|
|
Пишет 3d_camper (![[info]](http://lj.rossia.org/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small} 3d_camper)@ 2018-02-26 16:31:00 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
Немолодой профессор жалуется
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
Student spy
The university hired a student spy (Maureen Robinson) to covertly surveil
me for more than one year while I was a professor. Her actions were
condoned by her immediate supervisors (the dean and the legal counsel of
the university) and included using a false cyber identity (“Nathalie Page”)
and falsely representing herself personally to third parties. The student spy
provided weekly reports about me to the university. Her role was
described by an Ontario appellate
-court judge in his motion ruling in the following terms:
MAUREEN ROBINSON
[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire
matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award
by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robins
on's written notes were referred to [as] "the
report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa
student".
[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the
hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the edit
or of the student
newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University
described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office,
without his input on her hiring.
[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her
own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off
campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to
Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against
Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor
Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson
was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her
"report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.
[18] The University referred to the “report” thereafter as a transcript which
such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy
made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which
was not evidence. [Underlined subtitle in original]
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio
Student spy
The university hired a student spy (Maureen Robinson) to covertly surveil
me for more than one year while I was a professor. Her actions were
condoned by her immediate supervisors (the dean and the legal counsel of
the university) and included using a false cyber identity (“Nathalie Page”)
and falsely representing herself personally to third parties. The student spy
provided weekly reports about me to the university. Her role was
described by an Ontario appellate
-court judge in his motion ruling in the following terms:
MAUREEN ROBINSON
[15] The circumstances of Maureen Robinson's involvement in this entire
matter is troubling at best. Throughout the relevant portion of the Award
by Arbitrator Foisy, Ms. Robins
on's written notes were referred to [as] "the
report on Professor Rancourt's address prepared by a University of Ottawa
student".
[16] Pursuant to the Udell Affidavit, and based on evidence from the
hearing, the student being Maureen Robinson was the edit
or of the student
newspaper who had been hired by the University in what the University
described as in a clerical capacity to assist Professor Rancourt in his office,
without his input on her hiring.
[17] Either in consultation with her employer, the University, or on her
own, she monitored the activities of Professor Rancourt both on and off
campus and reported her finding back to the University. In an email to
Dean Lalonde, she admitted to having a "personal grudge" against
Professor Rancourt and went so far as to liken her monitoring of Professor
Rancourt as "posing as a young girl to catch a pedophile". Ms. Robinson
was not called as a witness at the hearing and, the parties agreed that her
"report" would be considered as an "aide memoire" only.
[18] The University referred to the “report” thereafter as a transcript which
such description was objected to by the APUO. Similarly, Arbitrator Foisy
made certain findings which appear to be based solely on the report which
was not evidence. [Underlined subtitle in original]
Добавить комментарий:
