Life got a little more complicated last month when Justice Chris Martin announced his decision in the Schoolteacher's Motion for Summary Judgment which we argued back in May. You can read the full text of his decision online here. It's not very encouraging.
Justice Martin said my Statement of Claim "falls within that category referred to....as 'the product of wishful,
fanciful or imaginative thinking on behalf of the plaintiff'. There is no substance
to it. There is no air of reality to it."
I think that's a little unfair, and that's what I'm going to have to try and convince the Court of Appeal. The question at issue was whether I could prove malice on the part of the Schoolteachers (Tram and Skull, the Gordon Bell defendants, brought the motion separately from the University of Winnipeg defendants, ("the Professors".) If you've been following this blog, you'll know I told you last month the main arguments I was relying on. They included:
1. The undisputed fact that Tram and Skull concealed their accusations against me from other staff members who might have supported me; and,
2. The undisputed fact that Skull and the University bypassed my Due Process rights under the Practicum Manual and moved for immediate expulsion under the emergency procedures.
3. The fact that when Tram recorded that I had "tapped" a student on the shoulder, Skull went on to report to the University that I had "grabbed" him by the shoulder.
How does Justice Martin answer these arguments? He answers them by ignoring them. He simply says that whatever discrepancies I found in the Defendants arguments were at once "minor and understandable".
When we appeared before Justice Martin last month for oral arguments, I told you how he went to great lengths to make sure I felt that my arguments were being heard. And I told you that I when I left the courtroom, I did feel that whatever opinions the Judge had formed prior to the hearing, at least he had listened to my arguments.
I don't feel that way anymore after reading his written decision.