Starting off:

Unless it’s done on company time and through work email?:

Institutional harassment is harassment:

More evidence of undue hardship on any administrative tribunal complainant trying to get the institutions to stop acting like junior high students and do their goddamn job:

Well said, sir:

Who knew a student’s choice of province to attend a post-secondary institution would have been equally fraught? I didn’t marry the institution. I wanted an education to further my intentions for my work per its mission statement. Instead, I got three toddlers in a trenchcoat:

The institution assured me it believed it had the right to harass a student as the University of British Columbia defined the term because institutional harassment was not a legal expectation. The former president had a fiduciary duty to the institution and a legal expectation to act in the institution’s best interest.

The student had a legal right to an impartial Senate appeal. The Provost of the Vancouver campus fabricated the nature of the complaint against him — in flagrant disregard to the Conflict of Interest/Commitment Policy — and the Lawyer appears to have guided their actions to not act or to act unethically:

The institution knew it violated its Academic Freedom Statement and the Respectful Environment Statement. The Director of Equity told me those statements “weren’t legally applicable.”

No actual “communication” took place:

A competent organizational lawyer should have known an organizational lawyer can’t conspire with their client’s officers to ignore their duties to their office. The officers actions were done specifically to keep the organizational lawyer’s client in the dark about its officers’ scholarly misconduct in an act that explicitly threatened the institution’s largest funding source:

Every officer involved should have known that retaliating against a student for participating in informing activity is bad:

Institutions, like natural people pleading insanity, can’t state it wasn’t aware what it was doing was wrong, but it still engaged in a lengthy cover-up.

And this is yet another institutional policy error. That either the Director of Investigations was not trained in their obligations to be the designated recipient for retaliation based on discrimination and harassment complaints. SC7 stating it longer protects students from academic freedom harassment is another massive institutional policy error.

But when it comes to undue hardship, the financial cost of auditing institutions through a law firm when institutions are obligated to self-audit their policy compliance is nothing compared to the undue hardship of having to take the time to become a policy expert in multiple institutions and research agencies.

No complaint should have taken two years of researching policy and legislative acts. That is beyond the average student’s reach, even more than the legal bill it would have cost to have a judge tell all the Officers involved that their actions would have been unconscionable in any institutional setting.

But it is shockingly unconscionable in a top-ranked Canadian University.

Edit: