Skip to content

Lawyer Richard Dearden Attacks Self-represented Witness: Case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt

September 11, 2011

Richard Dearden (Gowlings LLP)

On September 6, I attended a cross-examination hearing in U. of O. Professor of Law Joanne St. Lewis’ case against former U. of O. Physics Prof and critic of the university, Denis Rancourt.

Background information for the case is available at the U of O Watch blog (link), at the Academic website (link), and in the mainstream media (link-1, 2, 3).

Ms. St. Lewis was present and represented by renowned defamation law lawyer Richard Dearden (Gowlings LLP).  Denis Rancourt was self-represented as defendant and cross-examined on his affidavit of defense against St. Lewis’ motion for an imposed and immediate mandatory mediation in the case (link).  U. of O. Psychology Prof Claude Lamontagne also appeared for cross-examination on his affidavit containing his expert opinion that the term “house negro” was not racist in and of itself even when used by a white male (link).  I and other members of the public were in attendance to observe the proceedings.

Mr. Dearden first attempted to block observation of the proceedings by myself and the other members of the public present, and attempted to obtain the identities of each of the observers in turn.  However, Dearden refused to provide grounds for removal of observers, and instead abandoned his attempt to intimidate and exclude the public when it was clear that the observers intended to stay.  Dearden threatened that the presence of members of the public at the hearing would be used for “malice purposes and aggravated damages and punitive damages” against the defendant.

Dearden proceeded to cross-examine Rancourt, going beyond an examination of the defendant’s affidavit in an attempt to probe into matters beyond the scope of the cross-examination hearing.

Dearden’s interrogation of the witness was aggressive and abusive, and was clearly intended to be an exercise in intimidation.  He aggressively yelled at the self-defended witness on several occasions, and refused to answer “yes or no” procedural questions about the legal requirements for the self-defended witness to answer his cross-examination questions.  When Rancourt correctly complained that Dearden was “badgering” him with improper questions, Dearden again attacked the defendant with the accusation that this complaint constituted malicious conduct on Rancourt’s part.

With such unethical behaviour (link) on the part of a renowned lawyer with 32 years experience while members of the public were in attendance, one wonders how Mr. Dearden would have treated the self-defended Mr. Rancourt had he been successful in excluding the public from the hearing.

Due to the serious evidence of corruption and fraud surrounding plaintiff St. Lewis’ response to the Student Appeal Centre’s 2008 report of systemic racism at the University of Ottawa (link-1, 2), the University of Ottawa has a responsibility to state if it has an involvement, monetary or otherwise, in the case of St. Lewis v. Rancourt.

Richard Dearden is also employed as a Part-time Professor in the Faculty of Law at the University of Ottawa.  Mr. Dearden is teaching a “Media and Libel” law course during the Fall 2011 semester.

2 Comments leave one →
  1. Steve permalink
    September 13, 2011 11:44 am

    Not surprised in the slightest about any of this. St. Lewis does the bidding of Rock (just like Houle did with the Ann Coulter nonsense) and is forced to because of an obvious power differential and then says the report is “unbiased.”

    How is it possible that Richard Dearden, a law professor at the University of Ottawa (even if only a part timer) can, both, represent St. Lewis, a fellow law professor and (tangentially) the University of Ottawa, more generally, without charges of conflict of interest? Should the lawyer of St. Lewis be arm’s length to St. Lewis? All of this smells to high heaven! I would be pushing the University of Ottawa to divulge how it is involved in this case, even remotely (which they probably are)? This is just the latest chapter of unethical behaviour that seemingly saturates university administration at the U of O. As for the badgering and intimidation of Dearden at the hearing – that is clearly a sign of intimidation and smells of a complete lack of professionalism (which can be used against Dearden in later hearings). I sure hope the judge is reigning in these antics of Dearden; otherwise, that could be a grounds for appeal perhaps (if it gets to that)?

    More people should be pushing back against this lack of democracy at the University of Ottawa. And these behaviours are the exemplars to students of how to behave within a “democracy” like Canada…. shameful …. appalling.

  2. September 20, 2011 5:18 pm

    Update, re: request for corrections from Mr. Dearden:

    * * *

    From: Richard Dearden
    To: Joseph Hickey
    Date: September 19, 2011
    Subject: Out of Office AutoReply: request for your corrections and comments, Student’s-Eye View report

    I will be out of the office until September 26th but will be checking emails periodically

    * * *

    From: Joseph Hickey
    To: Richard Deadern
    Date: September 19, 2011
    Subject: request for your corrections and comments, Student’s-Eye View report

    Dear Mr. Dearden,

    This report is about you:

    Please provide me with any comments or corrections for posting on the blog.

    Joseph Hickey

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: