Consultation with the Equity Office: In an effort to remain in my academic program and resolve the matter amicably, I contacted the Equity Office for consultation only; no formal complaint was filed. The Equity Office concluded that the situation was limited to a matter of personal discomfort.
Department Head: The Department Head declined my request to be granted the identical time frame (23 days) to prepare my final paper—worth 60% of the course grade—as was provided to the other students who attended the Sunday Colloquium.
Department’s Equity Committee: The committee found that while the academic penalty and the treatment surrounding the Derrida-Holy Eucharist paper may have caused personal discomfort, the instructor had gone out of her way to accommodate the student.
Faculty of Graduate Studies: The Faculty of Graduate Studies initially issued a letter authorizing the 23-day resolution period. This authorization was subsequently revoked, with the administration stating the letter had been sent by accident, as the instructor directed that the extended time frame would not be permitted.
University Provost: The Provost declined to intervene administratively, directing that the sole recourse for resolution lay within the formal UBC Senate appeal structure.
Following consultation with legal counsel in the wake of the subsequent Senate Letters, a civil action was initiated under the Civil Rights Protection Act alongside claims in negligence.
Media Context: An inversion of public narrative occurred. Institutional and union media channels characterized the student’s pursuit of academic freedom as a threat to faculty academic freedom. While a small number of national publications maintained neutral coverage, articles published by the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) were then and now dominant..
Ongoing Resolution Attempts: Subsequent attempts to achieve an administrative resolution with the University and Faculty Association were declined. Following these developments, my legal counsel resigned.
BC Human Rights Tribunal (BC HRT): A final administrative application was made to the BC HRT seeking an amicable resolution. The BC HRT declined to accept the complaint, invoking its six-month limitation rule. Although the tribunal possesses statutory discretion to accept late complaints if deemed in the public interest, it determined that the public interest threshold was not met and referred to BC Supreme Court path for resolution. It also declined to accept the complaint based on the current and ongoing University and CAUT media publications. The respondents similarly opposed resolving the matter through the tribunal, returning the dispute entirely to the court system.