure as Mr. Bohnen was sent to find and produce Incident Reports (a special document only he could enter, as UBC Security’s record of reports to it, which were typically authored by him) relevant to various Class Members, some of which were then entered into evidence. All in all, I would say at least a day and probably more was lost to argument about late disclosure, documents redacted by UBC to the extent of losing their meaning, and missing disclosure, and Mr. Bohnen’s testimony probably extended by a day or two.

On Thursday afternoon, April 25, 2024, the questioning started of Monica Kay, the Director of Conflict Management at the UBC Equity and Inclusion Office at the time at issue in the human rights complaint. Before she came on the stand, UBC tried to argue that Ms. Kay was NOT an adverse witness, in large part because she is not currently a UBC employee, but did not prevail. As with all witnesses, she began with background information about herself, how she came to UBC, her knowledge of policies when she first arrived, etc. As we had only a day and a half of testimony, we did not get beyond these questions to any of the particular Class Member situations.

UBC provided a revised witness list. At this point, their anticipated witnesses are:

  1. Robbie Morrison [Chair of the UBCV Non-Academic Misconduct Committee]
  2. Tina Loo [then-Chair of History Department]
  3. Chad Hyson [VP Students, in charge of investigations for the NAM process]
  4. Leslie Paris [NEW – History Professor]
  5. Laura Ishiguro [NEW – History Professor]
  6. Carly Stanhope [Director of Investigations at UBC SVPRO – not involved in any facts in 2014-2015 to my knowledge]
  7. Habi Ba [NEW – this may be a nickname of a name of an individual who appears to be administrative staff at UBC SVPRO – not involved in any facts in 2014-2015 to my knowledge]
  8. [REMOVED FROM LIST] Sara-Jane Finlay [Monica Kay’s supervisor at UBC Equity and Inclusion Office]

To address the issue of whether General Class Member Stephanie Hale should be permitted to testify, Member Prince ordered the following schedule:

Respondent’s [UBC’s] application due: March 15, 2024

Complainants’ response due: March 28, 2024

Respondent’s reply due: April 11, 2024

I believe these were generally followed, perhaps with some extensions. I did not assist with the submissions on this issue, or read them.

Member Prince sent a new Notice of Hearing with additional dates in 2024. These are:

June: 5, 11, 12, 13 [tentative, depending on UBC counsel]

July: 16, 17, 18, 19, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 29, 30, 31 [firm]

November: 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 [tentative, depending on UBC counsel]

Additionally, Member Prince canvassed for additional dates, so there may be more to come.

Notice of Hearing dated February 9, 2024

I will update the blog to state whether or not the June dates go forward – otherwise, the next big item will be testimony in July.

Hearing

Update #54 – Two Days Finished in January and One Full Week to Start Feb 5

kirchmeiervubc

Kaitlin Russell returned to finish her direct examination on Monday, January 26. Cross examination by UBC counsel Devon Peck began on Tuesday January 27 and nearly wrapped up, with only a limited number of topics remaining for Monday February 5 and redirect. She is the last witness from the complainants’ side testifying as to the events from a perspective based in the History Department.

After Ms. Russell’s testimony concludes on February 5, Mr. Bohnen from UBC Security will return to continue his direct testimony, in this unique hybrid direct/cross setup we have come to when calling UBC witnesses (where Clea will at some point indicate she wants to cross the witness). I believe after he concludes, the plan is for Monica Kay, formerly of the Equity and Inclusion Office, to begin her testimony later in the week.

In the last update I wrote that the parties submitted arguments in writing for Member Prince to consider about Stephanie Hale and where she is permitted to testify in this matter as a General Class Member. Apparently, I was mistaken and these submissions are actually not yet submitted. We have time to deal with the issue as the next set of hearing dates are in April and then July, and we have Ms. Kay and Mark Vessey of Green College to get through first.