The Minister’s guidelines must take into consideration the seemingly orphaned University Act:

Especially given this institutional expectation:

Section 19.1 of the Act is inequitable. A lawyer should not have gotten involved in redefining what is in the institution’s best interest:

What she said:

By the LSBC and the Ombuds Office closing down complaints without investigation seems to violate both the Legal Profession Act the fact those actions seemed to violate Section 26 of the Legal Profession Act. It violates the Law Society of British Columbia’s Rule 3-3, 3-4 and 3-5. It also seems to violate section 13 of the Ombudsperson Act, which should eliminate any good faith protection of section 29.

But again — I’m not a lawyer. I’m just someone who knows how to read and interpret policy. Reading policy is far more involved because while a law says what it says, a policy only says what it meant to.

The person interpreting the policy must understand if they misinterpret the spirit of the policy, they are personally responsible for the error.

As much as Hanlon’s Razor states people are probably just incompetent and not malicious, it felt impossible to separate the two. A Chief Justice of Canada stated:

But when that doesn’t happen, the public can either mortgage their house if they have one or be independently wealthy to fight that level of systemic, willful incompetence. If the institution causing the error that violates a legislative obligation is also responsible for deciding if they’ve violated their legislative act, the decision-making process is unconscionable.

1. I’m no lawyer, but I’m fairly sure a judge has to give legal reasons, not excuses, as to why they will not hear a case. I’d say a public tribunal can’t just decide to violate its legislative act to not hear a complaint.
2. Not following administrative processes violates not following administrative processes.
3. Students at the institution still do not have officers who understand students have the protected ability to question or criticize. They still cannot report institutional, academic freedom, or personal harassment.
4. Procedures and regular practices have been contravened from the start. An institutional officer with an expectation of competent substantive policy management knowledge has been editing live documents without board approval for over a decade despite their professional code of conduct Rule 5.1-2(f). No officer was trained to have the substantive knowledge he lacked.
5. The Law Society’s Rules were fettered. As were the reasons an Ombuds Officer may refuse to investigate a complaint.

No administrative decision in the public sector is discretionary. Find the process — follow the process — make the decision based on the institution’s values has no need for discretion unless it is for compassionate reasons:

1. Privative clauses don’t apply. A judicial review is pay-to-play.
2. The complainant was the only institutional expert involved in the tribunal decisions.
3. Why a complaint may not be investigated is closed-textured law enshrined in the law, rules, professional codes of conduct and policy.
4. “Yeah, I don’t understand how important academic freedom is. Nor do I believe students require institutional harassment protections” is highly discretionary and shows a profound misunderstanding of administrative law and charter-protected right of procedural fairness.

I don’t understand the confusion around “reasonableness” at all. Anyone with the job responsibilities of being professionally reasonable must have read the institution’s policy before making a decision. If the officer made a decision that violates an expectation of their continued employment by refusing to follow the institution’s written instructions, they have committed an institutional error.

Which is unreasonable when reasonableness is an expectation of their job.

Full stop. No officer in a public institution is paid to create or change institutional policy on their own. If no institutional policy applies in a novel situation, it is institutional policy to create institutional policy and act on it. The institution’s highest ethical standards and established values must guide all decisions.

Students did not enroll in Santa’s Fun School of There Will Be No Questions. They enrolled in a public institution that must act like one.

If it takes a judge to decide on what is patently unreasonable and a member of the public must pay for that decision, the right to procedural fairness is an unjust two-tiered system.

This ought to be good:

A Reasonable Person Test is the standard expectation in any public institution. Each officer is responsible for failing to understand the whole story before acting as much as a policy interpreter is responsible for failing to notice how policy language can violate its spirit. It’s how you get from ignoring a valid complaint to allegedly participating in an unlawful civil conspiracy.

The Respondent had an obligation to fully participate in their administrative tribunal. By assuring the Law Society that the provost had said I just hadn’t liked how class was taught, the Ass. violated Rule 5-1.2 (d) (e) and (g)

as well as Rule 7-1.1 (a) (c) and (d):

Of course, I don’t know if the Ass. told the Law Society they were allowed to violate any institutional policy they wanted to as long as they didn’t violate any law but the University Act. If the Ass. was completely honest, it’s the Law Society’s fault they didn’t realize which orifice the Ass. was talking out of.

I would say a well-informed member of the community would find the way the Law Society violated their Law Society Rules to the lawyer’s advantage:

That happened.

Not treating members of the public with basic respect is a canary in the coal-mine test that the administrative tribunal does not hold a member of the public’s right to procedural fairness to its heart.

If this is not a trained expectation, it does not exist:

This is also an institutional expectation:

Even the invalid investigations policy states:

The complainant has the right to have an opportunity to have their allegations be heard, to have those allegations be investigated, and to receive reasons as to why the institution chose not investigate the complaint or find in their favour regardless of the evidence provided. “The Person at Risk doesn’t feel it was important enough to be held accountable for their actions” is an invalid reason to not investigate a complaint, given that the authors of this policy did not believe a non-employee student had a right to have their side of the complaint heard:

As a reminder, this language was not supposed to be enforceable — if it was a valid document — until April 1, 2023. It was enforced as far back as Feburary 2020.

You don’t say:

No one is infalliable.

A member of the public has the right to an INDEPENDENT decision maker. That is a decision maker who is making their decision based on the evidence in front of them without taking any consideration into what other decision makers have made. The person who made the only decision that mattered across multiple INDEPENDENT administrative tribunals had served his own interests while the institution assisted his attempts to avoid the consequences of his actions.

The Law Society of BC has already been told once that they should not allow their decision-maker to fetter its decision on another person’s opinion.

“I just hadn’t liked the way class was taught” wasn’t even an opinion. It was the excuse the Person at Risk gave to dismiss an academic freedom violation complaint he had confirmed in writing.

How is that not another abuse of discretion?

Decision Makers must consider the facts and the policy/legislation involved before making a decision:

Natural justice environments requiring a natural law outlook should not hire officers looking for reasons to deny their obligations to the public:

Not reading an institutional policy with the most generous interpretation is a training issue.

The best interest in administrative law is the most just and equitable outcome:

There is also no reason why a member of the public should have to face any hardship in having their complaint heard independently and impartially through a controlled complaint process of public institutions:

Officers who were not trained in their duties, rules, and legal obligations — despite that being a named responsibility in job responsibilities —

In my case, one institution decided its order of procedures was more of a suggestion, really. Two institutions had officers decide they could follow their unwritten policy to ignore complaints, then changed their written policy to match. One call taker tried to tell me what “usually happened” regarding complaints against its own officers but acknowledged the policy did state I could call. To ensure an ombuds officer has every right to fetter their decision to the decision made by the Person at Risk, the ombuds office backdated their unwritten policy into existence:

Due to the Ombuds Office previous unsubstantiated assumptions, public post-secondary students had no protection other than what their institution deigned to provide them with. Private post-secondary institutions have a bill of student rights — and in every institution I looked at — an office specifically for students’ rights and responsibilities. One student should not have to have had the burden of auditing the entire public sector to have their harassment complaint taken, considered and investigated:

Again, if the public institution had been called Dr. Santa’s Fun School of DO WHAT YOUR TOLD, I would not have enrolled.