Background for the Arbitration of the #FrancesWiddowsonCase (January 16-27, 2023, Calgary, Alberta)

Overviews of the #FrancesWiddowsonCase can also be found in the following areas:

1) On the “MRU Frances Widdowson Firing” area of the WokeAcademy.Info site;

2) Frances Widdowson’s piece in the September 2022 issue of the SAFS Newletter, “All Eyes on the Arbitration of the #FrancesWiddowsonCase; and

3) Peter Shawn Taylor’s article “Academic Freedom vs. Wokeism: The Frances Widdowson Affair”.

The paragraph answers to these ten questions, as well as the accompanying essays, are provided below.

Essay #1: Indigenization has poisoned Mount Royal University’s Academic Environment (Minding the Campus, July 18, 2022)

Essay #2: When Satire Becomes “Harassment” at Mount Royal University (Minding the Campus, August 15, 2022)

Essay #3: The Perils of Challenging Trans Activism at Mount Royal University (Minding the Campus, September 1, 2022)

Essay #4: When Questions Become Harassment (Minding the Campus, October 21, 2022)

Essay #5: Anonymity: The Cowardly Enabler of Cancellation (Minding the Campus, November 3, 2022)

Essay #6: The Perils of University Indigenization (Minding the Campus, November 21, 2022)

Essay #7: The Woke Academy’s Rejection of the Rule of Law (Includes Paragraphs 7 and 8, Minding the Campus, December 12, 2022)

Essay #8: Fighting Back Against Big Brother’s Love (Minding the Campus, December 22. 2022)

Essay #9: Reaping Postmodernism’s Violent Whirlwind (Minding the Campus, January 4, 2023)

Kevin

January 17, 2023, 7:03 am

With respect to Question #7, regarding “frivolous and vexatious” complaints:- The 2 terms are standard words, almost exclusively, for lawyers. Almost nobody else uses them other than scholars, who are familiar with legal terms, and lawyers. In Alberta, for example, the old Rules of Court [New Rules of Court came into effect around 2010] provided that any lawyer who wanted any law case dismissed against his or her client could plead that the case brought against their client ought to be dismissed from Court as a “frivolous and/or vexatious” abuse of process.
To be certain:-

RULE 129. (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading in the action on the ground that
(a) …
(b) it is scandalous, FRIVOLOUS or VEXATIOUS
(c), (d) … 129. (2), 129.(3) [Alberta Rules of Court; Alberta Regulation 390/68 (O.C. 2208/68) Effective January 1, 1969]

The very fact that Dr. Widdowson’s complaints about being “mobbed” or “cancelled” were deemed “frivolous and/or vexatious”, then dismissed, indicates that a lawyer or lawyers were involved in those dismissals of her complaints. On the other hand, the fact that other persons’ complaints against her [e.g. calling Diversity Inclusion and Equity by the acronym DIE, or not capitalizing the word “indigenous”]; which were actually and objectively frivolous (and subjectively vexatious to Frances); were taken seriously, indicates, once again, that the Mount Royal University’s administrators were taking counsel, early on, from lawyers.

And that is a big legal “No No” when lawyers are counselling individuals to suppress some evidence (as frivolous and vexatious) while encouraging the fabrication of other evidence (e.g. Widdowson is a racist!) to promote hatred against her person and have her fired. The legal term for either corrupt practice, whether fabricating evidence or suppressing evidence, is COLLUSION.

And the interesting thing about saying the word “collusion” in any sort of Judicial Proceeding is that the onus becomes INVERTED. One is not talking about “onus” (proof burden on accuser) or “reverse onus” (proof burden on accused). Instead one is talking about “inverse onus” which means that any lawyer or judge/justice involved has the proof burden upon his/her self to satisfy the tribunal and their personal selves of “No collusion” because they are the impartial officers of the Court, rather than the partial disputants. And since collusion SUBVERTS any Justice Administration, the Court Officers must be “on their guards” to prevent collusion from subverting their “administrations”. Thus the onus is on any and every lawyer associated with a Judicial Proceeding to prevent collusion from subverting their administrations of justice.

Many people do not realize that there are other “Judicial Proceedings” than Court or Law cases. Section 118. of Canada’s Criminal Code defines (more correctly describes) 5 types of “judicial proceedings” [(a) through (e)]. The “judicial proceeding (d)” is described as “a proceeding … (d) before an ARBITRATOR or umpire, or a person or body of persons authorized by law to make an INQUIRY and take evidence therein under oath, or (e) … ”

Hence Dr. Widdowson should be directly asking all persons involved in her ARBITRATION whether or not Mount Royal’s administrators were “taking counsel”, from a lawyer or lawyers, as to which evidence of hers to suppress and/or which evidence to arguably fabricate against her to obtain her preordained “dismissal” from the teaching state at Mount Royal. The very fact that quote:

WIDDOWSON: “What was withheld [i.e. suppressed?] often pertained to the legal reasoning used by the investigators to determine if employees should be disciplined. It was only after Widdowson had been fired and embarked upon the arbitration process that she was able to see all the documents that had been used [and actually suppressed from her K.B.] as the basis for discipline.” [Essay #7. Paragraph 8. Near bottom.]

almost proves collusion in and of itself. When one is hiding requote “the legal reasoning” along with the, requote “documents” [a.k.a. evidence] involved in an “inquiry” against someone, you have almost certainly PROVED COLLUSION — which no one is legally required to do. It’s lawyers who are required to merely “satisfy themselves of no collusion” in judicial proceedings.

Once again: Widdowson should be arguing collusion between Mount Royal’s administrators and whatever unknown lawyers who provided them their “legal reasoning” from the outset of her firing and from the outset of her arbitration hearings. That puts the onus on Mount Royal and their lawyers. Her lawyers will not make such a “call” because all lawyers are more protective of their profession and friends than they are actually protective of their client’s best interests. However, if she uses the term, then her lawyers, by law, are bound, by law, to repeat her “evidence” in her presently occurring “Judicial Proceeding (d)”

Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne

1 Comment

Kevin


January 17, 2023, 7:03 am

With respect to Question #7, regarding “frivolous and vexatious” complaints:- The 2 terms are standard words, almost exclusively, for lawyers. Almost nobody else uses them other than scholars, who are familiar with legal terms, and lawyers. In Alberta, for example, the old Rules of Court [New Rules of Court came into effect around 2010] provided that any lawyer who wanted any law case dismissed against his or her client could plead that the case brought against their client ought to be dismissed from Court as a “frivolous and/or vexatious” abuse of process.
To be certain:-

RULE 129. (1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading in the action on the ground that
(a) …
(b) it is scandalous, FRIVOLOUS or VEXATIOUS
(c), (d) … 129. (2), 129.(3) [Alberta Rules of Court; Alberta Regulation 390/68 (O.C. 2208/68) Effective January 1, 1969]

The very fact that Dr. Widdowson’s complaints about being “mobbed” or “cancelled” were deemed “frivolous and/or vexatious”, then dismissed, indicates that a lawyer or lawyers were involved in those dismissals of her complaints. On the other hand, the fact that other persons’ complaints against her [e.g. calling Diversity Inclusion and Equity by the acronym DIE, or not capitalizing the word “indigenous”]; which were actually and objectively frivolous (and subjectively vexatious to Frances); were taken seriously, indicates, once again, that the Mount Royal University’s administrators were taking counsel, early on, from lawyers.

And that is a big legal “No No” when lawyers are counselling individuals to suppress some evidence (as frivolous and vexatious) while encouraging the fabrication of other evidence (e.g. Widdowson is a racist!) to promote hatred against her person and have her fired. The legal term for either corrupt practice, whether fabricating evidence or suppressing evidence, is COLLUSION.

And the interesting thing about saying the word “collusion” in any sort of Judicial Proceeding is that the onus becomes INVERTED. One is not talking about “onus” (proof burden on accuser) or “reverse onus” (proof burden on accused). Instead one is talking about “inverse onus” which means that any lawyer or judge/justice involved has the proof burden upon his/her self to satisfy the tribunal and their personal selves of “No collusion” because they are the impartial officers of the Court, rather than the partial disputants. And since collusion SUBVERTS any Justice Administration, the Court Officers must be “on their guards” to prevent collusion from subverting their “administrations”. Thus the onus is on any and every lawyer associated with a Judicial Proceeding to prevent collusion from subverting their administrations of justice.

Many people do not realize that there are other “Judicial Proceedings” than Court or Law cases. Section 118. of Canada’s Criminal Code defines (more correctly describes) 5 types of “judicial proceedings” [(a) through (e)]. The “judicial proceeding (d)” is described as “a proceeding … (d) before an ARBITRATOR or umpire, or a person or body of persons authorized by law to make an INQUIRY and take evidence therein under oath, or (e) … ”

Hence Dr. Widdowson should be directly asking all persons involved in her ARBITRATION whether or not Mount Royal’s administrators were “taking counsel”, from a lawyer or lawyers, as to which evidence of hers to suppress and/or which evidence to arguably fabricate against her to obtain her preordained “dismissal” from the teaching state at Mount Royal. The very fact that quote:

WIDDOWSON: “What was withheld [i.e. suppressed?] often pertained to the legal reasoning used by the investigators to determine if employees should be disciplined. It was only after Widdowson had been fired and embarked upon the arbitration process that she was able to see all the documents that had been used [and actually suppressed from her K.B.] as the basis for discipline.” [Essay #7. Paragraph 8. Near bottom.]

almost proves collusion in and of itself. When one is hiding requote “the legal reasoning” along with the, requote “documents” [a.k.a. evidence] involved in an “inquiry” against someone, you have almost certainly PROVED COLLUSION — which no one is legally required to do. It’s lawyers who are required to merely “satisfy themselves of no collusion” in judicial proceedings.

Once again: Widdowson should be arguing collusion between Mount Royal’s administrators and whatever unknown lawyers who provided them their “legal reasoning” from the outset of her firing and from the outset of her arbitration hearings. That puts the onus on Mount Royal and their lawyers. Her lawyers will not make such a “call” because all lawyers are more protective of their profession and friends than they are actually protective of their client’s best interests. However, if she uses the term, then her lawyers, by law, are bound, by law, to repeat her “evidence” in her presently occurring “Judicial Proceeding (d)”

Kevin James “Joseph” Byrne