By Dr. Bob Uttl
In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice. Publicity is the very soul of justice. It is the keenest spur to exertion and the surest of all guards against improbity. It keeps the judge himself while trying under trial.
Jeremy Bentham, as quoted in A.G. Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, 1982 CanLII 14 SCC
On July 10, 2025, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman, a registered psychologists with the College of Alberta Psychologists and the Saskatchewan College of Psychologists, wrote an ex parte, unsolicited letter to the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (BCHRT) and delivered it, secretly, ex parte, to the BC Human Rights Tribunal via email on July 11, 2025.
Dr. Elisabeth Sherman stated in the letter that “Dr. Braxton Suffield [the expert witness called by the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay (SD5)] informed” her “that one of my [her] book had been cited in matters related to BCHRT Order” and that she, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman, “would like to clarify some of the statements which referenced my [her] book as an example” and that she “hope[s] this [her letter to the Tribunal] serves to clarify some misinformation about my [her] book…” The book in question was Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen (2006) A Compendium of Neuropsychological Tests (2nd Ed) published by the Oxford University Press.
Thus, according to Dr. Elisabeth Sherman, an expert witness, Dr. John Braxton Suffield himself, contacted Dr. Sherman, provided her with information about the ongoing judicial proceedings including the case number and the name of the case manager, and, as the result, Dr. Sherman wrote her ex parte, secret letter to the Tribunal to influence live judicial proceedings in support of Dr. John Braxton Suffield and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay.
For a context, on March 18, 2025, Dr. John Braxton Suffield received the Order of the Tribunal to produce records such as Ms. T’s test responses, scores, computerized interpretive reports, etc.. On April 1, 2025, Dr. John Braxton Suffield partially complied with the Order but, for example, did not produce all materials in his possession, and redacted test items and, more critically, redacted Ms. T’s responses. On April 3, 2025, Dr. John Braxton Suffield sent ex parte, secret email to the Tribunal, lied to the Tribunal and falsely stated that he released Ms. T’s responses “unredacted” (Dr. Suffield wrote: “I therefore released the unredacted test responses on April 1, 2025.”), and requested that the Tribunal issues protective order for the materials he disclosed. Notably, the materials disclosed by Dr. Suffield on April 1, 2025 demonstrate that Dr. Suffield lied to the Tribunal (e.g., testified that the computerized report did not print profiles when in fact it did), was incompetent (e.g., was unable or unwilling to accurately count from 0 to 2), fabricated Ms. T’s scores and assigned her impossible 0 scores for tests she was never administered (either maliciously or through frankly astonishing incompetence), and in general, had no factual scientific basis for many of his opinions about Ms. T that he communicated to the Tribunal under oath during his direct examination. Clearly, Dr. John Braxton Suffield has massive interest to keep his lying to the Tribunal, his fabricating scores, and his incompetence confidential, and from reaching both the Tribunal and the public.
On July 17, 2025, the Tribunal forwarded Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s letter to the parties and noted that “The Tribunal does not accept unsolicited submissions from non-parties and it will not be added to the case file.”
What Was The Misinformation Dr. Elisabeth Sherman Wished To Clarify?
What were the statements? What was the misinformation? Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s letter is silent on these issues. On July 18, 2025, I emailed Dr. Elisabeth Sherman (read the email here) and asked her to set out the statements in verbatim and detail the alleged misinformation.
Dr. Elisabeth Sherman did not reply.
On July 21, 2025, I emailed Dr. Elisabeth Sherman once again and I noted that she has yet to reply to my requests for clarifications.
As of today, more than 30 days later, I have not received any reply from Dr. Elisabeth Sherman.
The Statements
What were the statements that referenced Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s book? In a response to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, on April 28, 2025, I, Dr. Bob Uttl, I wrote the following relevant paragraphs in an email to Dr. Suffield:
Regarding your regrets that “some test materials have found their way into the public domain”, you must know that many test materials including test items and questions are publicly available not because of some nefarious conduct of unethical psychologists but because test authors and test publishers chose to publish them for anyone around the world to see. As you also must know, many test materials, for example, the RCFT [Rey Complex Figure Test], were published decades ago and the fact that they were later adopted by some test publisher to generate commercial profits does not make them unpublished and does not suddenly make them publicly unavailable. You seeking protective order for what you ought to know is already public is not only dishonest but it misleads the Tribunal.
Perhaps you are not familiar with the field of neuropsychology and you did not yet have a chance to examine such classic texts as Lezak, Spreen and Strauss, and other texts. I have provided the references for you below if this is something novel to you (they include the items for the SDMT, RCTF, and many other tests):
- Lezak, Howieson, et al. (2012). Neuropsychological Assessment Oxford UniversityPress
- Strauss, Sherman & Spreen (2006). A compendium of neuropsychological tests.
Moreover, if the public is interested in items on various tests, they can also order them from amazon.ca/com and elsewhere (e.g., abebooks.com, Minnesota University Press). For example, the MMPI-2 items that you painstakingly redacted are detailed verbatim in Butcher et al. (1990) Development and use of the MMPI-2 content scales. (available from amazon, abebooks, Minnesota University Press).
Of course, the public can also google it.
An Excerpt from Dr. Bob Uttl’s Email to Dr. John Braxton Suffield, dated April 28, 2025
The email was eventually submitted as an exhibit to the Tribunal by the SD5 lawyers.
The Misinformation? Which Misinformation?
The statements that referenced Strauss et al. (2006) are accurate and not misinformation. The evidence is the Strauss et al. (2006) book itself that Dr. Elisabeth Sherman ought to know rather intimately given that she is the second listed author.
As anyone who opens Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen (2006) knows, and as Dr. Elisabeth Sherman knows, Strauss et al. (2006) includes items for many tests, publicly available to anyone who cares to look, including the Symbol Digit Modalities Test (SDMT) and Rey Complex Figure Test (RCTF). In fact, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman admits in her ex parte letter to the Tribunal that Strauss et al. (2006) included “original test items” and that Sherman, Tan, and Hrabok (2022) “made the decision to remove almost all original test items including those for tests that appeared in the prior edition.”
However, once test items are published, they cannot be unpublished. They are out there for the entire world to see and the Tribunal cannot issue an order to make whatever is already public to be confidential. Dr. Elisabeth Sherman‘s decision not to publish some items in Sherman et al. (2022) cannot reverse the course of history and cannon magically unpublish the test items. Dr. Elisabeth Sherman ought to know and understand this rather elementary fact.
Perhaps this idiom will help: “Shutting the barn door once the horse has bolted” does not magically put the horse back into the barn. The horse is gone.
Ergo, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s submissions to the Tribunal that the statements referencing her book were misinformation were patently false and Dr. Elisabeth Sherman knew they were false at the time she made them.
In any case, it was Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s duty to verify the statements, to point with specificity as to why they (or any part of them) were “misinformation”, and to check with myself, the author of the alleged misinformation. Dr. Elisabeth Sherman did not check with me prior to making her serious accusations that my statements were “misinformation.” Dr. Elisabeth Sherman may say that she did not name me in her letter but that is irrelevant as the Tribunal knew that the only person who referred to Strauss, Sherman, and Spreen (2006) was myself.
Dr. Elisabeth Sherman also did not respond to my emails requesting that she clarifies her statements in her ex parte letter to the Tribunal.
Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s Ex Parte Letter To The Tribunal Is An Affront To The Open Court Principle
Any Canadian ought to know that ex parte contact with judges and tribunal members in Canada and many other democracies is strictly verboten, and that any such ex parte attempts to influence the judge and tribunals are grossly inappropriate and affront to impartial administration of justice. This includes not only secretly delivered letters to judges and tribunal members but also secretly delivered suitcases of cash, expensive chocolates, exquisite bottles of French wine, and other bribes.
Below is a quote from Ethical Principles for Judges:
Judges must firmly reject any attempt to influence their decisions in any matter before the Court outside the proper process of the Court.
Ethical Principles for Judges, Judicial Independence, Principle 2, p. 7
If the above was not clear enough, the commentary in the Ethical Principles for Judges makes it clear that ex parte letters attempting to influence judges are strictly verboten:
Judges must, of course, reject improper attempts by litigants, politicians, officials or others to influence their decisions.They must also take care that communications with such persons that judges may initiate could not raise reasonable concerns about their independence. As the Honourable J.O.Wilson put it in A Book for Judges:
“It may be safely assumed that every judge will know that [attempts to influence a court] must only be made publicly in a court room by advocates or litigants. But experience has shown that other persons are unaware of or deliberately disregard this elementary rule, and it is likely that any judge will, in the course of time, be subjected to ex parte efforts by litigants or others to influence his decisions in matters under litigation before him.
Ethical Principles for Judges, p. 10
. . .
Regardless of the source, ministerial, journalistic or other, all such efforts must, of course, be firmly rejected.This rule is so elementary that it requires no further exposition.”
To state the obvious, in Canada, we do not decide legal cases by popular vote nor by how how many ex parte letters of support each party or their expert witnesses such as Dr. John Braxton Suffield solicits to support their position.
Finally, any witness offering information to the Tribunal is subject to rigorous cross-examination. Dr. Elisabeth Sherman would go up in metaphorical flames if she was cross-examined on her false statements to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal correctly rejected Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s ex parte attempt to influence judicial proceedings
Dr. John Braxton Suffield Soliciting Ex Parte Letters To Influence The Tribunal?
Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s letter makes it clear that Dr. John Braxton Suffield solicited Dr. Sherman’s support for his position, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman made it all up and falsely wrote to the Tribunal that Dr. John Braxton Suffield “informed” her when he did not. This alternative possibility appears extremely unlikely. Dr. Sherman must know that she would likely lose her license to practice if she falsely accused Dr. John Braxton Suffield, the expert witness, of soliciting her support. Accordingly, let’s assume Dr. Elisabeth Sherman did not fabricate Dr. John Braxton Suffield involvement in her ex parte letter to the Tribunal.
An expert witness soliciting other professionals to write ex parte letters to the courts or tribunals to bolster the expert witness’ and the retaining party’s position is an extraordinarily improper attempt to influence the court or tribunal.
First, Dr. John Braxton Suffield appears not to understand that as an expert witness he has overriding duty to the Court/Tribunal and not to the party that hired him, not to the SD5, and not to himself. Dr. Suffield soliciting letters of support from other professionals such as Dr. Elisabeth Sherman make Dr. Suffield an advocate for his and the SD5’s position, destroys his impartiality, and makes him unable or unwilling to fulfill his duties to the Court/Tribunal. Soliciting expert opinions is the SD5 lawyers’ job and not Dr. Suffield’s.
Second, Dr. John Braxton Suffield appears not to understand that it is improper for anyone to write ex parte letters to the Court/Tribunal. Dr. Suffield himself has written ex parte to the Tribunal on at least two occasions so far:
- On April 3, 2025, Dr. John Braxton Suffield wrote ex parte email to the Tribunal (Dr. Suffield cc’d the SD5 lawyer but not to Ms. T’s representative, myself). In that ex-parte letter, Dr. Suffield falsely (and knowingly) submitted to the Tribunal that he disclosed the test responses unredacted; Dr. Suffield wrote: “I therefore released the unredacted test responses on April 1, 2025.” The Tribunal forwarded Dr. Suffield’s ex parte email to myself the same day.
- On April 7, 2025, Dr. John Braxton Suffield again wrote ex parte email to the Tribunal (Dr. Suffield cc’d the SD5 lawyer but not to Ms. T’s representative, myself). In this ex parte email, Dr. Suffield enclosed a letter, unsigned, ostensibly from Michael Walsh, Senior Counsel, Pearson Clinical Assessments, USA. Again, the Tribunal forwarded Dr. Suffield’s ex parte email to myself the same day.
Of course it is possible that Dr. Suffield knows it is improper to write ex parte letters to the Court/Tribunal but does it nevertheless hoping it will benefit him and the SD5, no one would notice, and large piles of cash would continue to flow into his bank account from the SD5 for his “professional” services.
Third, Dr. John Braxton Suffield ought to understand that letters to the Court/Tribunal are hearsay and not admissible. Dr. Elisabeth Sherman’s views, opinions, and “clarifications” are not admissible. Dr. Sherman would have to be called to testify by the SD5 (not by Dr. John Braxton Suffield) and would have to be cross-examined.
Conclusion
Dr. John Braxton Suffield solicitations of other professionals such as Dr. Elisabeth Sherman to write ex parte letters to the Tribunal to support his and the School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay position amounts to extraordinarily improper attempts to influence the Tribunal and to make the Tribunal rule in the SD5 favor. It demonstrates that Dr. Suffield became an advocate for his and the SD5’s position and abandoned his duty to assist the Tribunal and his duty not to be an advocate for the SD5.
Similarly, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman writing ex parte to the Tribunal to influence the course of the judicial proceedings is an extraordinary affront to the Open Court Principle in and of itself. Dr. Sherman claims to have “extensive experience in providing expert opinion in personal injury cases“. Accordingly, having provided expert opinions in legal proceedings herself, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman ought to know that an expert witness going around and urging other professionals to write letters, ex parte or not, supporting his and his retaining party’s (SD5’s) position is extraordinarily improper as the expert witness’ duty to the Court includes the duty not to become an advocate for the retaining party.
Equally disturbingly, in the process, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman chose to knowingly make false submissions to the Tribunal. When asked to clarify her “misinformation” statements and to explain the basis for her falsehoods, Dr. Elisabeth Sherman has not responded. Acting like an ostrich, Dr. Sherman stuck her head in the sand and maintains a complete radio silence.