A birthday party, a car in the wrong space, and Mr "L”

This tells of the unresolved incident whereby a tenant parked her car in the parking space allocated to another in an apartment building parking lot in London, Ontario, and the resulting fabrications, false memories, and further offensive behaviour of Mr “L”.

The reason I am telling about this incident that took place 3 years ago is because I need to tell my side of the story, due to boss Mr “L” still saying, three years on, that I parked in the other tenant’s parking space, and that she, apparently, only then parked in mine.

The incident was never investigated, even though I reported it to Management as he had come quite nasty, blaming me and threatening to call a tow-truck if I parked in someone else’s parking space again (I had told him that day, when I went to ask him to ask the owner of the blue car to move, that when I saw someone in my spot, I parked in the next space to it).

I had arrived home at 2:30 in the afternoon, of Tuesday, July 4, 201 (a regular workday for Canadians as far as I know) after being out running errands with the car for a couple of hours or so.  When I realized someone else had parked in my parking space, I just pulled into the next space to that, which happened to be empty.  I was tired and did not realize it would cause such a problem to Mr “L” sense of logic, or to the dismay of some friendly residents in the building who were helping him celebrate his birthday, they said. 

I left my car in the next space while I went in to see if Mr “L” was around or someone who knew who had parked in my space.  As I walked by the lounge I saw Mr “L” sitting there with other residents as they commonly did, and went in, although this time they were eating cake and ice cream. Immediately, I was treated as though I was trespassing on a private party, although this was a working day and the middle of the afternoon. I was scorned for appearing thus, to ask him if he could call the owner of the blue car (the one usually parked beside mine) before I went up to my apartment.  

Mr “L” was more interested in where I had parked my car (because, well, wherever I parked it now it would not be in the space allocated to me.)  He turned against me, ,just as his group of old girls had, and threatened to have my car towed if I parked in someone  else’s space again, because I should have parked in the Visitor’s parking area.  He had the authority to have cars towed, he suggested, although the fact that this other woman had parked her car in my space while I was away didn’t seem to bother him. It was MY car that he threatened to have towed. He did finally go to call the owner of the blue car, after finishing his cake and ice cream.   Within a few minutes she came down, and we walked out together, for her to move hers into her own space, and me to move mine into my space.  She seemed a bit confused, as one would be if they had parked in the wrong space and not realized it.

The situation, however, was left with me being blamed, as Mr “L” decided to spin it, distorting what happened into it being me who parked in the blue car lady’s space so she had no choice but to park in mine, apparently.  However, Mr “L” wasn’t interested in calling the tow truck on her parking  mistake, only on me, for parking in the next empty space.  And blaming me was what he continued to do, it appears, during all the time I attempted to get the situation sorted out with Property Management.  I had been unable to pursue the matter farther due to other commitments.  2017 was a busy time, dealing with health issues and a doctor behaving about as nonsensically as Mr “L”.  I just didn’t have time to do it all.  

Having that erratic situation never being resolved, as Management was unable to deal with it effectively, was another burden I was forced to carry, through being blamed for yet another incident that was not my fault.  There is no Tenants’ Association for residents to go to, when such things happen. It is only people like Mr “L” and his inner circle, presumably, who get to say what’s what.

I just happened to mention the parking space incident one day, on my way through the parking lot, to Mr “L” as it happens, who is still the one in charge, although since Management had never conducted an investigation, apparently not even asking the errant lady herself how it came about, no guilt or innocence was ever decided upon. It was only stated by the higher-ups that the situation had been “addressed” thoroughly and it was time to drop it. It looked like the situation hadn’t been addressed at all – especially about the approach to the situation by Mr “L”.  

So imagine my surprise when I discovered, three years later and straight from the horse’s mouth himself, that I had parked in the blue-car-lady’s space first, whereupon she had parked her car in mine. He didn’t say whether she had mentioned that “fact” to him on July 4, 2017, before going up to her apartment after parking in my space, or whether she had simply decided that nature would take it’s own course.  He just said I had been the one at fault, parking first in her space, then she in mine. Nobody has mentioned that incident to me, in fact, other incidents have not been mentioned either, as though the girls in the know had learned what they should take as the truth.  Nothing seems to arrive at a resolution here. They are just left up in the air, and the girls in the inner circle would know what had been decided as the truth.

I still don’t know how that situation as described by Mr “L” could have come about – how did the blue car lady come to arrive home – and when – only to find I had apparently parked in her space.  I would like Mr “L” to be more specific, because of course the superintendent would know. But if I had already been in her parking space, (parking there earlier in the day, or the day before), at some point the evening before or on July 4, she had to have come home with her car, and parked it in my space because hers was taken.  If she had gone to Mr “L”, I’m sure he would have asked the lady J what time she arrived home and found her space taken.  After all, he would want the truth of the matter, wouldn’t he?   

I’d like to hear his story of how this incident happened, from notes he took about it.  I’d like to know what time she says she arrived home and, parking in my space instead (which Mr “L” and Management insists is a no-no), did she then attempt to contact Mr “L”? Did she leave a note for him, or a phone message, to get me to move my car?  How about some details on exactly how this situation came about, since they are claiming I was at fault for parking in the wrong space first.  I spoke to the lady once or twice after that, asking her to call Management and tell them what happened, but she said only that she thought the situation had been resolved. No, lady with the blue car. It hasn’t been resolved!

What was odd about this was that he seemed ready to place blame on me as soon as I walked in – his women, too - and was most certainly ready with the story that I had parked in the wrong space the day before. But if that were the case, that I had in the wrong space first, wouldn’t the other lady had gone to him about it on July 3; so why didn’t he telephone me that day and ask me to move my car. Or why didn’t he check during the day of July 4th, and realizing I had gone out in my car, which I had at about 12:30 pm, why didn’t he contact the lady who apparently had been obliged to put her car in my space, to ask her to move her car, now that I had gone? 

I was blamed, unjustly, for causing this incident. Now, three years later the lady in the blue car is still in her parking space, and I am in mine, beside hers.  I have explained here how this incident came about, and the result for me of trying to get it resolved. I have spoken my truth, and others have spoken their lies.  But I would still like them to speak up and admit they were wrong, and wrong to blame me.  If anyone can explain how this happened, in a different way than what I am stating, then explain, giving times of day, and who parked where, and to whom did they report it.

As well as getting the story straight, about the parking space, what’s been ignored altogether by Mr “L” and other staff, is his behaviour and that of his female companions.

 Part 2

 So what was it, you may be wondering, that started this up again, this situation that had been in limbo for 3 years?

On Tues Sept 15, 2020, I had gone out to the car, and stopped for a moment to ask a question of Mr “L”, about something for the apartments.  I happened to say something about living with the old parking space incident from 3 years ago, having to live with it not being settled and he responded in a manner I wasn’t expecting, saying that I was the one who parked in the other person’s parking space first, and so she parked in mine when she came home.  Well he caught me off guard, and I responded, telling him what I thought of him.  He wasn’t taking an approach that suggested it was a no-fault matter. He placed the blame squarely on me!  I told him off, indicating I did not accept his version of what happened and then left! Nothing had changed. He’s still the same old person.  (And as I have stated, I would like him to explain exactly how that incident happened the way he said it did, and why on earth the lady didn’t try to fix the problem instead of parking in my parking space and simply going home).

On Friday Oct 9, 2020, when I came back from getting groceries, a red pickup truck with a hook on a chain on it was parked in my parking space, no doubt from the site next door, although most park their vehicles away from the residents’ parking areas. 

Without entering the driveway into our lot, I stopped just as two guys in red vests went by, on their way to the construction site. I explained that there was a pickup truck in my parking space, and would they mind trying to locate him and have him move his vehicle (assuming he was from the site).  They did that, and a few minutes later the man came and got into his truck - without speaking to me - and moved it.  I didn’t get out of my car. I parked it and went home.

The next day, Saturday, October 10, the London Free Press had a special piece about Thanksgiving, so I wrote a comment about this incident for it, thanking the two workers who had been passing by just when I needed them – too tired to get out of the car to have to go looking for the owner of the red pickup myself, at the construction site!

The comments made by myself and one other following the article were later removed, but that doesn’t lessen the appreciation I have towards some people of this city who were so helpful to me at that time. In fact, it makes me appreciate the kindness I received even more.  I still have what I wrote in the comment I submitted:

Regarding a recent incident, I am grateful two workers in red vests who happened to be on the spot went to find the man who parked his red truck in my parking spot while he went to the construction site next door. I appreciated not having to try to find someone who could help in this matter without having it end up the same as it did 3 or 4 years ago when I was the one who got blamed for being the person who initially parked in the space next to mine. I am grateful for the opportunity to tell about that incident and the disregard, rudeness, and lies of the people involved. The London Free Press has provided readers with this opportunity to discuss local issues and happenings until recently (soon after the rope incident in the nature area, which offended some people), when commenting on articles was severely restricted. I don't like to see people with power using it to silence others! (WE ASKED LONDONERS: What are you most grateful for this year? https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/we-asked-londoners-what-are-you-most-grateful-for-this-year   Oct 10, 2020).  

Parking in another person’s parking space isn’t such a big deal. But it was, when Mr “L” and his buddies were in charge of such situations. 

The Human Rights Tribunal process is a farce

Having been involved in Ontario’s Human Rights Tribunal process since the summer of 2015, I can now say for certain the Human Rights process  - at least the way it was conducted in my case - is a farce. It may work for some people, of course, but I hasn’t worked for me.

One of the reasons I say this is that, while attempting to get one of the main issues of contention between the Respondent and myself, the Applicant, resolved, I can see how the process has worked in his favour. And if the process itself hasn’t, while running its natural course, then the people working in it have enabled it to benefit him.

One

The Application I made to the HRT was to declare that the Respondent – my family doctor at the time – had discriminated against me on the grounds of sex, marital and family status, and age. I followed the rules and submitted 5 ‘important documents’ and one audio recording that I would be using at the hearing, as well as providing a list of them, stating the importance of each, as required in that section of the form. As the Applicant, I also had to provide a thorough description of the two incidents of discrimination and how they affected me, and what remedies I was seeking, which did not include a monetary remedy only ones directed to the Respondent himself and recommendations within society. See Remedies sought from the HRT.

Then it was up to the Respondent to write an official Response, using an HRT form for that, which he did in July, 2015. On it he wrote the name of only one document – The Medical Chart of McMcPherson – giving the reason it was important as “describes the care provided to Ms McPherson.”  It was at about this time that I inquired from the Legal Support Centre what was menat by the term ‘Document.’ I got no answer on that.

This was the first of the three times in all that the Respondent and the Applicant (myself) were required to declare what documents we were bringing to the hearing – or relying on, or might be using.

I did respond the Respondent’s official response, but the Form 3 I used said only respond to new issues, so that matter of the one bundle of documents – being my Medical Chart – remained unaddressed.

Two

The second time we were required to declare the documents  - in a formal Disclosure of “Arguably relevant Documents” - was by September 1, 2015, which I did, submitting my by then 7 documents plus 2 audio recordings by the deadline, but receiving nothing in return from the Respondent.

I contacted the Respondent and the HRT via an official form and was hastily sent the bundle of items previously mentioned by the Respondent – the Medical Chart. There were no dates on them, not in chronological order, no description of each page or their importance, nor their relevance, as was stated to be the new requirement – that they be arguably relevant.

I was concerned about the bundle being passed off as a single ‘Document’ but was advised by HRT to wait as a third deadline would soon be approaching, and perhaps all would be resolved by then.

Three

The third and last deadline was Dec 29, 2015, by which time the Applicant and Respondent were to have submitted all the documents they were going to “rely on” at the hearing in February.  By this time the Respondent had put numbers and titles on each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. But nowhere was the importance of the ‘Document’ or it relevance included, except meant to be as a “description of the care provided to Ms McPherson.”

I objected strenuously. And the Respondent’s lawyer objected in return, and in two Interim Decisions and one Case Direction, decisionmakers at the HRT sided with the doctor – the Respondent.  I get to use my 7 pages, and he gets to use 103 – if he needs to.

If I need to defend myself against anything that is raised by the documents he produces in self-defence, I don’t have anything. We both submitted documents starting in April, his in July, 2015, me providing insight as to why mine were important, the doctor providing nothing, except to say they described the care provided to me.

Negotiations and arguments

Forms 10 and 11 abounded then, between the Respondent’s lawyer and myself and the HRT, as we attempted to persuade the Interim Decisionmakers, Laurie Letheren and Dawn Kershaw, of the merits of our requests – me for adjournment to allow the Respondent time to provide the relevance of each of the 103 pages, his lawyer to plead that he had the right to a speedy hearing.

As time went on, his lawyer made the argument once again that I had placed the care provided to me at the centre of this matter, while I argued that no, like Evan Solomon, Mike Duffy, Jian Ghomeshi and Joe Fontana, when accusations are made against them it isn’t the good they have done that is at the heart of the matter. It is when mistakes are made, or discrimination carried out, that it ends up at a Tribunal and these are the matters to be looked at, not the good these people did. The lawyer’s Form 11 saying what she did, there, was ignored by the Interim Decisionmaker, Dawn Kershaw, in her Jan 15, 2016 Interim Decision, as were my remarks about what this case should be about.

Each time, the Interim Decisionmakers argued that this matter of the adjournment and the relevance of the items in the Medical Chart should be left to be decided at the hearing.  And then I realized that this was not going to happen. It couldn’t happen. It was an illogical decision the Interim Decisionmakers had been making every time they said it.

It would take time, if the Respondent were ordered to write down the relevance or importance of each of the items in the 103-page Medical Chart. There’s not a hope that could happen at the hearing, while we are all sitting there. It would seem that they  - the HRT Registrar, Richard Hennessy, or the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw - had no intention of deciding in my favour, that the doctor would have to provide the relevance of each of the documents.

What that means, in terms of the hearing, is that if I produce a document or an example of ill-treatment or disrespect he wishes to dispute, he can produce a document from the 103 pages to prove his argument. However, having only 7 documents and 2 audio recordings, I am limited in how I can make a point or defend myself against his accusations. I can speak, but I have not been granted credibility. So it is the harsh words and distortions in documents written by the Doctor and his receptionist that will be believed.

What’s worse is that, during this whole process, I was led to believe that the process would be fair, yet I was not given the option of seeking documents to contradict the 103 pages he decided to rely on.  In fact, how could I? How could I begin to guess what he was going to produce, at the hearing, from his array of documents that he first mentioned back in July?

Three times the doctor produced that Medical Chart as his Document of importance, relevance, to rely on. And each time he not obliged to prove that the items in it were.

Discontinuity between the lead-up and the hearing

Late in the process it also sinks in that everything that happens during the initial process has nothing to do with the hearing. All that happens during these months of preparation, the HRT sending directions as to what should be submitted and when, and how they should be described, is forgotten once the hearing starts. What that means is that all the talk, all the arguments, all the lack of description regarding importance, relevance of the pages, etc. in the Medical Chart mean nothing once the hearing starts. It means that I can request that the doctor provide the relevance, right there, at the hearing, but that the adjudicator, Dawn Kershaw, can simply say No. Or, she can say, This should have been dealt with before the hearing started. There is no time now.

All those submissions I made, beforehand, about my position, mean nothing, unless they are included in the documents I submitted to the HRT to be used at the hearing. That means that the medical research I provided links to on why older women who have had given birth and have had hysterectomies ought not and do not need to be sent off for an ultrasound on their bladders will not be there as evidence. Only my word will count, though the colleague witness of the doctor has said in writing that the treatment I received – including the pelvic ultrasound on my bladder, was within the standard of care limits. What that means to me is that I would not want him as my doctor. And secondly, that giving the patient the chance to ask questions beforehand and to find out what would be expected from her doesn’t matter to either of them. As for the request by the doctor for a urine sample from me to test for “street drugs,” it is still my view that he needs to take a course or two on how to communicate in respectful ways. See details of the incidents of discrimination:
Statement on Pelvic Renal ultrasound incident 
Statement on drugs, urine termination incident 

Just as importantly, the doctor needs to consider the differences between  women who are young and those who are growing older, and how that may affect their diagnosis and treatment in matters such as kidney disease.

What is the purpose of such a lengthy process of requests for documents from the Applicant and the Respondent?  Is it to wear out the Applicant through repeated failed attempts to achieve fairness at the hearing?  See SJTO and HRT Rules of Procedure p 2

p 2 of the Rules

A3 INTERPRETATION

A3.1 The rules and procedures of the tribunal shall be liberally and purposively interpreted and applied to:
(a) promote the fair, just and expeditious resolution of disputes,

(b) allow parties to participate effectively in the process, whether or not they have a representative,

(c) ensure that procedures, orders and directions are proportionate to the importance and complexity of the issues in the proceeding.

Brian Crockett: not another Michael Bryant 'justice' story

updated Aug 30, 2012; Nov 8, 2012

Two years ago, former attorney-general Michael Bryant, while driving his car in Toronto, was involved in an incident with the cyclist Darcy Sheppard, resulting in Darcy’s death.

On Saturday, August 18, Brian Crockett, Crown Attorney for Oxford County, was charged with impaired driving and failing to provide a breath sample. The Woodstock Police Department and the Fire Department responded to the call of a pickup truck in the ditch (Impaired Driver, Aug 19, 2012; Oxford County Crown Attorney, Aug 20, 2012).

Coincidentally, Michael Bryant, former Attorney-general of Ontario, has just announced the release of his new book, ‘28 Seconds: A True Story of Addiction, Tragedy and Hope,’ although public reception of it hasn’t been good. In it, he criticizes the Toronto Police for jumping in too fast to lay charges (Police reject Michael Bryant’s criticism, Aug 21, 2012). He was initially charged with criminal negligence causing death and dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death (Bryant charged, Sept, 2009) but the charges were dropped.

One news report on Brian Crockett’s unfortunate incident congratulated the police on doing their duty and not simply letting Crockett off – hardly an expression of faith in our legal system (Kudos for cops in Crockett arrest, Aug 23, 2012). But seeing how Michael Bryant managed to escape due process and possible punishment leaves one wondering.

Obviously, the charges facing Brian Crockett are not even close to the severity of those Bryant had initially faced. The whole purpose of laying a charge of impaired driving – and being strict about it, even for first time offenders – is to lessen the chances of future incidents involving needless death due to impairment. Perhaps it is assumed that some people are likely to benefit more from punishment than others, for whom a one-off is really just that – a one-time incident that will never happen again.

One reader commented that she “supported” Brian Crockett, though what she meant by that isn’t clear, whether it meant she would be bringing him home-baked cookies if he ended up behind bars, or was trying to influence opinion. What she did was judge him on his reputation – his career, and his family and community standing. And just as it was with Michael Bryant, the claim was made that stress had something to do with it, as though it is only people with high status careers who feel such stress and whose lives are difficult. If this is the case, with Brian Crockett, perhaps being relieved of his duties might help (and also relieved of the $200,000 salary). Then he could partake of living a stress-free life, and use a bicycle and public transportation to get around on.

I know Brian Crockett has done good deeds, years ago helping those with little or nothing. Whatever happens now, making one mistake shouldn't have to result in a person's reputation or career being destroyed. I’m sure no one wants to see Brian Crockett be punished for lack of good judgment, if that’s what happened, but if one person escapes paying a penalty while another one is punished, for the same deed, then is that justice? Is it the deed that matters, or does social context (work, family, community) – and character - count just as much? See ‘If Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits, shouldn't we all?, May 26, 2010).


Added Aug 30, 2012

In December, 2005, while still living in the UK, where I had been doing a PhD, I started writing a blog, and one of the first pieces I wrote was about an entertainment writer – Nick Douglas - who had committed suicide (Taking action to prevent, or passively doing nothing, Dec 22, 2005). A magazine writer – Barry O’Kane - claimed afterwards that it was the actions of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HPFA) that had driven him to it, by taking away his livelihood (Golden Globes 'forced writer to suicide,' Dec 22, 2005).

In response, the HPFA claimed that it was simply untrue that Mr Douglas had been denied the opportunity to make a living as an entertainment journalist. And yet, taking away Douglas’s access to resources, and undermining his attempts to be reconized and gain access to important activities of the HPFA, in effect, did limit his capacity to make a living. Douglas was able to continue trying to make do, without the support of the members of the association he belonged to. But without their support, his efforts were almost guaranteed to fail.

Sometimes people like to pretend that a person’s ability to succeed at their career depends on merit, when the real truth is that the person’s social network, membership in the right organizations, and family and community status matter more. People in power may pretend they have done the right thing in allowing someone to continue to work, and may not be doing anything that would actively prevent the person from pursuing their career, but their passive approach could be enough to prevent that person from moving forward.

On reading Jennifer Wells’s article on Michael Bryant’s memoir, we learn that he said nothing to Mr Sheppard throughout the 28 seconds. “I didn’t want to provoke him in any way,” he says. “I didn’t say anything to him at all” (Michael Bryant’s memoir 28 Seconds, Aug 18, 2012).

And yet, isn’t it just this sort of passivity that can cause harm – at least misunderstandings – through lack of communication? What if Bryant had tried to talk to Darcy, to apologize for his car lurching forward, unintentionally, he says, as it had stalled. Why didn’t he explain this to the person who needed to hear it – Darcy Sheppard - instead of to readers of his book?

Which one is the victim, when we look at the story in its broadest terms? Who has been hardest done by, and whose life stagnates as the rich and powerful seek out ‘understanding’ and ‘justice,’ on their own behalf?

Additional information: added Nov 8, 2012


The Brian Crockett impaired driving case has ended, with a fine and a 12 month loss of driver’s licence for The Crown attorney (See Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, London Free Press, Nov 7, 2012; Oxford Crown attorney Brian Crockett pleads guilty to impaired driving, Woodstock Sentinel-Review, Nov 7, 2012).

Another noteworthy case is that of Bonita Purtill, also coming out of Woodstock, which ended in Sept, 2012, with a 7 year prison sentence (see ‘The Bonita Purtill impaired driving case: unanswered questions and other matters’ Oct 17, 2012).

The Bonita Purtill impaired driving case: unanswered questions and other matters
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Oct 17, 2012
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2012/10/the-bonita-purtill-impaired-driving.html

Bryant charged with criminal negligence after crash

ctvtoronto.ca
Sept 1, 2009
http://www.ctv.ca:80/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090901/fatal_collision_090901/20090901?hub=TopStories\

Court date set for Crown facing impaired charges
By Heather Rivers and Ron Thomson
Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Aug 22, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/08/22/court-date-set-for-crown-facing-impaired-charges

For Michael Bryant, an extraordinary kind of justice
By Christie Blatchford
Globe and Mail
May 25, 2010
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/christie-blatchford/for-michael-bryant-an-extraordinary-kind-of-justice/article1580911/
http://www.caledoniawakeupcall.com/updates/100525globe3.html
http://lists.von.ca/pipermail/fasd_canadian_link/2010-May/001763.html

Golden Globes 'forced writer to suicide' (added Aug 30, 2012)
By Andrew Gumbel in Los Angeles
Independent online World News - Americas
Dec 22, 2005
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/article334669.ece
http://samcpherson.homestead.com/files/Miscellaneous/2005_Dec_GoldenGlobesForcedWriterToSuicide.doc

If Michael Bryant should be judged on his merits, shouldn't we all?
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
May 26, 2010
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.com/2010/05/if-michael-bryant-should-be-judged-on.html

Impaired Driver   (link added Aug 26, 2012)
Excerpt from Media Release prepared by: S/Sgt Shelton
Woodstock Police Service
Aug 19, 2012
http://www.woodstockpolice.ca/images/19AUG12%20Media%20Release.pdf

Kudos for cops in Crockett arrest
By Andrea Demeer
Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Aug 23, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/08/23/kudos-for-cops-in-crockett-arrest

Michael Bryant and Darcy Sheppard: divided by class
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Sept 10, 2009
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2009/09/michael-bryant-and-darcy-sheppard-class.html

Michael Bryant’s memoir 28 Seconds recounts tragic death of bicycle courier (added Aug 30, 2012)
By Jennifer Wells
The Star
Aug 18, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1243483--michael-bryant-s-memoir-28-seconds-recounts-tragic-death-of-bicycle-courier

Oxford County Crown Attorney Brian Crockett faces impaired driving charge
By Ron Thomson
Woodstock Sentinel-Review
Aug 20, 2012
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/08/20/oxford-county-crown-attorney-brian-crockett-faces-impaired-driving-charge

Police reject Michael Bryant’s criticism of probe into fatal 2009 incident
The Star
Aug 21, 2012
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/crime/article/1244643--police-reject-michael-bryant-s-criticism-of-probe-into-fatal-2009-incident

Taking action to prevent, or passively doing nothing: is there a diffference? (added Aug 30, 2012)
By Sue McPherson
Sue’s Views on the News
Dec 22, 2005
http://suemcpherson.blogspot.ca/2005/12/making-living-or-not.html

Mature students and the disabled: fast tracking (cheating?) through university

Revised June, 2012

More insights come to us from the press in the UK and Canada, related to mature students and the disabled.

First, from the UK, an article in the Times Higher about the USA's innovations in university education.' In 'Older, wiser, jobless . . ,' a new program endorsed by City University of Seattle commends and rewards the older student who has gained experienced in life in various kinds of ways, apparently, though the article itself mentions only the valuable contribution of the older wiser person who has previously had a career.

It seems that the original meaning of 'mature student' that was familiar to many of us at Western, that of the older student who was permitted to register for a BA without having a graduation certificate, has now been changed, or gotten lost in the intricate application program that neglects to mention this aspect of 'mature student.' True, this article is about the United States, not Canada or Britain. And the emphasis seems to be on the older person who has previously had a career and now wants a degree so she or he can use it to advance their career or regain one. The essential part of this process - the PLA or Prior Learning Assessment - is based on the candidate having an advisor. But I wonder how easy it is to get an advisor at university who could understand the value of one's life experience and want to see the student progress. I never had such a person, who was willing to take the time to understand and go through it with me, and despite having graduated from high school, and achieved a BA and MA, never got to either continue my education or have a career. This kind of mentoring is the foundation of the Prior Learning program in the USA.

It seems to me that the focus will be on only those students the advisor can relate to, can understand without it having to take up too much time or thought processes. That sounds as though a good many qualified individuals will be excluded, for not having the right network, or not living in the right neighbourhood, or having the right husband (not the mention not previously had the right kind of life experience - the career.) How do we know this isn't just another program created for the benefit of a certain segment in society, or certain individuals, so they can be fast tracked through the educational system, while their initial lack of qualifications stand a good chance of getting lost in the process.

In Canada, a related matter has occurred, whereby a student at the University of Manitoba was given a PhD despite not being able to handle certain situations, as he suffered from ‘exam anxiety.’ If all PhD candidates' weaknesses and deficiencies are overlooked or forgiven, then what would be the state of those who get to educate the next generation.

What of favouritism in higher education? Is it what we want? Or if we are one of the favoured would we, too, look the other way. The comments sections following the article 'Older, wiser, jobless' offer insights into what the people think.

Added June, 2012

Continuing on from the battle over the right of the disabled to be granted exemption from completion of requirements for degrees, in ‘Lessons from Lukács,’ 2011, Todd Pettigrew draws a divide between the administration and the professors, as though this is where the problem lies in differences of opinion about who is deserving or not. I’m not convinced of that. The second new piece, ‘Infamous University of Manitoba Professor,’ 2011, comes from the Centre for Interdisciplinary Justice Studies (CIJS) in Winnipeg, bringing into focus once again the decision-making powers of the administration in areas in which they apparently lack expertise. They may have made the final decision, but along the way surely other professors gave their own views on whether it was appropriate, in their view, that the anxiety-ridden PhD candidate be granted a PhD.

Whether it’s older students who have already had the opportunity to prove their worth in the ‘real’ world, or disabled students who wouldn’t stand a chance otherwise of competing, here are two groups from society that are receiving special treatment. Somebody’s making the decision, as to who gets it and who doesn’t. If exams don’t matter any more, or the ability to think, or do research, or write exams under stress, are universities being fair?

Court battle over PhD
By Aldo Santin
Winnipeg Free Press
Oct 30, 2010
http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/court-battle-over-phd-106366028.html?path=/local&id=106366028&sortBy=rank

Infamous University of Manitoba Professor Ends Battle for Academic Integrity
By R. Jochelson
CIJS - Justice Blogs
Nov 15, 2011
http://cijs.ca/CIJS.ca/Justice_Blogs/Entries/2011/11/15_Infamous_University_of_Manitoba_Professor_Ends_Battle_for_Academic_Integrity.html

Lessons from Lukács: How the traditional university is under attack from all sides
By Todd Pettigrew
Macleans
Nov 14, 2011
http://oncampus.macleans.ca/education/2011/11/14/lessons-from-lukacs/

Older, wiser, jobless: US adults drawn by degrees
By Jon Marcus
THE (Times Higher Education)
Dec 2, 2010
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=414424

University defends giving PhD to student who failed
By Nick Martin, Winnipeg Free Press
Vancouver Sun
Nov 18, 2010
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/University+defends+giving+student+failed/3847406/story.html

Links updated June, 2012