Glynnis Kirchmeier – and – Kirchmeier obo Others v. UBC
Informational Site for Members of the Represented Classes in BCHRT Case No. 14965
The Application to Dismiss and various submissions from myself and UBC remain under the Tribunal’s review.
Class Member Caroline Grego and I have drafted an Op-Ed on this case. We have submitted it for review and are waiting to hear back. Once it is accepted for publication I will post it here. I have shared the text with some Class Members already, but if you are interested and would like to sign on then I am happy to provide it to you.
On January 8, UBC filed its Reply. A copy is uploaded to the Documents tab.
In general, UBC continues to argue this matter should be dismissed. It argues this case is moot because policies have been changed; it also continues to assert that I and certain other Class Members not personally assaulted by Mordvinov do not have grounds to pursue a complaint, while Student B was victimized by him off-campus and thus, out of UBC’s zone of responsibility. (It ignores his sexual harassment of her at Green College.) It also objects to various legal arguments made in my Response and claims I am introducing new arguments.
We have not filed a Sur-Reply to date. At this point the ball is back in the court of the Tribunalmember to consider our filings.
UBC’s deadline to file its response to my defense against its Application to Dismiss was originally December 18. It obtained an extension to January 8, 2021. Due to the holiday I was only able to connect with Clea yesterday to communicate about it. I will update this post once UBC files its response.
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.
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.
Glynnis Kirchmeier - and - Kirchmeier obo Others v. UBC 