The University of Ottawa is applying the Ontario Trespass to Property Act to remove politically active students from campus. Here are the details of one student's battle to expose the administration's misbehaviour and rejoin his community.
No trespassing notice and forceful removal from campus
Full-time Master's of Science student and Teaching Assistant, Joseph Hickey, was served with a No Trespassing Notice barring him from all University of Ottawa lands and buildings on December 7, 2009 by campus security (Protection Services). The serving of the notice followed Hickey's charge for allegedly participating in the painting of the message "These Walls Belong to Students" on an outdoor campus billboard wall that was between poster installations at a student-organized freedom of expression event. [No Trespassing Notice]
Protection Services agent Steve Bernique informed University Legal Counsel Alain Roussy of the No Trespassing Notice in saying: "He is an active student, but we have trespassed him anyway." [E-mail]
Hickey immediately began writing to President Allan Rock to request the revocation of the notice (the e-mail string, with responses from Rock's subordinates, can be found here). On December 11, 2009, having received no response from the President, Hickey went to his office to make an appointment to discuss the revocation of the notice. Protection Services arrested the student and detained him in the lobby of the Tabaret building in handcuffs until Ottawa Police Constable De Los Santos arrived and charged him under the Ontario Trespass to Property Act and ordered him to leave the premises. The charge would be dismissed 6 months later, and the student found not guilty of trespass. [Protection Services report]
De Los Santos' incident report revealed political discrimination on the part of the Protection Services agents, who claimed that Hickey had finished his degree, and that he had been "taken in by a radical group of students at the school and lately has been protesting for student rights." Hickey was registered as a full-time Master's of Science student at the time. [Police report]
The next Monday, December 14, 2009, Hickey was ordered to leave the Physics Department Christmas party by Protection Services in front of his fellow students, professors, and work supervisors. Protection Services contemplated removing the student's office keys stating that "he should not need them now." [Protection Services report]. The same day, the Graduate Student Assocation (GSAED) and the Teaching Assistant's Union (CUPE-2626) both wrote to President Rock requesting that Hickey's No Trespassing Notice be revoked immediately. [GSAED letter (in French), CUPE-2626 letter]
On Wednesday, December 16, 2009, Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson responded to the GSAED letter by informing Hickey that he must speak to Protection Services director Claude Giroux to discuss his "possible return to campus and any conditions that may apply." [E-mail string]. The same day, University Labour Relations manager Jean-Yves Leduc responded to CUPE-2626 stating that the Collective Agreement did not apply to the situation, despite the fact that it involved a teaching assistant being legally barred from his workplace. [Letter]
On Thursday, December 17, 2009, Protection Services brought the Ottawa Police to campus to arrest Hickey as he left the campus radio station, where he had been invited as a guest interviewee on a radio show. [Listen to the radio show]. Protection Services Director Claude Giroux indicated to Legal Counsel Alain Roussy that he would petition the police to have a second charge for trespassing laid against the student. No additional charge was laid. [Protection Services report]
On Friday, December 18, 2009, CUPE-2626 responded to President Rock demanding that the No Trespassing Notice be revoked immediately, and stating that the Union advised Hickey not to speak to Protection Services because "to do so would legitimize the University's improper application of the Trespass Act in this case. This is a policy matter for which you and your administration are responsible." [CUPE-2626 letter, response from Leduc]
During late December and early January, the department of physics refused to e-mail Hickey his teaching assistant employment contract, and threatened to remove his job if he did not comply with the order to speak to Protection Services. [E-mail string]
In early January, student media began to cover the story. [Link to Media section]
On January 11, 2010, the No Trespassing Notice was revoked without condition. The letter of revocation that informed Hickey that the No Trespassing Notice had been lifted contained the warnings that the University might sue him or apply a new trespassing notice for a "much longer time" in the future. [Letter]. This letter was placed in Hickey's employment file, which lead to a CUPE-2626 grievance over improper discipline. The letter was removed at arbitration, following months of refusal by the University to acknowledge the Union's grievance. [Link to Grievance section]
Legal battle over trespass charge ends with victory for student rights
Joseph Hickey's December 11, 2009 charge of "Entering premises when probibited to do so" under the Ontario Trespass to Property Act for attempting to make an appointment with President Allan Rock to discuss revocation of his No Trespassing Notice was contested at the Ontario Provincial Court and ultimately dismissed on June 2, 2010.
On a first trial date of March 1, 2010, after stalling over a month without providing her disclosure to the defendant, Crown prosecutor Terry Callaghan attempted to bargain with Hickey, offering to present no evidence if he plead not guilty to the charge. In court, Hickey insisted on receiving the Crown's full disclosure on the case, and a new trial date was set for June 2, 2010. [Court transcript]
On March 18, 2010, Callaghan attempted to bargain with the defendant, offering to remove the fine in return for a guilty plea. At this time, Callaghan provided Hickey with her disclosure on the case, and informed him that she knew he planned to subpoena President Rock as a witness and that she was "sure the University would oppose that." [Disclosure index]
On April 19, 2010, Hickey's subpoena to witness form for President Allan Rock was rejected by Justice of the Peace L. Girault, who said that to subpoena the president of the University of Ottawa in this case would be like summoning "the president of CHEO to see if he has received an e-mail from someone," and that "the Courts are not just going to subpoena anybody," [Rejected subpoena to witness Allan Rock]
On April 22, 2010, Hickey's second attempt to subpoena President Rock was approved by a different Justice of the Peace L. Guillemette without issue. [Approved subpoena to witness Allan Rock]In May, 2010, Hickey began to receive pro bono legal representation from lawyer Caroline L. Cyr of Ottawa's Crystal Cyr Barristers law office. On May 21, 2010, Justice of the Peace Barry Moran approved subpoenas summoning University of Ottawa Vice-President of Governance Diane Davidson and Legal Counsel Alain Roussy to the June 2 trial. Davidson and Roussy were served with the summons on May 25. [Approved subpoena to witness Diane Davidson, Alain Roussy]
On May 26, 2010, one week before trial, Prosecutor Callaghan again attempted to bargain for a guilty plea with Hickey's lawyer, who refused the offer. The Prosecutor called back, after calling the University of Ottawa, and reported that she would provide no evidence at the trial if Hickey agreed to plead not guilty and withdraw the subpoeanas to Rock, Davidson, and Roussy.
On June 2, 2010, Hickey plead not guilty to the charge of trespassing and the Prosecutor moved to provide no evidence. The charge was dismissed. Click here to read student media articles covering the result.
The same afternoon, Allan Rock hosted an administration-run presentation on the university's "Resource Optimization" program and the significant budget cuts that had been recently approved for the 2010-2011 year. During the public question session following Rock's presentation, Hickey explained the university's unfounded legal forays against himself and other students, and challenged Rock to make a public statement that University resources would no longer be used in legal attacks against students. Rock replied that he "did not agree that university resources are being misused." [Link to video -- the question session is contained in the final third of the video]
The University of Ottawa continues to use the Ontario Trespass to Property Act as a political tool to remove dissident students from campus, and has not responded to the joint letter sent by the GSAED, CUPE-2626, and the undergraduate Student Federation of the University of Ottawa (SFUO) demanding that trespass not be used to remove students from campus spaces occupied by student associations. [Letter in French, English translation]
