Here you can find publicly available documents related to the case, including filings, correspondence between the parties and the Tribunal, decisions rendered by the Tribunal, or other public documents which may be relevant.
Important filings by both parties
1) Complaint (filed 21 March 2016) with Amendment (filed 7 September 2017)
2) UBC’s Response to the Complaint (filed 17 October 2017)
3) UBC’s Application to Dismiss this case (filed 1 May 2018)
UBC filed five affidavits to support its Application to Dismiss – by Clark Lundeen (Green College), Chad Hyson (Non-Academic Misconduct process), Tina Loo (UBC History Department), Michel Ducharme (UBC History Department), and Sara-Jane Finlay (Equity Office). However, I am not uploading these here to the public site because the affidavits had evidence attached and the rules about sharing evidence before the Tribunal differ than the rules in civil/criminal courts. The affidavits themselves don’t contain personal information of victims (such as names or personal details) which doesn’t appear already in either my Complaint or the Response. It is my position that any class member has the right to review all relevant documents in this case should she wish, so please reach out to me privately if you wish to read them.
4) Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Application for Documents and Costs (filed 5 June 2019)
5) Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Application for Third Party Documents (Paula Butler, 5 June 2019)
6) Affidavit of Jennifer Cocke, to support Kirchmeier’s June 2019 Applications (5 June 2019)
7) UBC’s Response to Kirchmeier’s Application for Documents and Costs (9 August 2019) – UBC consents to much of the request but continues to argue that it should redact names of and identifying details of “third parties” who complained of sexual misconduct, as well as opposition to specific requests. UBC opposes the application for costs.
8) UBC’s Response to Kirchmeier’s Application for Third Party Documents (9 August 2019) – UBC consents to produce Paula Butler’s documents requested by Kirchmeier’s submission, with the same limits on “third party” identification.
Paula Butler herself has taken no position before the Tribunal on producing her documents.
8) Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Response to UBC’s Submissions on Documents (30 August 2019) – Supporting documents for this submission are excluded to protect personal privacy and to follow rules of evidence.
9) UBC’s Sur-Reply to the Application for Documents and Costs (11 September 2019)
10) Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Sur-Sur-Reply to the Application for Documents and Costs (17 September 2019)
11) Glynnis Kirchmeier’s Response to UBC’s Application to Dismiss (4 December 2020)
12) UBC’s Reply to Kirchmeier’s Response to UBC’s Application to Dismiss (8 January 2021)
Filed Tribunal decisions
1) 13 April 2017 (the Time Limit Decision). In this decision, the Tribunal accepted the case for me as an individual, but asked a series of questions of both parties. You can find our responses (called “submissions”) in the communications section below.
2) 30 August 2017 (the Screening Decision). In this decision, the Tribunal accepted the case for me as a representative complainant and defined the classes I represent as the “Mordvinov Class” and the “General Class.”
3) 24 April 2020 (the Documents Decision). In this decision, the Tribunal ruled on my Application for Documents and Costs, ordering UBC to provide relevant documents to me with limited redactions.
4) 22 October 2021 (Denial of UBC’s Application to Dismiss). As a result of this Decision, my complaint will progress to a full hearing before the Tribunal.
The decisions of the Tribunal are publicly available by date at this link.
General Communications
Here you can find the documents filed by the parties and communications with the BC Human Rights Tribunal in chronological order.
1) Combined Submissions and Correspondence with the Tribunal and the parties as of 14 September 2017
3) 1 November 2017 – Letter from the Tribunal on the Communication Plan
4) 9 November 2017 – Letter proposing that UBC canvas employees who were likely to receive disclosures of sexual misconduct. I also requested that UBC disclose the specific number of people who received the initial disclosure – e.g. the number of women who reported misconduct to UBC in the Relevant Time Period.
6) 21 November 2017 – Parties agree to deadline extension for disclosures
7) 21 November 2017 – UBC objects to canvassing employees who likely received disclosures. Reasons: UBC claims residence advisors/coordinators are students and not administrative staff and so should not be canvassed. It also claims that only Residence Life Managers are formally employed by UBC. UBC further claims to canvass those listed in the 9 November 2017 letter would take too much time and the list is overbroad. Finally, UBC claims its employees likely promised total confidentiality to students disclosing misconduct, and to inform them that they may be class members raises privacy concerns to the extent of a “chilling effect.” UBC reasserts its proposal to email all female students in the relevant time period instead.
8) 22 November 2017 – Letter objecting to factual misrepresentations by UBC in its objections to the communication plan. This includes objecting to UBC’s conception of confidentiality, as well as attachments establishing that student/employees were not only employees with with the duty to receive disclosures in their job descriptions, but also that they were specifically trained to receive disclosures by EVA BC in the relevant time period. Attachment 1, Attachment 2, and Attachment 3.
9) 5 December 2017 – Tribunal Communications Decision. Here, the Tribunal decides that student RAs will not be canvassed for disclosures, but that Residence Life Managers and all administrative staff (previously listed) will be. These staff should then pass on the Initial Communication. I won’t get the names or content of the staff communication with the victims, but UBC is ordered to provide me the number of women contacted. Further, I am ordered not to contact women who view the website unless they reach out to me first – which I wasn’t doing anyway, but UBC was very worried that I might.
10) 23 February 2018 – Letter to Tribunal with my second list of documents produced
11) 9 January 2019 – Letter to UBC requesting a reply re disclosures/class communication
12) 11 January 2019 – Letter from UBC stating the university did everything it was supposed to do
13) 17 January 2019 – Tribunal Order to correct deficient communication
14) 19 June 2019 – Submission Scheduling Letter
15) 13 May 2020 – Letter from Kirchmeier to UBC in wake of Tribunal’s Documents Decision – will post publicly once correspondence is concluded and document redacted. No reply from UBC as of 25 May 2020
17) 31 July 2020 – UBC’s Second List of Disclosures to Kirchmeier
Miscellaneous Documents
2) David Eby Letter to UBC President Martha Piper re: Dmitry Mordvinov (sent on or around 11 November 2015; submitted by Kirchmeier as part of her 30 August 2019 submission)
3) 2020 Submission to Sexual Misconduct Policy Development and Review Committee and At Risk Behavior Review Committee (submitted 31 January 2020, comments by Kirchmeier and Clea Parfitt on proposed revisions to UBC’s Sexual Misconduct Policy SC17 [formerly Policy 131] and new proposed At-Risk Behaviour Policy SC13)
4) Final Sexual Misconduct Policy SC17 effective 1 July 2020
5) Paula Butler’s Executive Summary of the Mordvinov situation dated 15 February 2020
Glynnis Kirchmeier - and - Kirchmeier obo Others v. UBC 