My message to those Palestinianist students, administrators, and their supporters would be to advise them to vigorously insert their heads into a particularly uncomfortable and constricting orifice.
Yes : In 2023, during the COVID period, I was expelled from Université Laval (Quebec) without a hearing, a meeting, or any academic review. My “offense” was raising methodological concerns about public health measures (lockdowns, COVID passes, etc.) — concerns that have since been validated. For years, the university kept the case quiet.
“Finlayson says Humber College and OPSEU Local 562 are now doing exactly what the university did earlier — conducting what he calls trial by defamation. Statements and filings, he says, repeat damaging characterizations rather than address the facts.”
This is also my experience. No regard for truth-finding or procedure fairness. You say something reasonable but unfashionable, then your educational administration fanatically builds their case by heaping pile upon pile of false but defamatory allegations on you. They do nothing else. Truth and justice are distractions to them—leading them away from the exalted virtue-signalling than comes from debasing a Socrates of our time.
What evidence is there to suggest the ORLB denied you a fair hearing? This seems an unfair accusation, absent evidence. You've made this allegation before, and I've read the publicly available decisions - they all point to a track record of a certain applicant failing to deliver materials to the respondent(s). Note: without this step, there can be no fair adjudication. The Board provided an extension (2, I believe) for service of the application, but for whatever reason the materials still weren't delivered. Why? It strikes me as odd to not follow the proper procedure and then claim unfairness when the matter is dismissed because procedures weren't follow. We're a nation of certain norms and principles, aren't we?
I note the allegation that walking into an OLRB hearing is like walking into the casino. Again, how?
The Board had the following to say about your s.96 application, and I'd like to know if you've considered it fully:
12 ...the applicant spent much of his application materials name calling and otherwise denigrating the character of both the Board and representatives of the responding party. The applicant is warned that such behaviour is not helpful and will not be tolerated at the consultation. Furthermore, such behaviour could constitute abusive conduct which may compromise the Board’s ability to conduct a fair and efficient hearing, and may result in the dismissal of the application on the basis that it is an abuse of process. The Board cautions the applicant – and, indeed, all parties – to adhere to basic levels of civility in the consultation.
Tl;dr
Can an applicant really complain about lack of a viable appeal route when the applicant (at least the s.50 application, I believe the s.96 is still going through?) did not follow simple procedure and did not put their best foot forward in their application(s)?
It’s astonishing to watch someone read a long piece, ignore roughly 95 percent of it, and then latch onto the last few paragraphs as though he suddenly has expert knowledge of a case he clearly does not understand.
You say I “didn’t comply.” With what, exactly? What is your evidence for that claim? Where are you getting your information? Unless you know something I don’t, as far as I know the hearing has been delayed, not “shut down,” and it was delayed because of actions taken by the Vice-Chair, CUPE, and OPSEU — not by me. I was ready to proceed. They cancelled it.
So before making accusations about my supposed non-compliance, perhaps you should first explain what you’re talking about. Right now it looks less like knowledge than speculation dressed up as authority.
And that is the deeper problem here. My piece was not mainly about the Labour Board. The last portion mentioned it. The overwhelming majority of the piece dealt with broader issues, which you either failed to read properly or chose to ignore so that you could jump in and start lecturing as though you possessed inside information.
You do not.
What I did say in the piece is that I am not a fan of the Labour Board or the union system. And yes, I am perfectly entitled to say that. This is a free country.
The union system forced me to pay thousands of dollars in dues to an organization that, on day one, effectively declared me guilty of a hate offense and shut down representation. They refused to represent me in writing. That was stated plainly in the piece you apparently skimmed. Do you have anything to say about that? Are you suddenly an expert on that as well?
And another thing: if you’re going to make insinuations about people publicly, at least have the courage to sign your name. You appear anonymously, making claims about my case, hinting at insider knowledge, and attacking me while hiding behind a blank profile.
Put your name down. Stand behind what you’re saying.
Otherwise it just looks creepy — like anonymous stalking dressed up as commentary.
I complied with the process as far as I know. I raised legitimate concerns about being asked to submit documents that could place me in breach of settlement agreements. Those concerns turned out to be justified. The hearing was cancelled with almost no notice because of that issue.
So the idea that I somehow derailed my own hearing is nonsense.
If you want to criticize me, at least do the basic work of understanding what you’re criticizing. Read the piece properly. Get the facts straight. Stop pretending to knowledge you clearly do not possess.
Until then, you’re not offering insight. You’re just making ignorant and uninformed accusations.
Let me also say something about the reality of this process. I am not a lawyer. I am one individual facing four experienced labour lawyers — two from OPSEU and two from Humber. Two days before the hearing they submitted roughly 800 pages of material across five or six separate filings. That is the environment I am dealing with. I have never brought a DFR before. I have no legal training. Yet I have done my best to respond carefully and thoroughly. They asked for particulars — I provided them. My submissions are organized, detailed, and responsive to what was requested. But much of what I am dealing with involves pleading a negative: asserting that certain actions were not taken. By definition, you cannot “prove” a negative in the way they suggest; if the union claims it acted, then it is up to them to show evidence that it did. That is basic logic.
So yes, there is a massive imbalance here: one person without counsel facing multiple institutional lawyers who are filing hundreds of pages at the last minute while trying to derail the hearing. And into that situation you arrive anonymously, claiming to know what happened and accusing me of non-compliance. I have no idea who you are, and you have not even had the courage to attach your name to your comments. If you believe you understand this case so well, then identify yourself and explain your evidence. Otherwise it simply looks like an anonymous stranger jumping in, making confident claims about matters he clearly does not understand.
Let me also say something about the reality of this process. I am not a lawyer. I am one individual facing four experienced labour lawyers — two from OPSEU and two from Humber. Two days before the hearing they submitted roughly 800 pages of material across five or six separate filings. That is the environment I am dealing with. I have never brought a DFR before. I have no legal training. Yet I have done my best to respond carefully and thoroughly. They asked for particulars — I provided them. My submissions are organized, detailed, and responsive to what was requested. But much of what I am dealing with involves pleading a negative: asserting that certain actions were not taken. By definition, you cannot “prove” a negative in the way they suggest; if the union claims it acted, then it is up to them to show evidence that it did. That is basic logic.
So yes, there is a massive imbalance here: one person without counsel facing multiple institutional lawyers who are filing hundreds of pages at the last minute while trying to derail the hearing. And into that situation you arrive anonymously, claiming to know what happened and accusing me of non-compliance. I have no idea who you are, and you have not even had the courage to attach your name to your comments. If you believe you understand this case so well, then identify yourself and explain your evidence. Otherwise it simply looks like an anonymous stranger jumping in, making confident claims about matters he clearly does not understand.
Following the Soviet handbook. It’s as if the revolution already happened. Next step for dissidents: the Gulag.
This is so frightening. I hope it is dealt with appropriately as he moves forward. More people need to read and understand what this means.
I will get letters threatening me from their lawyers in the morning, and I will post any. Everything is accurate, I am tired of these thugs.
My message to those Palestinianist students, administrators, and their supporters would be to advise them to vigorously insert their heads into a particularly uncomfortable and constricting orifice.
Me too.
https://x.com/LMucchielli/status/2032426999835148793
https://indepnews.org/en/what-the-laval-case-shows-about-academic-freedom/
https://indepnews.org/en/academic-dissent-at-universite-laval-during-covid/
https://indepnews.org/en/why-canada-cannot-handle-dissent/
https://unbekoming.substack.com/p/structural-diagnosis/comments
Did you do a DFR?
Yes : In 2023, during the COVID period, I was expelled from Université Laval (Quebec) without a hearing, a meeting, or any academic review. My “offense” was raising methodological concerns about public health measures (lockdowns, COVID passes, etc.) — concerns that have since been validated. For years, the university kept the case quiet.
“Finlayson says Humber College and OPSEU Local 562 are now doing exactly what the university did earlier — conducting what he calls trial by defamation. Statements and filings, he says, repeat damaging characterizations rather than address the facts.”
This is also my experience. No regard for truth-finding or procedure fairness. You say something reasonable but unfashionable, then your educational administration fanatically builds their case by heaping pile upon pile of false but defamatory allegations on you. They do nothing else. Truth and justice are distractions to them—leading them away from the exalted virtue-signalling than comes from debasing a Socrates of our time.
What evidence is there to suggest the ORLB denied you a fair hearing? This seems an unfair accusation, absent evidence. You've made this allegation before, and I've read the publicly available decisions - they all point to a track record of a certain applicant failing to deliver materials to the respondent(s). Note: without this step, there can be no fair adjudication. The Board provided an extension (2, I believe) for service of the application, but for whatever reason the materials still weren't delivered. Why? It strikes me as odd to not follow the proper procedure and then claim unfairness when the matter is dismissed because procedures weren't follow. We're a nation of certain norms and principles, aren't we?
I note the allegation that walking into an OLRB hearing is like walking into the casino. Again, how?
The Board had the following to say about your s.96 application, and I'd like to know if you've considered it fully:
12 ...the applicant spent much of his application materials name calling and otherwise denigrating the character of both the Board and representatives of the responding party. The applicant is warned that such behaviour is not helpful and will not be tolerated at the consultation. Furthermore, such behaviour could constitute abusive conduct which may compromise the Board’s ability to conduct a fair and efficient hearing, and may result in the dismissal of the application on the basis that it is an abuse of process. The Board cautions the applicant – and, indeed, all parties – to adhere to basic levels of civility in the consultation.
Tl;dr
Can an applicant really complain about lack of a viable appeal route when the applicant (at least the s.50 application, I believe the s.96 is still going through?) did not follow simple procedure and did not put their best foot forward in their application(s)?
It’s astonishing to watch someone read a long piece, ignore roughly 95 percent of it, and then latch onto the last few paragraphs as though he suddenly has expert knowledge of a case he clearly does not understand.
You say I “didn’t comply.” With what, exactly? What is your evidence for that claim? Where are you getting your information? Unless you know something I don’t, as far as I know the hearing has been delayed, not “shut down,” and it was delayed because of actions taken by the Vice-Chair, CUPE, and OPSEU — not by me. I was ready to proceed. They cancelled it.
So before making accusations about my supposed non-compliance, perhaps you should first explain what you’re talking about. Right now it looks less like knowledge than speculation dressed up as authority.
And that is the deeper problem here. My piece was not mainly about the Labour Board. The last portion mentioned it. The overwhelming majority of the piece dealt with broader issues, which you either failed to read properly or chose to ignore so that you could jump in and start lecturing as though you possessed inside information.
You do not.
What I did say in the piece is that I am not a fan of the Labour Board or the union system. And yes, I am perfectly entitled to say that. This is a free country.
The union system forced me to pay thousands of dollars in dues to an organization that, on day one, effectively declared me guilty of a hate offense and shut down representation. They refused to represent me in writing. That was stated plainly in the piece you apparently skimmed. Do you have anything to say about that? Are you suddenly an expert on that as well?
And another thing: if you’re going to make insinuations about people publicly, at least have the courage to sign your name. You appear anonymously, making claims about my case, hinting at insider knowledge, and attacking me while hiding behind a blank profile.
Put your name down. Stand behind what you’re saying.
Otherwise it just looks creepy — like anonymous stalking dressed up as commentary.
I complied with the process as far as I know. I raised legitimate concerns about being asked to submit documents that could place me in breach of settlement agreements. Those concerns turned out to be justified. The hearing was cancelled with almost no notice because of that issue.
So the idea that I somehow derailed my own hearing is nonsense.
If you want to criticize me, at least do the basic work of understanding what you’re criticizing. Read the piece properly. Get the facts straight. Stop pretending to knowledge you clearly do not possess.
Until then, you’re not offering insight. You’re just making ignorant and uninformed accusations.
Let me also say something about the reality of this process. I am not a lawyer. I am one individual facing four experienced labour lawyers — two from OPSEU and two from Humber. Two days before the hearing they submitted roughly 800 pages of material across five or six separate filings. That is the environment I am dealing with. I have never brought a DFR before. I have no legal training. Yet I have done my best to respond carefully and thoroughly. They asked for particulars — I provided them. My submissions are organized, detailed, and responsive to what was requested. But much of what I am dealing with involves pleading a negative: asserting that certain actions were not taken. By definition, you cannot “prove” a negative in the way they suggest; if the union claims it acted, then it is up to them to show evidence that it did. That is basic logic.
So yes, there is a massive imbalance here: one person without counsel facing multiple institutional lawyers who are filing hundreds of pages at the last minute while trying to derail the hearing. And into that situation you arrive anonymously, claiming to know what happened and accusing me of non-compliance. I have no idea who you are, and you have not even had the courage to attach your name to your comments. If you believe you understand this case so well, then identify yourself and explain your evidence. Otherwise it simply looks like an anonymous stranger jumping in, making confident claims about matters he clearly does not understand.
Let me also say something about the reality of this process. I am not a lawyer. I am one individual facing four experienced labour lawyers — two from OPSEU and two from Humber. Two days before the hearing they submitted roughly 800 pages of material across five or six separate filings. That is the environment I am dealing with. I have never brought a DFR before. I have no legal training. Yet I have done my best to respond carefully and thoroughly. They asked for particulars — I provided them. My submissions are organized, detailed, and responsive to what was requested. But much of what I am dealing with involves pleading a negative: asserting that certain actions were not taken. By definition, you cannot “prove” a negative in the way they suggest; if the union claims it acted, then it is up to them to show evidence that it did. That is basic logic.
So yes, there is a massive imbalance here: one person without counsel facing multiple institutional lawyers who are filing hundreds of pages at the last minute while trying to derail the hearing. And into that situation you arrive anonymously, claiming to know what happened and accusing me of non-compliance. I have no idea who you are, and you have not even had the courage to attach your name to your comments. If you believe you understand this case so well, then identify yourself and explain your evidence. Otherwise it simply looks like an anonymous stranger jumping in, making confident claims about matters he clearly does not understand.