~

Human Rights Tr~bunal of Ontario

~
Ontario

Check here if you are filing an Application on

Behalf of Another Person (Form 4)
Please give us your personal contact information. This information will be shared with the Respondent(s) and all
correspondence from the Tribunal and the Respondent(s) will go here. If you do not want the Tribunal to share this
contact information, please see Question 2.

Name Middle Name Last (or Famil Name

Francisca Carasco

Street # Street Name Apt/Suite

1872 I Golfwood Crescent I
Cit !Town Province Postal Code
La S.alle Ontario N9J 3E3 uwindsor.ca

Cell Phone Fax TTY

What is the best way to send information to you?

(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email)
o Mail )(Email 0 Fax

If you want the Tribunal to contact you through another person, you must provide contact information for that person
below. You should fill this section out if it will be difficult for the Tribunal to reach you at the address above or if yoy
want the Tribunal to keep your contact information private. If you complete this section, all correspondence will go
to your Alternative Contact.

Middle Name

c:::::>
Street # Street Name Apt/Suite c- ::0
-4;;;
0 ... 0
!:: ~;
rn
City!Town Province Postal Code Email -0 c: :<-i
1'-- --'-1 I_ _--;- o--'-'~'_'__, -=jiE::---E6::rO_·--

Daytime Phone Cell Phone Fax TTY

iSl
,.,..
I I I co
What is the bestway to send information?
Ct Mail 0 Email 0 Fax
(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email)

30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 3 of 14

 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

[gI I authorize the organization and/or person named below to represent me.

First (or Given) Name Last (or Family) Name

I Mary I Eberts
I
I Organization (if applicable):
I Law Office of Mary Eberts
Street # Street Name
P.O. Box Station Walmer
19047

Cit !Town Province Postal Code

Toronto Ontario M5S 1XO ebertslaw.ca

Dayllme
f Ph one CeII Ph one Fax TTY
416-966-0404 I I 416-966-2999 I
LSUC No. (if applicable): I 14197F
What is the best way to send information to your representative?
o Mail XEmail o Fax
(if you check email, you are consenting to the delivery of documents by email)

If the Respondent is an individual, complete a) Individual Respondent. If the Respondent is an organization, please
complete b) Organization Respondent.
a) Respondent Contact Information - Individual
Name the person you believe discriminated against you (the Respondent). If there is more than one Respondent,
please attach a separate sheet of paper with the information for each Respondent. Number each page.

Name Name

Street # Street Name Apt/Suite

1_9:...:0 --'--'.:..:.M=a"-in--=S;...:ctr....::.ee.::..ct--=E=a:.=..st::-- I _
Cit !Town Province Postal Code
Kin sville Ontario N9Y 1A4 uwindsor.ca

Daytime Phone Cell Phone Fax TTY

1->.(_51_9)!-7_3_3-6_8_7_3 IL...- ----'-I , _

30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 4 of 14

 Nj
~
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

Ontario

b) Respondent Contact Information - Organization

Name the organization you believe discriminated against you (the Respondent). If there is more than one Respondent,
please attach a separate sheet of paper with the information for each Respondent. Number each page.
I Full Name of Organization I· University of Windsor and Univeristy of Windsor Faculty of Law

Contact person in the organization

First (or Given Name Last (or Famil Name

Dr. Leo Groarke

Street # Street Name

401 Sunset Avenue

Cit !Town Province Postal Code

Windsor Ontario N9B 3P4 uwindsor.ca

Daytime Phone Cell Phone Fax TTY

I (519) 253-3000 x 4242 1----"..:e.:....:-~.::...----,1,......:(--""51::..:...9-)5-6-1--14-0-0---1~"":'-----------

The Ontario Human Rights Code lists the following grounds of discrimination or harassment. Put an "X" in the box
beside each ground that you believe applies to your Application. You can check more than one box.
~ Race
o Colour
o Ancestry
o Place Of Origin
o Citizenship
o Ethnic Origin
o Disability
o Creed
~ Sex, Including Sexual Harassment, Pregnancy, And Gender Identity
o Sexual Solicitation Or Advances
o Sexual Orientation
o Family Status
o Marital Status
o Age
o Receipt of public assistance (Note: This ground applies only to claims about Housing)
o Record of offences (Note: This ground applies only to claims about Employment)
o Association with a Person Identified b a Ground Listed Above
30106/08 Form 1 - Page 5 of 14
 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
Ontario

o Reprisal or Threat of Reprisal

30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 6 of 14

 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

The Ontario Human Rights Code prohibits discrimination in five areas. Put an "X" in the box beside the area where you
believe you have experienced discrimination (choose one). See Applicant's Guide for more information on each area.
){Employment (Complete and attach Form 1-A)

o Housing (Complete and attach Form 1-E3)

o Goods, SeNices, and Facilities (Complete and attach Form 1-C)
o Contracts (Complete and attach Form 1-0)
o Membership in a Vocational Association (Complete and attach Form 1-E)
Does your Application involve discrimination in any other areas? 0 Ves ) (No
Put an "X" in the box beside any other areas where you believe you experienced discrimination.

o Employment 0 Housing 0 Goods, Services, and Facilities 0 Contracts 0 Mem~ership in a Vocational Association

Please answer the following questions.

a) Did these events happen in Ontario? )(ves o No

Windsor
b) In what city/town?
28/04/2010 and continuing
c) What was the date of the last event? (DD/MMIYYYV)

d) If you are applying more than one year from the last event, please explain why:

Describe each event below you believe was' discrimination. Add more pages if you need to. Number each page.

For each event, be sure to say:

· What happened
· Who was involved
· When it happened (day, month, year)
'. Where it happened

Be as complete and accurate as possible. Be sure to give details of every incident of discrimination you want to raise
in the hearing.

I See Appendix 1

Tell us how the events you described affected you. What was the effect (financial, social, emotional or mental health,
30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 7 of 14
 ·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

or any other)? Add more pages if you need to. Number each page.

This University's handling of the Dean Search is the most difficult thing I have had to deal with in my entire career. It
may well be naive but I did really believe that my candidacy would be assessed on the basis of merit. I now realize that
as far as some people are concerned, I am not entitled to the treatment that they take very much for granted. This is a
hard thing to accept - that in 2010 in Canada, a woman of colour, no matter how well qualified, is still not treated in the
workplace the way members of the dominant group in Canada are treated. I feel betrayed both by some of my .
colleagues and by those in power within the system who permit this kind of behaviour to go unchallenged. It is
particularly hard to swallow in a context where I am surrounded by individuals who claim that they understand and live
by the values that underlie human rights law.

I don't know if I can describe the stress and the shock I experienced during the last two weeks of the decanal search
process. Professor's Moon personal attack on me was very painful and Dr. McCrone's inexplicable handling of it left
me psychologically bruised and with a sense of hopelessness in relation to the damage done to my credibility and
reputation. Overthe last few weeks I have been asked dozens of times by former students, people in the community
and beyond, to explain why I did not get the position. I have been unable to do so. I have carried the weight of this
event with me every single day since it occurred. I don't know that I will ever be the same - not so much because I did
not Qet the job - but because of how it happened and how many people permitted it to haopen.

Put an "X" in the box beside each type of remedy you want from the Respondent(s). Explain why you want 'It in the
space below.
~ Financial Remedy Enter the Total Amount $.:..75;:,:.1:::0.:,00=--_ _
Explain below how you calculated this amount:

1. With respect to Richard Moon - Damages for injury to dignity in the amount of $15,000
2. With Respect to the FaCUlty of Law and University of Windsor discrimination - Damages for injUry to dignity in the
amount of $60,000
~ Other Specific Remedy - Explain below:
1. With respect to Richard Moon - Public retraction of his allegations of plagiaraism;
2. Appointment of Dr. Carasco as Dean of Law by President Wildeman, for a full five-year term with the opportunity for
renewal; and
3. An interim order staying the Dean search by the Committee appointed April 28, 2010, and requiring that an Acting
Dean be in place until the final disposition of this complaint.

~ Public Interest Remedy - Explain below:

1. Establishment by the University within six months of the date of the Order of a data base, goals and timetables for
the.four groups of women, members of visible minorities, Aboriginal people, and persons with a disability, in
accordance with the recommendations of the Coulter Report and the RCEE proposals of 2008;

2. Establishment of an employment equity program in accordance with the Coulter Report within a period of two years
of the date of the Order;

3. An Order reqUiring the University to report back to the Human Rights Tribunal within 6 months to establish its
compliance with the Order in paragraph 1 hereof and within 2 years to establish compliance with the Order in
paragraph 2 hereof;

4. Comprehensive equity and human rights training for all senior administration at the University, from the level of
Dean to President, and traininQ of Equity Assessors as recommended bv Professor Coulter;
30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 8 of 14
~
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
~
Ontario

5. Within one year of the Order, complete and report on a Consultation with University of Windsor students about
means to promote and support student diversity, and implementation of the recommendations of those consultations
within two years of the date of the Order. A report to be produced by the University at the end of the second year from
the datebf the Order outlining its progress on implementing the recommendations of the Report, and distributed widely
throuQh the University and the student community

Mediation is one of the ways the Tribunal tries to resolve disputes. It is a less formal process than a hearing. Mediation
can only happen if both parties agree to it. A Tribunal Member will be assigned to mediate your Application. The
Member will meet with you to talk about your Application. The Member will also meet with the Respondent(s) and will
try to work out a solution that both sides can accept. If Mediation does not settle all the issues, a hearing will still take
place and a different Member will be assigned to hear the case. Mediation is confidential.

Do you agree to try mediation? ~Yes

Note: If you answer "Yes" to any of these questions, you must send a copy of the statement of claim that started the
court action.

a) Has there been a court action based on the same facts as this o Yes (Answer 12b) 1<No (Go to 13)
application?

b) Did you ask the court for a remedy based on the discrimination? o Yes (Answer 12c) o No (Answer 129)
c) Is the court action still going on? o Yes (Answer 13) o No (Answer 12d)
d) Was the court action settled? o Yes (Answer 13) o No (Answer 12e)
e) Has the court action been decided? o Yes (Answer 13) o No (Answer 12f)
f) Was the court action withdrawn? o Yes (Answer 13) o No (Answer 12g)
g) If the court action does not ask for a remedy based on the
discrimination, are you asking the Tribunal to defer (postpone) your
Application until the court action is completed?
o Yes ONo

Note: If you answer "Yes", you must attach a copy of the complaint.

Have you ever filed a complaint with the Commission based on the same
facts as this Application? o Yes )1{NO

Note: If you answer "Yes" to question "14a", you must attach a copyof the document that started the other proceeding.

30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 9 of 14

~
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
~
Ontario

a) Are the facts of this Application part of another proceeding that is o Yes (Answer 14b) ~ No (Go to 15)
still in progress?

b) Describe the other proceeding:

0 Aunion grievance Name of union:

0 A claim before another board, tribunal or Name of board,

agency tribunal, or agency:

0 Other Explain what the other

proceeding is:

c) Are you asking the Tribunal to defer (postpone) your Application until the
other proceeding is completed?
o Yes o No

Note: If you answer "Yes" to question "15a", you must attach a copy of the documenHhat started the other proceeding
and a copy of the decision from the other proceeding.

a) Were the facts of this Application part of some other proceeding that
is now completed?
o Yes (Answer 15b) '" No (Go to 16)

b) Describe the other proceeding:

0 A union grievance Name of union:

0 A claim before another board, tribunal or Name of board,

agency tribunal, or agency:

0 Other Explain what the other

proceeding is:

c) Explain why you believe the other proceeding did not appropriately deal with the substance of this Application.

If you have documents that are important to your Application, list them here. List only the most important. You do not
need to send copies at this time. Indicate whether the document is privileged. (see Applicant's Guide)

Document name: Why it is important to my Application

Advertisement for position of
Dean of Law at University of
Windsor
Senate By-law 10
Emily Carasco's application
for position as Dean - Nov 26
2009 with Curriculum Vitae
Names and contact
information of persons
30/06/08
The advertisement outlines the criteria for the Dean position and will enable
me to prove that I fulfilled all of the criteria for the Dean position (as
advertised)
Outlines the process that should have been followed during the Dean search.
Establishes that I made application, is relevant to the issue of my
qualifications for position of Dean
Part of application process; these references are relevant to my qualifications.
Form 1 - Page 10 of 14
 ·Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

provided as references
Richard Moon emails Establish that Professor Moon made allegations against me
alleging plagiarism
Correspondence between Provide evidence of Dr. McCrone/search committee violation of my rights, and
Emily Carasco and Kathleen disprove allegatons of plagiarism
McCrone, and Emily Carasco
written statements

Correspondence between
Emir Ali Crowne-Mohammed
and Kathleen McCrone
Correspondence: Dr. Jang Establishes University endorsement of violations of Bylaw 10
Singh and President
Wildeman
Carasco draft Chapter 1 and Comparison disproves Galloway allegation of improper attribution and Moon
Valerie Knowles' work; plagiarism allegations
Galloway changes to chapter
1
University of Windsor Establish University of Windsor failure with respect to employment equity and
Collective Agreements, anti-racism
human rights policy,
numerous reports on
employment equity at
University of Windsor,
statistics, Presidential
statements, external reviews,
etc.

If you believe the Respondent(s) have documents that you do not have that are important to your Application, list them
here. List only the most important.

Document name Why it is important to my Application Name of Respondent who has it

Resumes of all applicants for
Dean position
Minutes of all meetings of
Search Committee; relevant
motions considered by
Search Committee and
results of same; Report of
Equity Assessor
Evaluation grids for Dr.
Carasco and other
candidates from selection of
four candidates, from short-
listing to two candidates, and
relevant to events of March
22 to April 28
All notes and memoranda
made by Chair and members
of Search Committee
30106/08
For comparative purposes, to
establish my singular compliance
with all selection criteriea
Will allow me to prove that the
search process violated the protocol
mandated under By-law 10 and to
prove allegations of rights violations
by Committee
Relevant to issue of my
qualificiations for position, and to
establish violations of my rights
Will establish factual basis for
allegations in Complaint
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Office of'Dr.
Leo Grbarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
Form 1-Page 11 of14
 Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

E-mails among Search
Committee members,
including Chair, and e-mails
between Chair or Committee
Member and any candidate,
or third part
Minutes of the Faculty
Council Meeting of April
14th, April 28th
Letters of reference or
support for Dr. Carasco, as
sent, and in the format
resented to Committee
All other correspondence
referring to Dr. Carasco, as
sent, and in the format
resented to the Committee
Notes from telephone calls
with Dr. Carasco's referees,
by Committee members or
others
Will establish factual basis for
allegations in Complaint
Show final disposition of my
candidacy; fact of new search
Relevant to my qualifications and
errors in Committee process
Relevant to my qualifications and
errors in Committee process
Relevant to my qualifications and
errors in Committee process
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Dean's Office,
Faculty. of Law .
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic
University of Windsor, Office of Dr.
Leo Groarke, Provost and Vice-
President, Academic

If you believe another person or organization has documents that you do not have that are important to your
Application, list them here. List only the most important.

Document name Why it is important to my Application Name of Person or Organization

who has it
All files and memoranda of Relevant to my qualifications and to Odgers Berndtston, c/o Paul Stanley
Odgers Berndtston, dealing facts about Committee process
with this search, including all
material received or
produced by the firm
Notes from telephone calls Relevant to my qualifications and to Odgers Berndtston, c/o Paul Stanley
with Dr. Carasco's referees, facts about Committee process
by search firm

Please list the witnesses that you intend to rely on in the hearing. Note: The Tribunal will not send this list to the
Respondent(s). See the Applicant's Guide.

30/06/08 Form 1 - Page 12 of 14

~
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
~
Ontario

Name of Witness Why this Witness is important to my Application

Emily Carasco Complainant
Chair and members of To establish events and decisions during search
Search Committee, including
Equity Assessor
Paul Stanley To establish events and decisions during search
Jang Singh Re correspondence with President; effect of denial of position
Emir Ali Crowne-Mohammed Re correspondence with Committee Chair and evaluation of plagiarism
allegations
Professor Pam Milne Re employment equity at University of Windsor

Professor Janice Drakich

Charles James Former University counsel; re search procedure and equity issues
Expert Witnesses as advised Re plagiarism, committee process, employment equity

Is there an other important information ou would like to share with the Tribunal?
This complaint involves an intersectionality analysis.

Attach a form for each area you checked in Question 6

1ZJ Employment (Form 1-A)

o Housing (Form 1-8)
o Good, Services, and Facilities (Form 1-C)
o Contracts (Form 1-0)
o Membership in Vocational Association (Form 1-E)

Confirm whether you are sending the Tribunal any of the following documents:

o A copy of a statement of claim (from Question 12)

o A copy of a complaint filed with the Ontario Human Rights Commission (from Question 13)
o A copy of a document that started another proceeding based on these facts (from Question 14 or 15)
o A copy of a decision from another proceeding based on these facts (from Question 15)

Declaration: Do not sign your Application until you are sure that you understand what you are declaring here.

To the best of my knowledge, the information in my Application is complete and accurate.

I understand that information about my Application can become public at a hearing, in a written decision, or in other

30106/08 Form 1 - Page 13 'of 14

~
Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario
~
Ontario

ways determined by Tribunal policies.

I understand that the Tribunal must provide a copy of my Application to the Ontario Human Rights Commission on
request.

I understand that the Tribunal may be required to release information requested under the Freedom of Information and'
Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA).

A Date

1~,()OIO

!IJ Please check thiS box If you are filing your Application eiectronlcally ThiS represents your s,gna~ure

If you require accommodation of Code related needs please contact the Registrar at HRTO.Registrar@ontario.ca or
Phone: 416-326-1519 Toll-free: 1-866-598-0322
Fax: 416-326-2199 Toll-free: 1-866-355-6099
TIY: 416-326-2027 Toll-free: 1-866-607-1240

Where to Send your Application

Note: Only file your Application once. If the Tribunal receives this Application more than once, it will only accept the
first Application Form received.

Send your completed Application Form and any attachments to:

Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario

655 Bay Street, 14th floor
Toronto, Ontario
M7A2A3

Fax:416-326-2199 Toll-free: 1~866-355-6099

30/06/08 Form 1- Page 140f 14

 APPENDIX 1

Complainant: Dr. Emily Carasco

Complaint: (1) Discrimination against Dr. Emily Carasco on the basis of race and sex,
by the University of Windsor, University of Windsor Faculty of Law and
Professor Richard Moon, contrary to section 5 of the Ontario Human
Rights Code.

(2) Systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex by the University
of Windsor and University of Windsor Faculty of Law, contrary to section 5
of the Ontario Human Rights Code.

A. Complaint of Individual Discrimination on the Basis of Race and Sex

1. Overview

1. I applied for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor, in
November 2009, and as of February 2010 was one of the final two candidates on the
short-list. Individual respondent Professor Richard Moon made untrue allegations of
plagiarism against me on the eve of my final interview by the Decanal Search
Committee, when it was becoming clear that I had a serious chance of being chosen
over the other candidate. The Chair of the Search Committee, Dr. McCrone, committed
serious violations of my rights in dealing with these allegations.

2. Under Dr. McCrone's leadership the Committee also violated the rules
established by Senate By-law 10 for the conduct of a search. By-law 10 requires that
following a search, the Committee shall propose a name to Faculty Council. The
Committee failed to do so.

3. I was fully qualified for the position of Dean of the Faculty of law, and was the
only one of the two short-listed candidates to be so. I believe that the appointment was
denied to me because of discrimination on the basis of race and sex, on the part of the
Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor (responsible for creating the Search
Committee and for its actions) and Professor Moon. Put quite simply, the Faculty of Law
and the University of Windsor, in spite of the lip service paid to equity and social justice,

- 1-
did not want a visible minority woman as Dean of the Faculty of Law, no matter how well
qualified. Moreover, my decades of advocacy on behalf of equity at the University, an
integral part of my identity as a visible minority woman, had left them in no doubt that in
my Deanship I would do more than pay lip service to equity, and this prospect was
unwelcome. Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism provided a pretext to justify
resistance to my candidacy for the Dean's position. Rather than investigating and
dispelling them, Dr. McCrone and the Search Committee left them to linger to serve as.
a pretext for not recommending me although I met every requirement for the position.

4. I also allege that the University and Faculty of Law have committed systemic
discrimination on the basis of race and sex, by purporting to accept the goal of
employment equity but doing little or nothing over many years to realize that goal, even
when bound by law to do so and even though numerous internal reports and
commissioned studies have urged it to do so. The University and Faculty of Law
leadership remain in the hands of white males; the discrepancy between formal and real
commitment to equality and equity has perpetuated a culture of privilege which white
men expect to have continue, and will defend with impunity. My treatment in the Dean
search is an aspect of that discrimination. That Professor Moon was able to sabotage
my candidacy for the Deanship through defamatory allegations based only on hearsay,
with no accountability for his behaviour, illustrates that the University and the Faculty of
Law have, through their systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex, created
an environment of impunity for individual acts of discrimination.

2. Career Track at University of Windsor

5. I was born in Bombay (Mumbai), India. My parents are Goan from India; I and
my family are Roman Catholic. We moved to Kampala, Uganda shortly after my birth.
was a Ugandan citizen until 1972 when General Idi Amin expelled Ugandans of Asian
origin from Uganda. I became a Canadian citizen in February, 1983.

-2-
6. I received my LL.B. in 1971 from Makerere University in Kampala, Uganda
and in 1972 my family and I were required to leave Uganda on extremely short notice
as refugees from the Amin government's persecution of persons of Indian ethnicity.

7. From 1972 to 1979, I attended the Harvard Law School, Harvard University.
received my LL.M. in 1974, and my S.J.D. in 1979.

8. In 1979, I served as Research Assistant to the Official Guardian of Ontario, in

what is now called the Children's Lawyer's Office.

9. In 1980, I secured a one-year teaching contract at the Faculty of Law,

University of Windsor. The Dean at the time was Ron Ianni. My starting salary of
$20,132.00 was below the floor in the Collective Agreement for such positions, and was
adjusted upwards, but only to the floor, after I was hired. Apart from Dr. Ianni, the Dean,
I was the only member of the Faculty of Law at that time to have a doctorate in law.

10. In 1981, I secured a tenure-track position in the Faculty of Law at the Assistant
Professor level, and in 1984, I was promoted to Associate Professor, with tenure. I did
not have any difficulty securing tenure and promotion to Associate Professor.

11. I served as a member of the Status of Women Committee of the University of

Windsor Faculty Association (WUFA) from 1983-88, on the Executtve ofWUFA in 1985-
86, and as Vice-President, External ofWUFA in 1987-88.

12. When I became President of WUFA in July 1988, I became aware of the details
of an agreement signed between the University and the Faculty of Law in the spring of
1988, for the distribution of an Anomalies Fund created by Article C12 of the Collective
Agreement to provide salary adjustments to members of the Faculty of Law. Professor
Jeffrey Berryman was one of the two negotiators of the agreement on behalf of the
Faculty of Law. The other was Professor Robert Kerr, since deceased.

-3-
13. In October 1988, WUFA filed a grievance on my behalf alleging arbitrary and
discriminatory distribution of the Anomalies Fund at the Faculty of Law. At that time, my
salary was the most anomalous within the FaCUlty. I was being paid less than the two
other persons hired the same year as I was, even though they both had three years
less post-Ll.B education than I did. The distribution scheme negotiated by Professors
Berryman and Kerr, which included a cap on the overall recovery possible from the
Fund, left me as anomalous as I had been in relation to these individuals, and still left
me in the situation of having the most anomalous salary within the Faculty.

14. In March 1990, arbitrator Gail Brent found that WUFA had "proven, on balance,
a prima facie case of systemic discrimination on the basis of sex... both in the
establishment of the grievor's hiring salary and in the distribution of the anomaly fund".
The Arbitration Award contains a detailed account of the salary discrimination against
me.

15. The arbitrator found that the appropriate remedy was that the University should
redo the distribution of the fund which had been done improperly the year before (a
remedy which WUFA had not requested), and that she did not have the jurisdiction to
order the remedy requested by WUFA which was to order the University to award the
me the sum of money I would have received if a cap had not been put on the amount
received. After many discussions and negotiations with University President Ron lanni,
he appointed an internal University committee which decided unanimously in January
1991 that I (and all the female faculty members) should be compensated appropriately,
retroactive to July 1, 1988. A year after negotiating the distribution of the anomalies
fund, Jeffrey Berryman became Dean of the FaCUlty of Law, commencing his term in
July 1990.

16. In the spring of 1990, I applied, unsuccessfully, for the position of Associate
Dean. A white colleague, Professor Donna-Marie Eansor, was appointed. Professors
Jeffrey Berryman and Maureen Irish were the faculty members on the search

-4-
committee. Professor Eansor, while a very competent young colleague, had neither
the academic qualifications nor the experience that I had at that time.

17. In academic years 1989-90 and 1990-91, I was a member of the University
President's Advisory Committee on Women's Issues, and in 1990-91, a member of the
University's Planning Committee on Race Relations, and of the Employment and
Educational Equity Advisory Committee atthe University. In 1991-92, I was a member·
of the President's Commission on Prejudice and Discrimination.

18. Having served as the Chair of the Employment Equity Committee of the Ontario
Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA) (1990), and on the OCUFA
executive, I became OCUFA Vice-President in 1993. I served as President of OCUFA in
1994 for a one-year term.

19. From 1996 to 1999, I served at the request of the President ofthe University,
Dr. Ianni, as the first Commissioner of Human Rights at the University of Windsor. I set
up the University's Human Rights Office, hiring support staff and organizing an Office
that would receive and investigate complaints as well as carry out educational initiatives
regarding human rights. Working with approximately seven unions on campus, leaders
of the various student groups, non-unionized staff and the Unive~ity Counsel, I
developed a comprehensive Human Rights Policy for the University. The policy
encompassed substantive obligations as well as a process for investigation and
resolution of complaints.

20. The Human Rights Policy which I developed stated on its face that it should be
reviewed within five years of its adoption, but the University has not done that. The
Human Rights Office which I set up has been slated for over a year to be converted into
a Human Rights, Equity and Accessibility Office but the University has not done this yet,
and the original Human Rights Office operates in the interim under a temporary director.

-5-
21. In academic year 1998-1999,1 applied for promotion to full Professor. A
promotions committee at the Faculty of Law, comprised of Professors Moon, Bill Conklin
and Marcia Valiante and chaired by Dean Westmoreland-Traore rejected the application
although both of the external reviewers had recommended promotion.,

22. I appealed to the University Committee on Appointments, Promotion and

Tenure (UCAPT), which draws its membership from the University as a whole, and
UCAPT unanimously overturned the decision of the Faculty of Law.

23. I have been a full Professor at the Faculty of Law since 1999. I teach, write and
research in the areas of International Law, Family Law, Immigration Law and Human
Rights.

24. I have served on a number oflaw school Committees, including Admissions,

Discipline, Appointments, Equity, MBAILLB, Promotion Tenure and Renewal, and Law
Foundation. In addition to my human rights and equity work at the University level, I
have served on the University Senate, as a member of UCAPT, as Chair of the Campus
Safety Audit Committee, and as Chair of the Senate Strategic Renewal Committee. In
2008, I was the Chief Negotiator for the University of Windsor Faculty Association,
successfully leading WUFA in negotiations for a new collective agreement between the'
University and its faculty and librarians.

25. In addition to my keen interest in mentoring students on an informal basis, I

have for twenty years been the coach of the Faculty of Law team for the Jessup Moot,
olle of the premier national and international mooting competitions. I have worked with
law students to establish Justice at Work, a highly successful annual event where
students who are interested in careers in social justice are able to meet and learn from
lawyers already established in the field in Ontario and elsewhere. I have initiated and
done the fund-raising for two scholarships at the University, including one where the
money was raised solely from Windsor law alumni.

-6-
26. My service to the Windsor community includes being a member of the Board of
Directors of the United Way of Windsor, a member of the Big Sisters Association of
Windsor, the Windsor Committee of the National Organization for Visible Minorities, the
Mayor's Committee on Children's Services of Windsor, and the Board of Directors of the
South Asian Centre of Windsor; I have also served as the President of the Board of
Directors of the Roman Catholic Children's Aid Society of Windsor. These activities, and
others I have undertaken in the community, have involved fund-raising along with other
responsibilities.

27. My activities in the legal profession include being a member of the Gender
Issues Committee of the Canadian Bar Association - Ontario, and serving as a member
ofthe Board of Editors of the Canadian Journal of Women and the Law (1984-91) and
the Review of International Business Law (1985-89). In 1992, I served as the Chair of
the Ontario Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee. I also served as a member of
that Committee in 1995-1996. Currently, I am a member of the Advisory Committee of
the African-Canadian Women's Human Rights Project, a collaboration among
academics and activists in Canada, Ghana, Malawi and Kenya to advance women's
rights that is entirely supported by fundraising in Canada and internationally.

28. I was named Windsor Woman of the Year in 1993, and in 1994 was honoured
with the designation Honorary Big Sister by the Big Sisters Association of Windsor. In
2006, I received an Honourary LL.D. from the Law Society of Upper Canada, and the
Feminist Legal Analysis Section of the Ontario Bar Association gave me its
Commitment to Equality Award in 2009. In 2010, I received from the University of
Windsor Faculty Association the Mary Lou Dietz Award for Equity Leadership.

-7-
3. The Law School's Record on Human Rights and Equity

29. On the website of the Faculty of Law, University of Windsor appears the
statement: "In Windsor Law, we do not just believe in social and legal justice, we live
it". 1

30. Since its founding in 1967, the leadership of the Faculty of Law has been,
overwhelmingly, white and male. The Law librarian at the Faculty has always been a
white male. The Faculty has had Deans, and Acting Deans, as follows:
Year Name
1967 Dean Mark Macguigan
1968-72 Dean Walter Tarnopolsky
1972-5 Dean John McLaren
1975 Acting Dean Ronald Ianni
1976-83 Dean Ron Ianni
September 20 - December 20, Interim Dean Robert Kerr
1981
1983-1985 Acting Dean Julio Menezes
1985-90 Dean Neil Gold
1990-95 Dean Jeffrey Berryman
1995-96 Acting Dean Neil Gold
1996-99 Dean Juanita Westmoreland-Traore
1999-2000 Acting Dean Brian Mazer
2000-2010 Dean Bruce Elman
2007 Acting Dean Brian Mazer while Dean
Elman on leave
2010-2011 Acting Dean Bruce Elman

31. All of the Deans have been white males, with the exception of Dean Juanita
Westmoreland-Traore. All of the Acting Deans have been white males with the
exception of Acting Dean Julio Menezes. Dean Westmoreland-Traore, a visible minority
woman, Was hired from outside the University and appointed to the Faculty without
tenure at the time she assumed the Dean's position. It is widely regarded as extremely
difficult, if not impossible, to accomplish any appreciable amount of scholarly writing
while a Dean, and an appointment as Dean without tenure could prejudice one's ability
to secure tenure at all. It is also difficult for a Dean without tenure to lead a Faculty

1 http://www.uwindsor.ca/law/

-8-
containing numerous tenured professors, given the status attached to tenure in the
University system. She is the only Dean appointed at the Faculty of Law without tenure.
Others appointed to the Deanship from outside the Faculty of Law were appointed with
tenure, and appointees from inside the Faculty had tenure when appointed. Acting and
Interim Deans are appointed by the University administration and these appointments
are time-limited. Thus, the only visible minority person to be appointed as Dean through
the regular search process was Dean Westmoreland-Traore, whose tenure status at
appointment was distinctly anomalous. Not surprisingly in the circumstances, Dean
Westmoreland-Traore left Windsor Law prior to the completion of her term.

32. For the last few years, the student body at Windsor has been a little more than
50 % female and in the last five years, there have been at least 20% students of colour
in each graduating class. The white male leadership of the Faculty of Law is in distinct
contrast to the diversity of the student population.

33. Statistics available from the Canadian Association of University Teachers

(CAUT) for Ontario law schools do not provide a breakdown of faculty positions by race,
persons with a disability, or Aboriginality. They do, however, indicate the following
concerning the gender of law school faculty for the year 2005/6, t~e last year available:'
Total Male % Female %
Full Professors 321 72% 28%
Associate Professors 189 52.4% 47.6%
Assistant Professors 162 48.1% 51.9%
Other 21 42.9% 57.1%
All Ranks 693 60.2% 39.8%--z

34. This pattern of white males predominating in the more senior, powerful and
generally highly remunerated positions is also evident at the University of Windsor
Faculty of Law.

2 $ource: Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT), Almanac of Post-Secondary Education

in Canada, 2008-9, at14.

-9-
35. During our work to enhance opportunities for women and members of visible
minorities at the University, I and other activists have followed three principal strategies.
One is to put in place decision-making processes which are transparent and fair; it has
always been thought that if the process itself is transparent, it will produce objective
decisions not tainted with bias. The second strategy has been to strive for
improvements in employment equity, so that more women and persons of colour could
move into teaching, professional and leadership roles on campus. The third has been to
work for improvement of the climate on campus, by addressing systemic human rights
abuses, workplace bullying and power imbalances; by making space for a variety of
religious beliefs, and making evident the entrenched privilege of white male faculty and
University leadership.

36. My recent activities within the Faculty of Law are consistent with these
strategies. I believe they have been seen as threatening.

37. In December 2007, I moved a motion at Faculty Council in the Faculty of Law
to end the practice of cancelling classes on the Jewish High Holidays. The students at
the Faculty of Law observe a variety of religious holidays, for almost all of which classes
are not cancelled. My motion was aimed at treating in the same way most student
absences for purposes of religious observance: classes would not be cancelled and
class notes or recordings would be made available to students taking time for religious
duties. Although I could do nothing about the statutory preference for Christian
holidays, when the University is closed, I wanted to place other religions on an even
footing.

38. The motion generated considerable discussion and debate at the law school.
Professor Moon confronted me in the presence of a support staff person and asked me
if I had clearly thought about the implications of my motion and proceeded to inform me
that it was a very bad idea. I politely disagreed. Professor Moon opposed the motion
strenuously at Faculty Council. The motion nevertheless succeeded with a clear
majority.

- 10-
39. The notice of motion, and the actual motion that was passed, provide as
follows:
In light of the ever-increasing religious and cultural holidays that are now an
everyday part of life in Canada, I believe that it is time for us to set out a clear
statement about our policy on the subject. I am therefore giving notice of
motion
Regarding the following resolution that I would like to place before Faculty
Council:

Recognizing the tremendous religious, ethnic and cultural diversity amongst

our student body, faculty and staff, and in the spirit of the Canadian Charter
and Human
Rights legislation, be it resolved that henceforth the Faculty of Law,
University of Windsor will no longer cancel classes for any specific religious
observance, but will provide reasonable accommodation for all students, staff
and faculty who are unable to carry out their responsibilities due to a desire
to observe religious/cultural practices.

40. In the past two years, I have twice taken a position in favour of adhering to
the University's hiring procedures in connection with the appointment of junior faculty at
the Faculty of Law. In both cases, strict adherence to such procedures might have
rendered uncertain (but by no means have precluded) a particular result desired by the
Dean and a group of senior members of the faculty. The University's hiring procedures'
were not adhered to in either of these cases, and my advocacy for compliance with
them was seen by proponents of these particular hires as threatening and
confrontational. I have learned over the course of my advocacy for employment equity
that in the long run equity and fairness are best served by openly following established
procedures and not by quietly bending or ignoring the rules to achieve a desired result
in a particular case.

4. Decanal Search
(a) Rules for Dean Search

41. The rules and procedures for a Dean search are established by By-law 10 of
the Senate By-laws.

- 11 -
42. By-law 10 provides that the Dean of a Faculty is the leader of his or her
Faculty and shall possess the appropriate qualifications therefore.

43. Article 2.2.1 of By-law 10 requires the establishment of a Search Committee,

composed of the Provost and Vice-President Academic as chair, ·three to six faculty
members elected from and by the regular faculty, an Employment Equity Procedures
assessor, student members and up to two staff, professional or community
representatives determined by the Search Committee.

44. Article 2.3.2 of By-law 10 requires that the search process shall be initiated
normally fifteen months prior to the expiration of the term of the incumbent Dean. Article
2.3.4 requires that at least one calendar year prior to the expected date of appointment
the Search Committee shall report to the Faculty Council and the President setting out
its proposed agenda, including its mode of operation, schedules for the search
procedure and schedules for the submission of periodic reports to the Faculty Council
and the President.

45. Article 2.3.6 of By-law 10 requires that the Search Committee prepare a
short-list of candidates (one to three) and obtain views and comments in an appropriate
manner from members of the Faculty Council. The short-list shall normally be
announced to the Faculty Council six months prior to the expected date of appointment.

46. Article 2.3.8 of By-law 10 states that following a search, the Search
Committee shall propose the name of a single candidate in writing with appropriate
supporting material to the Faculty Council. This provision requires that the Committee
submit the name of one of the two (or three) short-listed candidates to Faculty Council if
the search has progressed to the point of having such a short-list. At a meeting called
on five calendar days written notice, the Faculty Council shall consider the
recommendation of the Committee. Voting at the Faculty Council shall be by secret
ballot, and a simple majority of the votes cast is required to endorse the named

- 12-
candidate. Article 2.3.9 requires that the name of the candidate endorsed by the Faculty
Council shall be submitted to the President.

47. If the Candidate recommended by the Search Committee is not endorsed by

the Faculty Council, Article 2.3.10 of By-law 10 requires that the $earch Committee
shall reconsider its recommendation. If the second candidate recommended by the
Search Committee is not endorsed by the Faculty Council, then the Search Committee
can be reconstituted.

48. If the candidate endorsed by the Faculty Council is not accepted by the
President, Article 2.3.11 of By-law 10 requires that the Search Committee reconsider its
recommendation. If the Search Committee's second recommendation is not accepted
by the President, the Search Committee is required to be reconstituted.

49. Article 2.3.12 of By-law 10 outlines what the Chair of the Search Committee
can do if the search is not progressing. If the Chair of the Search Committee declares
that a lack of Committee progress requires it, he or she may request that the Faculty
Council decide among the following alternatives: that the Search .Committee agenda be
altered, that an acting appointment be made or that the Search Committee be
reconstituted.

50. If the reconstituted Search committee is unable to make a recommendation,

orif their recommendation is not endorsed by the Faculty Councilor the President,
Article 2.3.13 of By-law 10 provides that the President may recommend a candidate to
the Board of Governors.

(b) My Candidacy for Position of Dean

51. Dean Bruce Elman being scheduled to complete his second term on June 30,
2010, a Search Committee for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law was struck in
the spring of 2009. The Chair was originally Provost Neil Gold; wnen he received a one-

- 13 -
year appointment as Vice-President, International of the University, he was succeeded
as Chair by Kate McCrone, then acting Provost and Vice-President Academic.
Membership on the Search Committee included the following members of the full-time
faculty at the Faculty of Law: Larry Wilson, Donna Eansor, Moira McCarney, Laverne
Jacobs, Chris Waters (Associate Dean) and Jeffrey Berryman. Other members of the
Search Committee were Judge Mary Jo Nolan, Michelle Pilutti of th.e staff at the Faculty,
and the President and Vice-President of the Student Law Society, Arun Krishnamurti
and Omar Raza. The Equity Assessor was Clinton Beckford, Associate Dean of the
Faculty of Education. The search firm of Odgers Berndtston, Toronto, was retained to
assist in the search.

52. The advertisement for the position of Dean was published in October 2009. It
described as follows the attributes being sought:
A distinguished academic, the new Dean will continue to expand on the Faculty's
themes of Access to Justice and Transnational Law, while providing professional
direction and collegial leadership. A member of the University's senior
management team, the Dean of Law will have experience in academic
administration, will be a visible and vocal champion of the institution and the
Faculty, and will be active in raising their profile and increasing support for their'
continued expansion. .

53. The advertisement also stated that the University of Windsor is committed to
equity in its academic policies, practices, and programs; supports diversity in its
teaching, learning and work environments; and ensures that applications from members
oftraditionally marginalized groups are seriously considered under its employment
equity policy. Among those identified as likely to contribute to the further diversification
of the Faculty and its scholarship were women and members of visible minorities.

54. The description of the Faculty of Law appended to the advertisement

described the key themes of the Faculty as Access to Justice and Transnational Law,
which run through research, teaching and learning. It emphasized that the school's
admissions policy ensures a diverse and dynamic student body.

- 14-
55. The material accompanying the advertisement also identified the following
attributes and proposed activities of the new Dean:
• As a member of the University's senior management team, the Dean will seek to
enhance relationships with local, national, and international governments, the
profession, donors, alumni, and community leaders, so as to raise the profile ana
influence of the Faculty and the University. .
• Building on the Faculty's existing reputation and its recognized strengths in the
fields of transnational law and social justice, the new Dean will find ways to
enhance the profile of the Faculty overall. This is an overarching priority ...
• Thus, an immediate priority for the new Dean will be to continue and expand this
effort to attract and retain first-class teaching and research talent, from within
Canada and around the world.
.• The new Dean will be expected to engage the Canadian university community on
an academic level, including attending and encouraging attendance at
conferences.
• BUilding on the University's commitment to renewal and innovation, it will be
incumbent upon the new Dean to explore Canada's legal education landscape in
search of topical, vibrant, and innovative communities of scholars with which
Windsor Law may wish to connect.
• The position of Dean, Faculty of Law is emphatically an opportunity to help make
good on those promises regarding the role Windsor will play in the renewal of the
Windsor-Essex community, particularly given prevailing economic and attendant
social conditions in the Region.
• At the heart of the Windsor Law educational experience there is support for
making the concepts of transnational law and Access to Justice pervasive. The
new Dean will review the way the concepts of transnational law and Access to
Justice are integrated into the curriculum.
• If Windsor Law is to continue to champion the advancement of social justice and
transnational law, it will be a priority for the new Dean to build a comprehensive
support network to assist graduates in finding work in related areas. The new
Dean will work creatively with students, faculty, and professional groups to
explore alternative careers in the legal profession and to define Windsor Law as
an institution that actively supports its students in finding new ways to put their
skills into service - while at the same time ensuring that they have the
understanding and skills necessary for the more traditional practice of law.
• That being said, increasing the diversity of the program remains an internal
priority, and one that enjoys support at all levels of the University community.
This also means enacting initiatives to support students with disabilities and
being sensitive to the needs of visible and other minorities.
• To be successful in this endeavour, the new Dean must be someone who
genuinely enjoys the external aspect of his/her role, as well as someone who
considers the fund raising pursuits of Deanship to be a worthy responsibility.

- 15 -
56. In any selection process at the University of Windsor, each candidate is
assessed against the qualifications outlined in the advertisement; an evaluation grid is
created to evaluate each candidate systematically, and scores are assigned to the
candidate for each qualification on the grid. This evaluation prod~ces the short-list and,
ensures that each candidate on the short-list meets the advertised requirements. Short-
listed candidates are then assessed by way of an evaluation grid, to measure their
performance in the interview with the Selection Committee. The assessment of short-
listed candidates will also measure their performance in other activities taking place
after the short list is announced.

57. I submitted my application for the position of Dean by letter dated November
26,2009. In the first week of February 2010, Professor McCrone advised me that I was
one of four candidates who would be participating in a preliminary round of interviews. I
was interviewed on February 15, 2010, for two hours. Dr. McCrone advised me by
telephone on February 21 that I was on a short-list of two individuals. On February 27,
2010, I was asked to provide a list of nine referees, which I forwarded to Odgers
Berndtston.

58. Subsequently, I learned from some of the referees whose names I provided
that they had been interviewed in quite a cursory manner by someone telephoning from
South Africa, on a bad telephone connection, on behalf of the search firm. I also believe
that letters of reference from other supporters were not placed in their entirety before
the Search Committee.

59. The week of March 22, 2010 was established for the interviews of the two
short-listed candidates and other activities requiring the participation of both of us.
Among the activities I took part in that week on the initiative of the Search Committee
were a meeting of the Windsor Bench and Bar hosted by JUdge Nolan (March 23),
meetings with other Deans and the University President (March 24), a Town Hall
meeting at the Faculty of Law (March 24), a meeting with Dean Elman of the Faculty of
Law (March 25) and a two-hour interview with the Search Committee (March 25). On

- 16 -
March 26, I flew to Toronto to meet with alumni of the Law Faculty, and had a further
meeting with an alumnus on March 27. As far as I am aware, the other short-listed
candidate took part in most of the same activities. As these meetings progressed, I was
receiving positive feedback from my colleagues and others, and it was becoming
evident that my candidacy had a strong chance of success.

60. On March 24, 2010 the day before my crucial final interview with the Search
Committee, Professor Moon surfaced with spurious allegations that I had committed
plagiarism during my co-authorship of an immigration and refugee law casebook
between 2003 and 2006. Professor Moon forwarded to Dr. McCrone on March 24, an e-
mail in which he made allegations of a "very serious" problem of plagiarism, which
"when discovered required that the chapters prepared by Emily be recalled from the
publisher and repaired/rewritten by the other editors". He acknowledged in his e-mail
that his knowledge of this issue was second-hand, and acquired almost two years
before from Professor Audrey Macklin, one of my co-authors, whom he had married
subsequent to our collaboration on the book. He suggested that Dr. McCrone might
wish to contact the co-authors of the book, who "have copies of the chapters Emily
originally submitted and the sources that were not properly referenced". Professor
Moon made these allegations to me and to Professor McCrone bye-mail and he also
discussed them with other members of the Faculty of Law.

61. Professor Moon's reasons for making these spurious allegations at the
eleventh hour are highly suspicious. Had he seriously been concemed that an academic
offence had been committed, he had ample opportunity to raise the issue through the
proper processes at any time after he allegedly learned of them, which was almost two
years before the search. He did not ever do this. Rather, he raised them at a time and in
a manner that would do maximum damage to my reputation and candidacy, without
subjecting his allegations to the testing or scrutiny of a hearing where I had standing
and an opportunity to respond.

- 17 -
62. As I sought to explain to the Committee, from 2003 to 2006 I collaborated with
three other scholars to prepare' a casebook on Immigration and Refugee Law. I was
primarily responsible for chapter 1, a history of Canada's immigration policy. The
manuscript was circulated amongst the co-authors for two years before being submitted
to the publisher; some of the co-authors taught from it. It was part Of a blind peer-
reviewed process early in 2006. I was not advised of any issue with respect to my
chapter until after the galley proofs were prepared. When one of the co-authors, Don
Galloway, was reviewing the galley proofs supplied in 2006 by the publisher, he told me
bye-mail that he had found instances where I had not given sufficient attribution to one
particular source. He did not identify for me in this e-mail, or at any time since, the
specific problems in attribution which he claimed to have found. Nor did he give me the
opportunity to insert the attributions myself. Rather, he secured approval from the co-
authors to do the work himself, and I agreed because I was in England dealing with a
family emergency. Professor Galloway made substantial alterations to the galley proofs
of my chapter, removing my material outlining the history of racism in Canada's
immigration policy. He had not discussed with me beforehand his intention to make
such extensive revisions, nor had he secured my permission to do so. My review of the
original chapter in 2010 disclosed no problems in attribution justifying this re-write. I did
find that I had made voluminous attributions to the author identified by Professor
Galloway. At no time in his dealings with me about the alleged shortcomings in
attribution had Professor Galloway alleged plagiarism, as Professor Moon later did. Nor
did my co-authors ever make that allegation, either when the matter first came up or in
2010.

63. In reviewing the whole Galloway incident at the time of the Dean search in
March 2010, I concluded that I should have resisted more sturdily Professor Galloway's
comments about my chapter. I came to see his focus on the attribution issue as a way
of providing himself with an opportunity to remove material on racism which he believed
should not have been included. I was the only person of colour on the four-person
writing group..

- 18 -
64. In handling Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism, Dr. McCrone
committed several serious violations of my rights. She did not provide me with a copy of
the Moon e-mail of March 24 until March 30, even though she had previously raised
these allegations with the Search Committee, and indeed raised them with me in the
presence of the Search Committee at the end of my final interview by the Committee on
March 25 before I had seen Moon's e-mail to her.

65. She told me that the Search Committee had considered Moon's allegation to
be of sufficient seriousness to request that she contact my co-authors, and she did
contact them. They all emphasized the urgency of showing the Committee my original
chapter and the source mentioned by Professor Galloway, so that the Committee could
make up its own mind on the basis of the facts. At her request, I provided to Dr.
McCrone a copy of chapter 1 and the book by Valerie Knowles I had used as a source.
She told me in an e-mail sent March 28 at 11 :37 a.m. that she wanted to provide this
material to the Committee so that they could "see the material in question for
themselves", In a letter to me of April 6, Dr. McCrone stated that "given that the Dean is
the highest academic officer of a faculty, the Search Committee h~s a responsibility to
ensure that the issue that has arisen is clarified".

66. Despite all of these assurances, Dr. McCrone did not provide chapter 1 to the
Committee so that it could make up its own mind, a fact I learned only on the morning of
April 7, the day I was to have a final meeting with the Committee, so that I could
address these accusations.

67. Dr. McCrone did not tell me who made the decision that the Committee would
not review the chapter and the source, or why that decision had been made. I was
surprised and disappointed that the Search Committee was not given this material,
especially in light of Dr. McCrone's assertions that the Committee has a responsibility t9
clarify the issues. I nonetheless attended the meeting of the com'mittee on April 7 and
made a detailed statement rebutting the allegations. The Committed posed no
questions, and no discussion with the Committee ensued. Neither the Committee nor

- 19 -
Dr. McCrone ever made a statement dealing with Moon's allegations even though I had
specifically stated in a letter to Dr. McCrone of March 31 that in t~e circumstances I was
entitled to a "clear statement from you negating the very damaging allegations made
against me". The allegations were left hanging over me to blight not only the Dean
Search but also my future. They create a poisoned environment at the law school, and
the academy generally.

68. On March 31,2010 at 11 :43 a.m. one of my colleagues sent Dr. McCrone by
e-mail a detailed analysis of the so-caUed plagiarism, and evidence of computer
searches totally invalidating the allegations. Dr. McCrone refused to put it before the
Committee, writing in an e-mail at 10:21 a.m. on April 7: "your... communication dated
March 31 with respect to 'plagiarism', with attachments, provides your personal analysis
of the matter. It is the search Committee's responsibilityto determine whether or not
they wish to undertake such an analysis themselves. As such it would be inappropriate
to provide it with your communication ... I will not be distributing it ~o the Committee".
However, Dr. McCrone had already put before the Committee Moon's allegations, which
were not backed up with any evidence or analysis. I believe that Dr. McCrone gave the
Committee a copy of Moon's accusatory e-mail of March 24, as she provided it to me,
and told me in her April 2 e-mail that "everything provided to the Committee will be
provided to you". It is also surprising to me that Dr. McCrone told my colleague on April
7 that "it is the Search Committee's responsibility to determine whether or not they wish
to undertake such an analysis themselves" (emphasis supplied) when she had already
assured me that they would do so, and requested material from me to facilitate that
analysis.

69. Dr. McCrone never advised me of the role Professor Moon's overblown,
hearsay-based, allegations of plagiarism had played in the Committee's decision
making, even though I asked her to do so on at least two occasio.ns. The response of
Professor McCrone and the Committee to the Moon allegations did not give me a fair
opportunity to counter and dispel them. Although they received submissions from me in
writing on March 31 and in writing and orally on May 7, they never examined the original

- 20-
documents, as the co-authors had urged, and thus did not give me an opportunity to
address any concerns they had on the basis of that review.

70. I believe that the behaviour of Professor Moon in bringing these allegations
forward, and the serious irregularities in the way Professor McCrone and the Search
Committee dealt with them, would not have occurred had the Faculty of Law not been
on the brink of choosing a woman of colour as its Dean. The allegations of so-called
plagiarism presented a convenient pretext for the denying me the position. The actions
of Professor Moon and the Committee (including its Chair) amount to discrimination
against me on the basis of race and sex.

71. In addition to the failure to deal appropriately with the Moon allegations, the
Committee committed serous breaches of By-law 10. Article 2.3.8 of By-law 10 imposes
a mandatory requirement that following a search, "the search committee shall propose
the name of a single candidate in writing with appropriate supporting material to the
members of the... Faculty Council." To fulfil this requirement, the Search Committee
must actually choose between the two short-listed candidates.

72. Dr. McCrone did not require or permit the Search Committee to choose, by
vote, between me and the other short-listed candidate. Rather, she presided over a vote
which included the option of choosing neither candidate. This approach is
unprecedented in searches at the University of Windsor. As Chair, Dr. McCrone should
have required the Committee to choose one candidate or the other.

73. The Committee voted in favour of choosing neither candidate and thus never
weighed or discussed the merits of the two short-listed candidates as required by the
By-law. These irregularities were brought to President Wildeman's attention on April 9~
2010 and he indicated his support for this procedure. Dr. McCrone reported to the
Faculty Council at the Faculty of Law on April 14 that the Committee had voted to
recommend neither candidate, thus depriving the Faculty Council of its assigned
responsibility of considering the Committee's recommendation. This approach runs

- 21 -
counter to the requirements of By-law 10. If the Committee had been deadlocked after.
going through the proper evaluation and discussion, and proper voting procedures, By-
law 10 spells out what is to follow. Nowhere does By-law 10 provide for the procedure
followed by Professor McCrone.

74. At the Faculty Council meeting on April 14, Dr. McCrone advised that the
Search Committee had voted to recommend neither candidate. She told the Faculty
Council that neither candidate met the. requirements for the position. Dr. McCrone did
not give reasons for this conclusion. Nor has she ever advised me personally why the
Committee decided I did not meet the requirements of the position.

75. The Faculty Council voted to strike a new search Committee and do another
search. This procedure does not comply with Article 2.3.12. A new Search Committee
was struck on April 28, 2010. Dean Bruce Elman has been appointed Acting Dean for.
the year 201 0-2011. The appointment of Dean Elman as acting Dean would not stand in
the way of my appointment as Dean, should the Tribunal make such an order. However,
appointment of a Dean after the conclusion of this second search may do so, and I will
be pursuing interim relief to halt the search process and prevent the appointment of a
new Dean under By-law 10 until this complaint is finally resolved. The University has
refused my request to suspend voluntarily the search process to permit my complaint to
be heard.

76. I believe that the violations of By-law 10 committed after April 7, 2010 reflect
the Search Committee's indecent haste to dispose .of my candidacy, and constitute
discrimination against me on the basis of race and sex.

77. I meet all of the required criteria for the position of Dean of the Faculty of Law,
and believe that I am the only one of the two short-listed candidates to do so. The
appointment was denied to me because of discrimination on the basis of race and sex,
on the part of the Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor (responsible for creating
the Search Committee and for its actions) and Professor Moon. Put quite simply, the

- 22-
Faculty of Law and the University of Windsor, in spite of the lip service paid to equity
and social justice, did not want a visible minority woman as Dean of the Faculty of Law,
no matter how well qualified. Moreover, my decades of advocacy on behalf of equity at
the University, an integral part of my identity as·a visible minority woman, had left them
in no doubt that in my Deanship I would do more than pay lip service to equity, and this
prospect was unwelcome. Professor Moon's allegations of plagiarism provided a
pretext to justify resistance to my candidacy for the Dean's position. Rather than
investigating and dispelling them, Dr. McCrone and the Search Committee left them to
linger to serve as a pretext for not recommending me although I met every requirement
for the position. That Professor Moon was able to sabotage my candidacy for the
Deanship through defamatory allegations based only on hearsay, with no accountability
for his behaviour, illustrates that the University and the Faculty of Law have, through
their systemic discrimination on the basis of race and sex, created an environment of
impunity for individual acts of discrimination.

B. Complaint of Systemic Discrimination on the Basis of Race·and Sex

78. Like the Faculty of Law, the University of Windsor has now, and has always
had, a leadership almost exclusively comprised of white males.

79. Since 1980, when I first came to the University, all the Presidents have been
white males. Since 1980, all of the Vice-Presidents Academic have been white males,
with the exception of Dr. McCrone, who was acting Provost and Vice-President from
July 2009 to April 2010, the period comprising the Dean Search. A new position of Vice-
President Teaching and Learning, created in 2007, has a white male as its first
incumbent. The Vice-Provost, Students and Registrar has been a white male since the
position was created in 2005. Similarly, the only two incumbents ~f the position of
Associate Vice-President Academic Affairs, created in 1999, have been white males.
White males have occupied the position of Vice-President Finance '(Iater Finance and
Administration) since 1981.

- 23-
80. The position of Vice-President, Research has had two female incumbents.
The first, a white woman, served from 2004 to 2006, leaving before the completion of
her term. The current incumbent is Dr. Ranjana Bird, a woman of colour, appointed in
2007. The position of Vice-President, Advancement, was held by a white woman from
2004 to 2008; she left before the expiry of her term and the position is now held by a
white male.

81. According to the Office of Faculty Recruitment and Retention, there were no
visible minorities in senior administration between 2000-2005. 3 In the last five years,
there has been one appointment of a woman of colour in this category, the Vice
President, Research, Dr. Ranjana Bird.

82. Males occupy all other senior administrative positions in the University:
President and Vice-Chancellor, Provost and Vice-President Academic, Vice-President
Administration and Finance, Vice-President University Advancement, and Vice-
President, International. There is currently no person of colour at the Decanal level; to
my knowledge there have been only three such appointments since I joined the
University, one being Dr. Pillay, Dean of Science, another being Dean Juanita
Westmoreland-Traore, the third being Dean of Engineering Hoda EIMaraghy Neither
Dean Westmoreland-Traore nor Dean EIMaraghy finished her first term as Dean. At the
present time, the Deans of Business, Law, Engineering, Arts & Social Sciences and
Human Kinetics are all white males. The Deans of Education, Nursing and Science are.
white females. A white female holds the position of University Librarian.

83. Most recent vacancies requiring the appointment of acting administrators

have been filled by white males. The Acting Dean of Engineering appointed in the
summer of 2010 is a white male associate professor, although the Senior Associate
Dean, the Associate Dean and the Assistant Dean, are all persons of colour and there

3 Data Compilation of Academic Appointments from 2001-2005, Prepared for Dr. Rebecca Coulter by the
Office of Faculty Recruitment and Retention, February 2006.

- 24-
are numerous full professors of colour in the Faculty of Engineering. The Acting
Registrar appointed in 2010 is also a white male.

84. This long history of white male incumbency in senior administrative posts has
taken place in an environment characterized by considerable rhetoric about
employment equity, and prolonged failure to put in place the structures and programs to
accomplish it.

85. When the current President of the University, Dr. Alan Wildeman, met with
the University of Windsor Faculty Association Council on May 15; 2009, he declared:
... the importance of equity and human rights should be refl~cted in how the
University runs, with transparency and trust being the foundations upon which
the University can maximize its potential. This commitment to these must extend
from the Present's office throughout4 .

86. The University of Windsor Strategic Plan, approved by the Board of

Governors in May 2010 , identifies the University's values as:
- commitment to the highest intellectual standards
commitment to the highest standards of human rights and freedoms
commitment to have the student experience be a central consideration in
decision-making
commitment to civility and respect for others
commitment to applying teaching, research, and creative activity to issues of
importance to the wo"rld
commitment to be a responsible steward of people, culture, resources and the
environment
(emphasis added)

87. The University's record in realizing employment equity falls well short of its
rhetorical commitment. Indeed, there is a long history of unrealized equity goals at the
University.

4Confidential Draft, A Framework for Enhancing Human Rights and Equity at the University of Windsor,
Received at WUFA Council Meeting, May 15th , 2009 from Dr. Alan Wildeman.

- 25-
88. A Review Committee on Employment Equity (RCEE) was formed in 1987,
pursuant to Article 30 in the Collective Agreement, dealing with employment equity.
The RCEE, comprised of representatives from the administration and the faculty, was to
investigate and report on whether serious gender imbalances existed in the composition
of academic units at the University, recommend hiring goals to address such
imbalances, review the University's actions to achieve the hiring goals recommended,
and report its findings and recommendations annually to the Senate, the University and
the Faculty Association.

89. The RCEE made its first report in 1988, and reported a"nnually until 1995. In
that year, it submitted its Sixth Report, urging implementation of th~ recommendations
of past reports. Of particular concern was the failure of the University to set goals and
timetables for hiring visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and persons with disabilities to
parallel the existing goals and timetables for women. When the University took no
action on these recommendations for two consecutive years, the RCEE stopped
meeting, and did not resume until it was reconstituted in 2007.

90. The lack of meaningful progress on equity from 1993 led to the creation of the
President's Working Group on Equity Review (WGER) in 2004. Its 2005 Report, which
was approved by the Senate that year, found that there had been a considerable gap
between the original policies arid procedures for implementing employment equity
adopted by Senate and their implementation. It found that overall implementation of
employment equity had weakened gradually over the years to the point that many of the
important details of the original program, such as having goals and. timetables for hiring
members of the four groups designated by the Federal Contractors Program, had been
lost.

91. The WGER observed that the Senate had not acted on two requests from the
Review Committee on Employment Equity to establish goals for the designated groups
of visible minorities, Aboriginal peoples and persons with a disability. After 2000, when
the initial timetables for reaching the equity goals of hiring women faculty had expired,

- 26-
no new goals were established. With the expiry of the initial goals for women's hiring,
the University was thus, as of 2000, without goals or timetables for "any of the
designated groups. This left the RCEE, whose mandate was to monitor implementation
of goals and timetables, with nothing to do.

92. WGER recommended in 2005 that Senate set goals and timelines for
representation of women and visible minorities. It also recommended that Senate
establish a separate task force for each of Aboriginal peoples and persons with a
disability to bring back recommendations on specific programmes to encourage the
identification, recruitment and hiring of well-qualified candidates from these areas. The
University administration failed to implement any of these recommendations.

93. Pursuant to a recommendation in the WGER report that an external expert

with significant expertise in employment equity issues in the University setting be
retained, Dr. Rebecca Coulter of the University of Western Ontario was retained to
advise Senate, and in April 2006 she submitted her report, Making it Real.

94. Among her recommendations was that specific goals and timetables for
meeting equity objectives be set, monitored and evaluated by means of a reconstituted
Review Committee on Employment Equity. This has not been done. The University of
Windsor does not now have goals or timetables with respect to any of the four
designated groups.

95. Among the other recommendations of Dr. Coulter which have not been
implemented are that:
• a system emphasizing rewards and incentives for achieving equity goals should
be introduced although it must be balanced with an ability to impose sanctions
when necessary "
• a culture of equity must be built on the campus through educational programming
and practices, the provision of resources to new and emerging programs, and
on-going support for members of the designated groups
• strong, informed, consistent and timely leadership must be offered in support of
equity, and

- 27-
 • equity considerations must permeate all aspects of the University's endeavours
including planning, budgeting, program reviews.

96. Dr. Coulter also pointed out a significant weakness in the monitoring (to
ensure equity) of hiring and promotion procedures at the University. Equity Assessors
(EA), who were originally intended to monitor and oversee these processes, have
inadequate training and their input in the process varies greatly. Some EAs do nothing
more than observe. Dr. Coulter noted that she did not find any evidence in the training
session for EA's to indicate that there was a focus on the meaning and nature of equity.
Others have pointed out that the difficulty of attracting assessors is compounded by the
lack of adequate understanding of the issues and that some assessors may not even
perceive an equity issue. 5

97. The RCEE was reconstituted in April 2007; its mandate, in Article 30.04 of the
Collective Agreement, is to be responsible for identifying where there is a serious under-
representation of members of the designated groups in any academic unit or in the
Library; recommending reasonable goals and timetables for hiring where such serious
underrepresentation exists, and reviewing the action taken by the University to achieve
the hiring goals recommended by the RCEE. Between June 20 and August 15, 2007,
the RCEE was informed by Human Resources that either the data needed for the
Committee's work were not being collected, or that collected data were not up to date.
As part of its work in 2007, the RCEE developed a new survey instrument to collect
such data, but that instrument has never been put to use.

98. The agreement between WUFA and the University to settle the grievance of
Dr. Jang Singh, entered into February 2007, required action by December 31,2007 on·
the recommendations of the Coulter Report. The Administration's only action was to
appointtwo representatives to the reconstituted RCEE, in 2007. Although those two
representatives met several times with their counterparts appointed by WUFA, and with
the Administration, the administration members of the RCEE did not co-operate in the

5The Equity Game, A paper presented at the CSSHE Conference, Toronto, Ontario, by Pamela Milne,
May 27,2002

- 28-
filing of the report on the RCEE's first year of operation which was required to be filed by
May 2008. This impasse brought to a halt the work of the reconstituted RCEE.

99. During 2007-2008, the RCEE had prepared a memorandum of its planned
equity strategy, and submitted it to the President and the Provost for their endorsement.
This approach was adopted because of Dr. Coulter's advice that "If equity culture is to
become a reality at the University of Windsor, it must begin with strong, consistent and
on-going leadership". The memorandum was discussed with the President and Provost
and redrafted to take into account their comments and concerns. Outgoing University
President Ross Paul gave the report a strong endorsement and undertook to endorse
the RCEE proposal to Dr. Alan Wildeman, who had been chosen.to succeed him.
Provost Neil Gold (formerly Dean of the Faculty of Law) was not willing to provide a
written endorsement of the revised RCEE proposals, though he said he had a personal
commitment to principles of equity. The Union appointees to the RCEE concluded,
"Without the formal, written endorsement from the Provost for the RCEE
recommendations, there is nothing more to be done by the RCEE at this time".

100. In a report on the RCEE's work in 2007-2008 prepared by Professors Emily

Carasco and Pamela Milne, WUFA appointees to the Committee, it is concluded:
The senior Administration of the University of Windsor has chosen to continue its
empty commitment to the principles of equity without any substantive mechanism
to move the institution toward real equity. Little progress has been possible in
the past without this commitment and the RCEE does not think meaningful
progress can be made in the future without it.

The University of Windsor's current equity efforts are, and .have been for the past
12 years, in failure mode. As the Coulter report indicated, "making it real"
depends on the emergence of equity leadership within senior Administration.
Such leadership is not yet evident. Senate can adopt and approve documents
and recommendations such as contained in WGER and Coulter but if those
recommendations are not implemented by the Administration, then no progress
toward equity is ever to be realized at the University of Windsor. The work of the
reconstituted RCEE is also at a standstill because senior Administration has
failed yet again to agree to implement the strategy developed by the committee.
More time, more work and still no product.

- 29-
101. President Wildeman and the new Provost Dr. Leo Groarke have not made
any commitment in writing to the employment equity strategy proposed by RCEE since
taking office. Nor have they made any other form of concrete commitment to the
achievement of employment equity.

102. President Wildeman has not complied with Art. 30.01 (b) of the 2008
Collective Agreement, which provides that:
Within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the signing of this collective
agreement, in the context of the President's plans for a comprehensive campus-
wide approach to employment equity, the President will publish a detailed plan
and timetable with respect to implementation of the recommendations of the
Coulter Report.

103. In May 2009, President Wildeman announced in his President's Update (#3) a
plan to create an Office of Human Rights and Equity which was to be established in July
2010. This Office has not yet been established. There is no mention in this Update or
any other since, of the Coulter Report or of a detailed timetable for the implementation
of the recommendations in the Coulter Report.

104. Significantly no President or Vice President Academic has set goals or

timetables for hiring women or visible minorities in senior administration positions.

105. In March 2007, President Paul received a Report to the President on Matters
of Racism and Discrimination at the University of Windsor, prepared by Campbell
Aliens Consultants Inc. The report was commissioned by Dr. Paul as a response to
student complaints about discriminatory conduct on the part of the management of the
student pub. The consultants were asked to look into concerns of-racism and
discrimination on campus and to make proposals to overcome these problems. This
Report made a number of findings and observations.

106. In reporting on visible minority students' perceptions, the Report noted that
over and over again, the "whiteness" of the University was cited as a contributor to the

- 30-
students' feeling of not belonging. It continued, "It cannot be refuted that, with one
exception, the Senior Management Group of the University is white and mostly male.
Despite the fact that the Federal Contractors Program continues to find the University of
Windsor's equity program to be in compliance, and despite some progress in this
regard, the University's own employment equity report shows that the Faculty is
overwhelmingly white as well, with the exception of certain faculties wherein visible
minorities are clustered. In general, visible minorities have little, and aboriginal people
almost no presence in supervisory or staff positions across the University".

107. The Report observed further that students have the perception that those in
power positions do not understand the stress associated with sel?om being able to deal
with authority figures that "look like them". Those who have never encountered this
have trouble understanding it. Even though the University administration and faculty
"understand" equity issues, students report that they perceive a feeling of "us v. them"
when issues arise such as the Pub dress code, or more recently the controversy over
the Sports Weekend activities on campus. On the one hand, administrators say they
are engaging in consultation, but the students perceive tokenism at play. With regard to
Sports Weekend, the students involved in the negotiations allege the existence of a
double standard when comparing the Sports Weekend to other similar campus events
involVing a predominately white student base. Administrators proudly cite the existence
of policies relating to human rights, equity and anti-racism while students and others
point to the gaps in the practice of those goals.

108. As a further example of what they see as a disconnect .between policy and .
practice, the students cited the President's State of the University address on January
26,2007. In it, the President did speak to his belief that "we have a tremendous
richness of diversity on our campus and we absolutely must do more to ensure that all
of our students, faculty and staff take advantage of it. We must learn to do more ... as
must all universities in the 21st century". Because the President did not directly refer to
either the University's commitment to social justice or the actions being undertaken in
that regard, the omission was deemed to be an indication that the Administration does

- 31 -
not take the issue seriously. Further, it gives strength to the students' fear that the
"commitment" is dubious and this inquiry is merely "window-dressing" that will not result
in any meaningful changes related to the students' experiences and perceptions of
racism, racial profiling and discrimination against racialized and other marginalized
students.

109. The Campbell Aliens study alluded to the poor reception accorded the Coulter
Report. It observed that Dr. Coulter's recommendations, specifically those relating to
setting timetables and goals for implementation, have not been acted upon as yet:
The 2005/2006 Action Plan listed Employment Equity as one of the top
ten goals, and the WUFA Collective Agreement is clearly in support of
equity measures (See Article 30). The Report on Key Performance
Indicators, which helps to assess how well the University is meeting
the goals it has set in a wide range of endeavours, lists Equity and
Diversity and as an indicator but that it will only be reported on
triennially. Thus, it is not available in current reporting, and there is no
mention of it in the Plan for 2006/2007.

A more recent report, Forty years later, how are university women
doing? by Janice Drakich and Penni Stewart published in Academic
Matters, February 2007, provides evidence that women are making
strides in both faculty and administrative hirings, but even then it
appears that "women continue to be clustered both as students and
faculty in feminized disciplines; women faculty are not appointed to the
rank of full professor at the same rate or speed as men; and women
continue to be under-represented in senior administrative positions".
Subhas Ramcharan's work in 2005 made similar observations, and
pointed to the dismal failure of the University to include Aboriginal
people in any occupational category save food and services.

This plus the lack of progress on other equity initiatives leaves

racialized students and faculty feeling that their issues, and those of
Aboriginal people, persons with disabilities and other marginalized
groups, are not being respected. They and those who s~pport equity
feel inferior and demoralized. Perhaps the powers that be are simply
"slow to act", but in any event, the lack of communication about the
action plan relating to equity hiring programs contributes to the belief
that the issue is not on the administration's radar screen. There is a
fear that if equity hiring plans are not implemented, the University will
not capitalize on the opportunities presented by the pending
retirements of those taken on during the hiring boom of the late 1960's
and early 1970's.

- 32-
110. The Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Task Force on Campus Racism
released in March 2010 a Report on 17 hearings held at 14 university campuses across
the province in 20096 , One of the stories in the report comes from a University of
Windsor student who told the hearing that another student in her class did a
presentation in blackface. The class assignment was to talk about the experience of
being deported. "He came in with black paint on his face, an outfit, and spoke with a
fake Jamaican accent and he kept saying 'yo yo yo' during his presentation," the
student told the hearing. The student said the course instructor thought the
presentation was "great" and gave the presenter a good mark.

111. Also mentioned in the CFS report is a student who told the hearing that a
Halloween event organized by University of Windsor law students was attended by
some students in blackface.

112. Other stories involving the University of Windsor include: a professor who felt
"physically unsafe" raising the concept of "white privilege" to her class, and a librarian
who told the hearing that "the administration created an oppressive environment for
racialised staff, including incidents where staff would be insulted for their cultural
practices."

113. In its conclusion, the report acknowledges that it is not a formal research
study, but it states that "discrimination toward racialized students, faculty and staff is a
systemic feature of Ontario's post-secondary education system." Hamid Osman, a
student spokesman for CFS, said the hearings were kept anonymous in order to protect
those who made submissions and create an environment where they would feel able to
speak freely. Asked how much credibility can be given to anonymous anecdotal
evidence, Osman replied: "We believe their words, because when you look at the
report, you see a common theme."

6 Dalson Chen, the Windsor Star, March 23, 2010

- 33-
114. University of Windsor president Alan Wildeman would not comment on any
specific anecdotes in the report, but he noted that campuses are cross-sections of
society. "It is not surprising that things are happening on our university campuses that
are also happening across our society in generaL" Wildeman pointed to the University's
creation of a human rights, equity and accessibility office (which has not yet been
accomplished although the deadline for doing so was July 2010). "We always
encourage people who have concerns of this type to bring them forward, so that we can
look into them - and if there have been wrongs committed, do all we can to correct
those wrongs."

115. President Wildeman's reference was to case-by-case investigation of

complaints. He made no reference to the absence from University of Windsor of an
effective strategy to address systemic discrimination.

116. The University of Windsor has a long record of paying lip service to the goal
of equity, while doing little or nothing to advance that goal. Its inaction has left intact the
structure of white privilege within senior ranks at the University, and fostered
expectations that such privilege will continue undisturbed. In such an environment,
resistance to the initiatives of visible minority scholars to get through the glass ceiling
into senior professorial ranks and administration is normalized, and occurs with
impunity.

C. Effect on the Complainant

117. This University's handling of the Dean Search is the most difficult thing I have
had to deal with in my entire career. It may well be naive but I did really believe that my.
candidacy would be assessed on the basis of merit. I now realize that as far as some
people are concerned, I am not entitled to the treatment that they take very much for
granted. This is a hard thing to accept - that in 2010 in Canada, a woman of colour, no
matter how well qualified, is still not treated in the workplace the way members of the
dominant group in Canada are treated. I feel betrayed both by some of my colleagues
and by those in power within the system who permit this kind of behaviour to go

- 34-
unchallenged. It is particularly hard to swallow in a context where I am surrounded by
individuals who claim that they understand and live by the values that underlie human
rights law.

118. I don't know if I can describe the stress and the shock I experienced during
the last two weeks of the decanal search process. Professor's Moon personal attack on
me was very painful and Dr. McCrone's inexplicable handling of it left me
psychologically bruised and with a sense of hopelessness in relation to the damage
done to my credibility and reputation. Over the last few weeks I have been asked
dozens of times by former students, people in the community and beyond, to explain
why I did not get the position. I have been unable to do so. I have carried the weight of
this event with me every single-day since it occurred. I don't know that I will ever be the
same - not so much because I did not get the job - but because of how it happened
and how many people permitted it to happen.

D. Remedy

1. With Respect to Professor Moon:

1. Public retraction of his allegations of plagiarism

2. Damages for injury to dignity in the amount of $15,000

2. With Respect to the Faculty of Law and University of Windsor discrimination against
me:

1. Appointment of Dr. Carasco as Dean of Law by President Wildeman, for a full

five-year term with the opportunity for renewal;

2. Damages for injury to dignity in the amount of $60,000

3. An interim order staying the Dean search by the Committee appointed April 28,
2010, and requiring that an Actin~Dean be in place until the final disposition of this
complaint.

- 35-
3. With Respect to Systemic Discrimination:

1. Establishment by the University within six months of the. date of the Order of a
data base, goals and timetables for the four groups of women, members of visible
minorities, Aboriginal people, and persons with a disability, in accordance with the
recommendations of the Coulter Report and the RCEE proposals of 2008.

2. Establishment of an employment equity program in accordance with the Coulter

Report within a period of two years of the date of the Order.

3. An order requiring the University to report back to the Human Rights Tribunal
within 6 months to establish its compliance with the order in paragraph 1 hereof
and within 2 years to establish compliance with the Order in paragraph 2 hereof.

4. Comprehensive equity and human rights training for all senior administration at
the University, from the level of Dean to President, and training of Equity
Assessors as recommended by Professor Coulter.

5. Within one year of this Order, complete and report on a C~nsultation with
University of Windsor students about means to promote and support student
diversity, and implementation of the recommendations of those consultations within
two years of the date of the Order. A report to be produced by the University at the
end of the second year from the date of this Order outlining its progress on
implementing the recommendations of the Report, and distributed widely through
the University and the student community.

- 36-