MP Leslyn Lewis sues her alma mater, and professor for ‘traumatizing’ job interview

Article content

Rehaag, the director of the centre, is a professor who mostly works in immigration and refugee law.

Article content

Lewis claims she knew in advance that Rehaag was “hostile” toward her, but that York gave her no forewarning she would be “interrogated” about issues unrelated to the job.

Article content

She claims York is liable because it “allowed for Osgoode to develop a toxic culture that discouraged diverse thought, penalized students and professors that do not adhere to wokeism, and used activist professors as gatekeepers to screen out employment candidates that did not adhere to its groupthink culture.”

Article content

Lewis also alleges York failed to circulate, as promised, a rebuttal she wrote after the disastrous presentation. She did not get the job.

Article content

York says in its statement of defence that the questions Rehaag asked her during a nine-minute exchange in the question and answer segment of her presentation were “relevant, foreseeable, and within the proper scope of a faculty recruitment seminar.”

Article content

It says its recruitment procedure involves a recruiting committee of faculty, students and administrators that makes short-listed recommendations to a separate appointment committee, also made up of faculty, students and administrators. Rehaag was on the appointment committee.

Article content

Article content

The defence claims Rehaag’s emails about Lewis were sent in advance of Lewis’s presentation to a member of the recruitment committee who was also co-chair of the Faculty Council’s Equality Committee “in the context of a confidential process.”

Article content

These emails, the defence claims, expressed Rehaag’s view that Lewis has publicly taken anti-gay positions, “including opposing legislation prohibiting so-called ‘gay conversion therapy’ and opposing the inclusion of gender identity and expression in human rights codes.” The emails also expressed Rehaag’s view that many at Osgoode would find Lewis’s public positions “antithetical to the equity and social justice aspirations of the law school.”

Article content

The defence further claims he said ideological controversy should not “automatically” mean Osgoode should not consider a candidate, but that efforts should be made to ensure LGBTQ people at the school feel “valued and respected.”

Article content

In a later email, Rehaag said Lewis’s invitation to give a presentation as a short-listed candidate “would generate protest and calls for de-platforming,” and he recommended consultation with “students from equity seeking groups whose interests may be impacted by the public positions taken by (Lewis),” such as opposition to Black Lives Matter.

Article content

Article content

In Lewis’s lawsuit, she claims she was addressed by students at her presentation “who seemed to ask similar questions… premised on the false statements that were advanced by Mr. Rehaag and others.”

Article content

York and Rehaag say they will rely primarily on two defences to defamation: qualified privilege, in which Rehaag claims he had a good faith interest or duty in publishing this information for people with a corresponding interest or duty to receive it; and fair comment, in which he claims his comments were on matters of public interest, based in fact, recognizable as comment, not motivated on malice, and reflect an opinion that any person could honestly express on the facts.

Article content

Although financial damages specified in statements of claim are often little more than administrative placeholders, to be determined later in court if needed, the damages explicitly sought here are well over $3 million. They include aggravated and punitive damages, to compensate for alleged malice.

Article content

No court hearings are yet scheduled.

Article content

Article content