I think this applies:

You can’t get much more authorized than paying the lawyers to prevent the second highest ranking regular member of the institution from having to face the consequences for their actions, I assume:

A president with an obligation *to act* in the institution’s best interest sent his lawyer to tell the student they had no rights or freedoms at the president’s institution:

Allowing an officer to get away with serving his conflict of interest on the institution’s dime would be on the vicarious liability side.

Go on:

This is 100% the institution served a private party’s private interest to not have to report the conflict-of-interest as reportable misconduct.

Check, check, check, check and check (allegedly):

I would assume planning on harassing a student through unlawful means, ruining their reputation so that institutions breach their statutory duties to ignore it would count. I should not have had to live-error audit the entire public sector to have an academic freedom complaint heard. There should be no undue hardship on a public post-secondary student using administrative tribunals to have their complaint heard.

There has been nothing but undue hardship from the beginning. Because the institution performed — what I assume could only be — a negligent investigation, an institution still believes that no non-employee student has the right to question them. This assumes that an instructor or prof must ascertain the institutional student’s current place of employment considering that employee student’s apparently do have the right to question their instruction.

The “equity” department believed it had the right to decide which student gets equitable treatment to the “real” regular members and who just has to take what they are given.

But onward with this test of vicarious liability:

Let’s see:

1. The institution provided the Person at Risk with legal counsel “to get away with it.”
2. Not having to report reportable misconduct was one thing, but no one should forget St. Nick was job-hunting at the time.
3. The institution is a multi-billion dollar industry. The Person at Risk’s behaviour violated the EQA policy that would have prevented the institution from collecting international tuition and from research agencies requiring institutions to perform their duties to the highest ethical standards and report even the appearance of conflict of interests.
4. Um, I was a non-employee student. He was a Provost.
5. Profs argued yesterday that students still do not have the right to question their instruction despite it being a protected ability. Students still do not have a way to report their non-sexual harassment.

So I’d say check, check, check, check, check if this was the language of a policy.

Institutions have the same duty of care to provide their learners with a harassment-free learning environment:

The officers ran their institution off a cliff. It should bear the loss.