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.
Current Case Status
*UPDATED* Case Update #26 – Preparing Response to UBC’s Application to Dismiss – Nov/Dec 2020
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.
Case Update #25 – Next Phase Assessing Disclosures – Sept/Oct 2020
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.
Case Update #24 -Disclosures Received – August 2020
Good news! UBC provided its second batch of documents at the end of the day on July 31. The supplemental list provided by UBC is on the Documents page. It contains 19 groupings of documents organized, apparently, by source; in some ways this is easier than the prior document disclosure, which was in form of very large PDF files composed from multiple sources thrown together without clear organization delineation between the sources. At least some of the documents we’ll be able to easily confirm are not altered, because they appear to be original files. However, it also presents a challenge, as many are individual Microsoft Outlook emails, with the date associated with the file as August 1, 2020 rather than the last date sent, and I have not poked around enough to see if the files retain their original dates in properties. Nothing appears to be bates numbered. Thus organization in the review, and probably the purchase of Microsoft Office, will be necessary.
I have only given the documents a cursory review, but I have already found a few examples of excessive redaction – but as a scope of a few lines rather than whole paragraphs. Still, no person’s name is the length of two lines, and that is the only permissible redaction under the Tribunalmember’s order, so we’ll need to keep an eye on how frequently this occurs.
The third party documents from Paula Butler with (I presume) her final confidential report and her underlying research for her February 2016 Executive Summary of the Mordvinov situation appear to be included, just looking at the list of disclosures filed by UBC.
The next step will be to see what is there and whether we believe there are additional documents UBC has held. Clea and I will be working closely together this month to review the disclosure and make a strategic decision about whether and what we need to inquire after, whether to challenge redactions, or whether we should, in the interests of moving the litigation forward, go with what we have. She was counsel on a famous, and famously long-running case, between several South Asian-origin and -trained veterinarians and the College of Veterinarians of British Columbia. In that litigation, the College of Veterinarians withheld documents from her clients and of course this came out during questioning at the hearing, which dragged the case on for much longer as the hearing was interrupted so the new documents could be reviewed. That is partly why we are insisting on complete disclosure right now; if we have a UBC witness at hearing, and ask them, say, “did you provide the copies of the self-incriminating emails Mordvinov wrote that were quoted by the CBC, and his Facebook messages to a Class Member about his attack on her?” if the answer is “no” then this will be a problem I would like to avoid.
I will also need to ensure my own disclosures to UBC are complete, since I received more relevant documents after my last disclosure. Once both sides agree we will cease arguing about pre-hearing disclosure, we will need to draft and file an answer to UBC’s Application to Dismiss, which has been on hold pending the disclosure issues.
Although I anticipate substantial work will be done on these tasks before my next update, there are three time-sensitive matters that will hold things up for me. First, my spouse and I live in the US and he is here on a marriage-based green card that expires in mid-September. To remove the expiry condition, we need to provide documents proving (again) that our marriage is legitimate, and we have a narrow window in which to apply. (Although the president recently signed a proclamation that no new green cards would be issued right now because of the racist pretext of the pandemic, because he’s a coward it doesn’t include groups of people most likely to be subjects of sympathetic media coverage – in our case, applicants married to American citizens and applicants already living in the US.) Compiling the evidence is time-consuming and is my first priority. Second, I am still working full time until mid-August so my time to review UBC’s disclosure is limited. For the first disclosure in 2018, I delayed the start date of a new job and spent three solid weeks and weekends reviewing, to give you a sense of what it is like. Third, I am expecting to deliver a baby on August 31, and as babies make their own schedules I am not sure what that will mean for the timing of my next update or whether I will be able to substantially complete review before the end of the month. Class Members are always welcome to email me for updates at ubcsexualassault@gmail.com or to contact Clea.
Case Update #23 – The attempt to get documents from UBC continues – July 2020
June 1: As stated before, Clea nagged UBC’s counsel Jennifer Devins and Michael Wagner to provide any sort of communication to us regarding the Documents Decision from April.
June 5: Jennifer Devins sent an email to Clea where she stated “At this time, we are hoping to provide you with a revised list of documents and copies of the documents by July 31.” Clea missed sending it to me at the time of the last blog post.
We thought the time frame was far too long, given that UBC had at least since April to start preparing, and additionally that it had extra time due to the rescheduling of the hearing for the Hale case. It is far too plausible that UBC will simply blow the deadline and then wait around for us to object as yet another delay strategy.
June 19: We submitted a letter to the Tribunal formally requesting an order that UBC make the disclosure on July 31, 2020. This letter is now in the Documents tab.
OTHER NEWS
A correction to the news about the Stephanie Hale hearing: this was NOT the hearing for the case itself (a Tribunal Hearing). Rather, UBC had petitioned for Judicial Review of the Tribunal’s acceptance of her complaint. The JR Hearing was originally set for March 25-26 and delayed due to the pandemic; then it was set for June 22-July 3; and now it is rescheduled for July 30-31. As the JR Hearing was set to take place after the originally scheduled Tribunal Hearing dates for Hale, UBC filed an Application to Adjourn, which was granted. The Tribunal Hearing for Hale will likely be reset at the JR Hearing.
On June 20, Board of Governors chair Michael Korenberg resigned because he misunderstood Twitter and didn’t realize that other people could see it when he liked tweets from US political figures that didn’t so much criticize Black Lives Matter protesters and Democrats as suggest that they should be shot and persecuted by the government. Korenberg was outed by UBC Students Against Bigotry, one of the most important and impactful current watchdogs of the powers-that-be at UBC, and documentor of the links between UBC leadership and tolerance of right-wing culture warriors, now that the UBC Insiders blog is no more. (Folks may remember how Neal Yonson of UBC Insiders caused BOG member Greg Peet to step down after he publicized that a BC Supreme Court judge had found Peet was evading taxes by strategically moving money between BC and Quebec.) They tweet at @ubc_students.
On June 29, six members of Lake Babine First Nation (Cathy Woodgate, Richard Perry, Dorothy Williams, Ann Tom, Maurice Joseph, and Emma Williams) filed their Statement of Particulars to the Canadian Human Rights Commission about their January 2017 complaint that the RCMP had chosen not to investigate their allegations that John Furlong had abused them and others as children. (The federal human rights process is different than the BC process – the Commission investigates a complaint before it agrees to have a hearing, and this complaint HAS been accepted with a hearing yet to be scheduled.) Folks may recall that UBC invited Furlong to host a sport fundraiser in 2017, disinvited him after myself and the community shamed the institution as Furlong was a known child abuser, and reinvited him after an extended backlash among Canada’s powerful lovers of racist child abusers. In this time of heightened attention to police violence, RCMP racism, their tolerance of sexual abuse, RCMP abuse of UBC students in particular, and systemic racial abuse in society in general, that the Lake Babine First Nation survivors continue to be advocates for their own dignity should be uplifted, as well as the cowardly hypocrisy of UBC’s leadership in the face of criticism by right wing culture warriors.
The revised UBC’s Sexual Misconduct Policy SC17 was approved by the BOG and went into effect July 1, 2017. AMS and the SASC continue their outstanding efforts at sustained, thoughtful pressure on UBC to monitor how the university creates and administers this policy. The policy is also garnering intelligent, deep commentary on the policy such as this, pressuring UBC for a seat at the table for SASC.
