As for fees now almost $2000 per month per child in one commercial centre you can bet that left unchecked fees in all programs will only be getting more expensive.

We need $10/ day childcare to be an election issue in May 2013.

Thanks for reading.

Vice-president Chris Seguin’s comments are key to the story provided by Omega writer Rocca. Seguin is quoted as saying: “There was an individual that was offended and she took the artwork down,” and “That TRU World staff member was acting on an individual basis.”
Translation: The university is not involved. The university is not legally liable here.
Oh, really.

Let’s examine this, step by step. Bear with me. This is important. I’ll tell you why it’s important as we continue.
First, as I understand the matter, Graham, a TRU Fine Arts student, placed artwork of her creation as a TRU student in public view inside the university for TRU students and faculty to view. Second, a university staffer took that artwork, clearly identified herself as a university staffer by intentionally leaving her TRU business card in place of the artwork she took from public display, and then, when contacted by the use of her university business card, linking her directly to her place of employment where she works in official capacity as a university staffer, demanded conditions from the student before she would return the artwork to the TRU student.
Notwithstanding Seguin’s comments, I submit that to any reasonable person that sounds like official capacity. In fact, I believe it would be unreasonable to take the position it was not official capacity.
But third, that’s exactly what Christopher Seguin, a Thompson Rivers University vice-president, does, with his above-mentioned quotes.

So some questions.
If the university staffer a) seized the photograph, b) left the university business card so she could be contacted as a university staffer and then, once so contacted, c) demanded conditions be met before the artwork created in a university program by a university student be returned, then by what authority did she demand those conditions be met?
The student council should be seeking its own legal advice on that one before it contacts the vice-president to explain his position, and the university’s position.

Here’s why my interest in this issue and why the TRU vice-president’s comments so interested me.
I have heard of this position taken before. Not from him, but from another post-secondary school vice-president.

In Alberta, between 1975 and 1995, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, and the Individual Rights Protection Act of Alberta did not apply to students or faculty of any Alberta post-secondary school when any internal decision was taken by any Alberta post-secondary institution.
During that time no such decision could be reviewed by a court, for any reason. Alberta colleges, universities, technical schools and vocational schools were outside the jurisdiction of courts.
The reason, in part, was a 1975 court decision dealing with a University of Alberta professor named Vanek. He sought tenure. He was denied. He appealed. The university tenure appeals committee turned him down. He took the issue to court. He lost. In written decision on the matter the Alberta Court of Appeal decided that because the tenure appeals committee was not a statutory tribunal- that is, set up by the legislature- but an internal committee of the university, the court had no jurisdiction.
In 1995 a student on a student loan faced off against a college in Court of Queen’s Bench. The student had a good issue. The college sought to strike the issue down, no matter the merits. The Vanek decision was offered up as precedent.
As the case was heard, the judge asked the college’s lawyer to clarify the Vanek decision and what it meant. The judge asked “…does that mean they can- in Vanek or in this case- that a board could arbitrarily, capriciously, unfairly act to affect the rights of these persons without any cause for concern that the Courts might interfere with such a decision?” (Read: take the artwork and demand conditions.)
The lawyer for the college replied, “Yes My Lord, that is the bottom line.”
The judge further asked if the committee could sit absent knowledge of the student. The position of the college, through the lawyer, was that no matter the merits of the issue, the court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter at all.

It was a David and Goliath struggle. The college had tremendous resources and obviously a lot on the line. But the college student won. From that point on Alberta post-secondary schools were not outside the jurisdiction of courts.

Leading to that point a college vice-president reviewed an issue the student had concerns on. The student had been removed from a class by the department chair. The student sought redress, then saw the college inexplicably back off the matter when the student mentioned he’d seen a lawyer. The college vice-president at that time made the decision that the whole matter was a personal one between the department chair and the student and the college was not involved.
A ridiculous stance, but now you have some idea why that vice-president took that stance, which, if your news story is accurate, is so very similar to the position your own university vice-president has taken.
Your student government representatives should be asking why.

The core issue is not the photograph, or the bra, or tolerance or intolerance of cultural dress. Forget those. Important as those issues are to some individuals, they are all mere smokescreens hiding the core issue. The core issue is TRU’s attempt to minimize its legal vulnerability. Judging from the Omega provided quotes, the university position is that this is a personal issue and the university is not involved in it.

The question is then 1) whether the student has rights or not, and 2) if they can be impeded by a university staffer at will 3) with complicit or tacit approval by the university by taking the official position that it is not involved.
If you scratched your head when you first saw the university’s position as described and asked: Why would the university seem to turn a blind eye to this whole thing? You may have your answer now.
If your student government does not seize this issue for what it is, and the opportunity it provides, it may lose an opportunity to ensure the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to students and faculty in that institution. No one suspected in that Alberta college in 1995 that such protections would not apply, or that post-secondary schools could, in effect, overrule courts, the acts of legislature, or the acts of the Canadian parliament itself.

A detailed book on that 1995 case is must reading for your student body, it seems, particularly your student government and Omega writers. In fact, all student government leaders across Canada should have a copy. It’s a little known, but obviously a rather important, case for student rights- and those of faculty, I might add.
From reading your news story it appears that nothing has changed in almost 20 years.
Good luck.
The book, A Case of Sexual Harassment, is due out before the end of September. I’ll give the Omega an e-mail heads-up when it is available.
Thank you,
Lawrence Gleason