By Dr. Bob Uttl<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Question arises: How much are British Columbia’s taxpayers spending on defending the School District No. 5 indefensible claim that Ms. T — A Canadian woman of average intelligence — does not have enough IQ points to perform duties of elementary school teacher? <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Ms. Cynthia Stuart’s testimony was that School District No. 5 lawyers were involved in 2009 already. However, the litigation before BC Human Rights Tribunal started only on March 1, 2016, a few months before Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> decided to terminate Ms. T’s employment. Accordingly, the litigation is now in its 10th year and not yet finished. To date, there have been nearly 40 days of hearings, always attended by two lawyers from Harris & Company, Vancouver, BC. There are a few more days to go.<\/p>\n\n\n\n I asked GROK.COM and ChatGPT.COM to estimate the respondents’ costs of 40 day hearing using the following prompt:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Can you estimate the respondent’s cost of 40 day hearing, including preparation and disbursements, before BC Human Rights Tribunal using the following facts: (a) two lawyers from Harris & Company in Vancouver,BC, attend each hearing day of the hearing; (b) all hearings took place online via MS Teams; (c) hearings were not in one consecutive block of days but spread out over nearly 4 years; (d) the respondent called two experts who testified so far for 7 days; (e) the complainant called two experts who testified for about 3 days so far; (f) there were 7 other witnesses called by the respondents; and (g) three witnesses called by the complainant. The issue is whether or not a public school discriminated against teacher on the basis of perceived disability when not returning her to work and eventually terminating her employment. All experts were psychologists, typically charging over $500\/hour. One of the respondents’ expert stated that he would need 70 hours of preparation and other consultation times in addition to the hearing time.<\/p>\nThe question to GROK.COM and ChatGPT.COM<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n GROK.COM offered one estimated, “conservative” range, whereas ChatGPT offered two ranges, one fully funded and one under assumption that not all costs were billed by lawyer firms. I asked ChatGPT to redo the estimate assuming the litigation is funded by government, that is, by British Columbia taxpayers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The estimated costs to respondents\/School District No. 5\/BC taxpayers are as follows (see the appendix below for the detailed estimate):<\/p>\n\n\n\n Thus, the Board of Trustees of School District No. 5 Southeast Kootaney<\/a> have likely spent somewhere between $1 to $3 million dollars of BC taxpayers money for the nearly 40 days hearing so far. With a few more days of expert testimony to go, the costs of hearing will go up more. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The estimate, however, does not include nearly 10 years of litigation (including disclosure litigation, SD5 repeated attempts to dismiss the litigation, numerous applications, numerous case management hearings), does not include costs prior to March 1, 2016, and does not include future costs of final submissions and arguments. These non-included costs are likely running into millions of dollars too.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> apparently entrusted the carriage of this extremely unusual litigation to Mr. Brent Reimer, the Director of Human Resources, School District No. 5.<\/a> According to the SD5 lawyers, Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> has been an instructing client to Harris & Company lawyers. Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> sat through most of the nearly 40 day long hearings including his own days long examination and cross-examination. As the instructing client, Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> controls intensity and strategy of this litigation, presumably subject to the Board of Trustees’ approval, even though he himself was personally involved in and made numerous key decisions about Ms. T, including his decision to terminate Ms. T’s employment on May 24, 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> appointment of Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> as instructing client creates an obvious appearance of a conflict (and potentially an actual one) for many reasons including the following:<\/p>\n\n\n\n When public entities litigate aggressively for years on sensitive issues, with the key decision-maker driving the bus, it appears (and sometimes function) like a personal defense funded by taxpayers rather than a dispassionate organizational one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> may want to review the file and designate a different instructing representative, or perhaps, a small committee to instruct their lawyers going forward to ensure that public funds are managed prudently going forward.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> ought to familiarize themselves with the proceedings to date. They ought to note that both Ms. Cynthia Stuart and Mr. Brent Reimer<\/a> testified under oath that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Furthermore:<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> may wish to read and consider “Systemic age, sex, race\/ethnicity, etc. employment discrimination practiced by School District No. 5 Southeast Kootenay Leadership<\/a>” to understand the implications of Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a>‘s simple age-discrimination and Dr. John Braxton Suffield more advanced age, sex, race\/ethnicity discrimination methods.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In any case, the Board of Trustees<\/a> ought to familiarize themselves with Ms. Cynthia Stuart’s and Mr. Brent Reimer’s decision to effectively delegate the district’s minimum standard-setting and decision-making responsibilities to Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> and Dr. John Braxton Suffield<\/a>. The Board of Trustees may want to reconsider Dr. Mary Westcott<\/a> and Dr. John Braxton Suffield’s position — adopted by Ms. Cynthia Stuart and Mr. Brent Reimer (perhaps unconsciously) — that Canadian women of average intelligence and cognitive abilities are “prevented from performing” regular duties of elementary school teachers, and that different minimum levels of cognitive abilities are required for teachers of different ages, sexes, races\/ethnicity, etc.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Board of Trustees<\/a> — Chris Johns, Sarah Madsen, Irene Bischler, Alysha Clarke, Nicole Heckendorf, Trina Ayling, Bev Bellina, Doug McPhee (Chair), Wendy Turner — ought to take note that it is their core responsibility to establish minimum standards and to ensure that all teachers are treated equally, without discrimination based on age, sex, race\/ethnicity, and other protected grounds. The Board has acknowledged that its “main responsibility [is] to set policies for the School District<\/a>.” Accordingly, if the District intends for administrators such as Mr. Brent Reimer, Director of Human Resources, or Ms. Viveka Johnson, Superintendent of Schools, to use the minimum IQ, cognitive ability, and personality requirements for School District No. 5 teachers, it is incumbent on the Board itself to establish any such minimum standards through clear policy (and get the Union, British Columbia Teacher’s Federation<\/a> agree to such IQ standards).<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\n