Shun, Delay, Outspend
How Powerful Institutions Spend Millions Refusing to Answer—and Trust the Legal System to Exhaust the Individual Who Demands They Do
Let there be no ambiguity.
I did not assault a student.
There was no torn shirt. No police incident. No arrest. No handcuffs. No five-year history of violence, criminality, or dangerous conduct.
There was no event to exaggerate. There was no event at all.
In thirteen years as a professor, I did not so much as raise my voice to a student. Yet within hours of my suspension, a lurid fiction was travelling through the workplace: I had assaulted a student, ripped his shirt, been arrested, been led away in handcuffs, and had somehow accumulated a long history of violent misconduct.
Five witnesses substantiated the same story - they heard it from staff, who, in turn, said they heard it from management. They had witnesses!
It became a de facto historical truth within two weeks. Lies are effective.
The institution eventually acknowledged to me, privately and in writing, that no assault had occurred. But it refused to say so publicly. It allowed the lie to circulate, settle, and perform its work. Only after my reputation had been poisoned did the institution quietly concede what it had known all along.
It was a management-manufactured lie.
This is rather like sowing weeds across a farmer’s field, waiting until they have strangled the crop, and then congratulating oneself for admitting that perhaps the weeds should not have been planted.
The damage was done.
The fiction had accomplished precisely what such fictions are designed to accomplish. It transformed a professor with no history of violence into a supposed menace. It created an atmosphere in which almost any punishment could be presented not as retaliation, but as institutional protection.
First, invent the danger.
Then punish the dangerous man.
Management did not publicly correct the lie. It did not investigate who invented it, who circulated it, or why five people heard exactly the same defamatory account.
But the institution certainly benefited from it.
When I tried to stop the defamation, the institution did not investigate those spreading it.
It threatened me.
I was warned in writing by the Humber Manager of Public Safety that asking university employees to stop defaming me could itself be treated as criminal harassment and that, unless I remained silent, I might be arrested.
Consider the inversion. Their employees could portray me as a violent criminal. My request that they stop was treated as a possible crime.
The weakness is not in my evidence.
The weakness is in the price of forcing a wealthy institution to answer it.
Two leading defamation lawyers reviewed the material and concluded that I had an excellent case. I signed a retainer agreement. I was prepared to proceed.
Then came the arithmetic.
To litigate properly in Superior Court, I would have had to risk my retirement, my home, and farmland in Alberta that my grandfather purchased in 1928.
That land is part of my family’s history.
It is not a litigation fund.
I could not responsibly sell it, mortgage it, or place it at risk in a legal system that makes justice ruinously expensive for an individual while allowing wealthy institutions to convert every motion, disclosure request, and procedural quarrel into another invoice. They have unlimited taxpayer-funded resources.
I did not step back because the case was weak.
I stepped back because even a strong case can destroy the person bringing it.
That is how money defeats justice.
The University of Guelph, Humber College, and OPSEU can draw upon public funds, tuition revenue, union dues, insurers, and teams of lawyers. They can multiply motions, prolong disclosure, contest every document, and exhaust an individual before a witness is ever called.
By my estimate, they have already spent seven figures. With defence fees and related costs, the total may ultimately exceed four million dollars.
All this to resist a potential payment amounting to a fraction of that sum.
This is not prudence.
It is institutional impunity.
It is the determination to establish that a publicly funded institution may fire a professor after he condemns Hamas, tolerate material calling for Israel’s destruction, permit fabricated stories of violence to poison the workplace, and then spend millions ensuring that no one is ever required to answer.
Eight lawyers can be deployed against one man.
Every request for evidence can be met with silence.
Every route to adjudication can be delayed until the individual runs out of money, health, or time.
The institutions could have investigated the defamation immediately. They could have corrected the assault story. They could have asked who invented it, who spread it, and why it was allowed to shape the workplace.
Instead, they spent a fortune avoiding those questions.
For them, delay is a strategy.
For me to pursue justice could mean losing everything my family spent generations building.
A person may possess the documents, the witnesses, the truth, and the support of experienced lawyers—and still be unable to afford the machinery required to make a powerful institution answer.
Evidence is not enough.
One must also be rich enough to survive the process.
That leaves me with one realistic legal avenue: the Ontario Labour Relations Board.
My case has been stalled there since November 2025.
There has been no hearing. No witness has been examined. No evidence has been tested. My repeated requests for information have gone unanswered. The vice-chair assigned to the case has provided no meaningful indication of when—or whether—the matter will be adjudicated.
I may now have to retain counsel and seek judicial review merely to force the Labour Board to hear a case already before it.
Not to win.
Not to obtain damages.
Simply to compel a public tribunal to perform its most elementary function: hold a hearing.
That is why my GoFundMe matters.
It is preserving the only legal route still available that does not require me to gamble my retirement, my home, and my grandfather’s land against the legal budgets of three enormous institutions.
Those institutions do not need to defeat my evidence.
They need only prevent anyone from hearing it.
They do not have to explain how a wholly fabricated allegation of student assault entered the workplace.
They do not have to explain why management failed to correct it after acknowledging that no assault occurred.
They do not have to explain why five witnesses heard substantially the same defamatory story.
They do not have to explain why I was threatened with arrest for asking that it stop.
They do not have to explain why radical anti-Israel and pro-Hamas faculty helped contact activist organizations, including Stop Zionist Hate, and mobilize tens of thousands of messages demanding that I be fired.
This was not ordinary criticism.
It was an organized pressure campaign directed at my employer and intended to make my continued employment impossible.
Faculty helped summon thousands of hostile strangers into an effort to destroy my livelihood. My family and I endured threats, intimidation, and severe psychological harm.
That harm is not merely my characterization. The Workplace Safety and Insurance Board (WSIB) accepted that I suffered a compensable psychological injury arising from these events.
My career was destroyed. My reputation was destroyed. My physical health was decimated. My psychological injury was formally recognized.
Yet I—not those who spread the stories, mobilized the campaign, or intensified the threats—was portrayed as the danger.
I had called Hamas Nazis, and at the University of Guelph-Humber, an institution that links its own social media to sites calling for the destruction of Israel, that is not merely grounds for dismissal, for defamation, it is also grounds for an expensive, publicly funded fight to deny me adjudication.
The Jew lover must be punished.
They will never stop.
When Melanie Spence Ariemma, the Vice Provost, radical anti-Israel zealot and wizard behind the curtain, was brought before the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, one of their many lawyers, Danielle Douek of Lerners LLP, acting for the University of Guelph, stated in writing that I posed a physical-safety risk to Spence Ariemma.
I have never met Spence Ariemma, nor have I spoken with her on the phone, nor has she ever responded to emails about her many, many violations of my civil rights.
I withdrew from that proceeding. When the HRTO accepts institutional defamation without asking for evidence, of course, I don’t stand a chance.
Again, the facts are not ambiguous. The University of Guelph and Humber College had already admitted it was all a lie.
Yet counsel acting for the university still presented me to a public tribunal as physically dangerous.
The vocabulary changed. The defamation survived.
Once the invented assault could no longer be maintained, its emotional residue was preserved through vaguer expressions: safety risk, danger, concern, menace.
The factual allegation disappeared. The stain remained. That is how institutional defamation works.
A lie is planted, circulated, and allowed to shape perception. When it collapses, it is not honestly withdrawn. It is repackaged. The institution abandons the accusation but retains the atmosphere it created.
The senior administrator who ultimately fired me did not investigate who invented the assault story, who circulated it, or who helped expose my family to thousands of hostile strangers.
He fired me.
Bill Rosehart, then provost of the University of Guelph, had never met me.
He never interviewed me. He never answered a single email. He ignored my appeals. He ended a professor’s career without listening to him or extending the smallest courtesy of due process.
Nothing.
And how was he treated afterward?
He was rewarded.
He was appointed president and vice-chancellor of the University of Waterloo.
The official who fired a professor he had never met, after a campaign poisoned by invented stories of assault and criminality, was not investigated.
He was elevated.
The same immunity appears within OPSEU.
A member of its senior executive wrote: “Every time I hear about Hitler, I fall in love again.”
What happened to her?
Nothing.
OPSEU declined to discipline her. But ironically, OPSEU took tens of thousands of dollars in dues from me but refused to represent me, accusing me of a “hate crime” because I said I supported Israel and because I had condemned their favourite terrorist organization, Hamas.
A senior union figure may express affection for Hitler and apparently face no meaningful sanction. People within the union may indulge hatred of Jews or admiration for the Holocaust and remain protected.
But a professor who condemns Hamas and defends Israel can be abandoned and left to fight alone.
This is not neutrality.
It is moral inversion.
The institutions have not answered the evidence I documented concerning thousands of antisemitic posts associated with the professor who helped mobilize the campaign to have me fired.
They have not answered material describing Jews as subhuman, praising Hamas, invoking Hitler approvingly, or calling for Israel’s destruction.
The University of Guelph-Humber has not explained why university-affiliated social-media accounts were connected to posts calling for Israel’s eradication.
Who approved this material? Who monitored it? Why did no senior administrator intervene?
Why were students and faculty permitted to circulate eliminationist rhetoric while a professor who defended Israel was suspended, silenced, portrayed as violent, and fired?
The university has answered none of these questions. There is a scandal that any mature and honest organisation would have investigated. But the University of Guelph-Humber, Humber College and University of Guelph?
It has discovered that it does not have to.
This is Canada.
The governing boards are silent. The tribunals are silent. The institutional leaders are silent.
Every so often, one of their many lawyers sends another menacing letter to one unrepresented man. The law has no relevance; they are simply thugs and bullies. Their goal is to abuse, intimidate and threaten one man into exhaustion and acquiescence, and now they have the Labour Board on their side.
Then the institutions return to silence.
Shun. Delay. Outspend.
The system rewards the method.
Thank God that Fox News and The Times of Israel had the courage to report on the case. See links above.
The Canadian media? Do not make me laugh.
There is something exquisitely Kafkaesque about being condemned on the basis of anonymous testimony from people who cannot be questioned, whose claims cannot be properly tested, and who may never have existed as described.
The appeal offered no remedy. It was returned unread. A disciplinary hearing, mandated by the collective agreement, was cancelled.
The accused was denied witnesses.
The accusers - if they exist - were concealed.
The report judged itself.
Not one central figure has been independently investigated.
Not one has been disciplined.
Not one has been required to explain how fabricated allegations of violence and criminality entered the workplace and shaped the process.
Those who spread the stories were protected. Those who mobilized the campaign were left untouched. Those who denied due process were promoted.
The professor whose career, reputation, and health were destroyed has been left to finance the search for accountability on his own.
That is what my GoFundMe is about.
It asks whether one citizen can compel publicly funded universities, colleges, unions, and tribunals to submit their conduct to independent examination.
The funds may now be needed to retain counsel and to seek judicial review to compel the Labour Board to hear the case it has delayed since November 2025.
I am not asking a court to presume that I am right.
I am asking that the evidence be heard.
And the evidence returns us to the central fact these institutions have spent years trying to obscure.
This began because I condemned Hamas and said that I stood with Israel.
That is what this is about.
Everything else—the invented assault, the fictitious arrest, the imaginary handcuffs, the fabricated history of criminality, and the insinuation that I am physically dangerous—is slanderous emotional residue designed to poison the workplace, isolate me, and make my destruction appear necessary.
And now eight lawyers are fighting me.
Why?
To ensure that I receive nothing.
To make certain that the pain endures.
To establish that a publicly funded university may connect its official social-media presence to material calling for Israel’s destruction and never answer for it.
To establish that faculty may describe Jews as subhuman and retain institutional protection.
To establish that a senior OPSEU executive may write that hearing about Hitler makes her “fall in love again” and face no discipline.
That is what they are spending seven figures to defend.
Not merely a lawsuit.
A principle.
The principle that institutional power need never apologize, explain, or submit to judgment.
They have already taken my career, my reputation, and much of my health.
Now they are spending millions to make sure I do not get a thing—and that no tribunal forces them to answer for what they did.
They do not have to defeat me.
They only have to outlast me.
My GoFundMe is the only thing standing between their silence and a hearing.
In this wretched economy, I understand that many people cannot contribute. Or maybe they already have.
But everyone can share.
I am digging my heels in; they will not bully me into submission, and my quest for justice is not over.