MEDIA BACKGROUNDER

RE: OUR CLIENT RYAN MILLET DALHOUSIE DENTISTRY SCANDAL Although the Dentistry Scandal may now be last weeks news story, some members of the media are contacting our office seeking a status update on Ryan Millet and his response to the Backhouse Task Force Report. We are therefore circulating this backgrounder to any members of the media who previously inquired of Ryan Millet. Attached you will find a copy of our open letter to President Florizone, delivered last week. It details Ryans current status. It raises some disturbing issues. It references a few matters that Ryan has not previously shared publicly, including the fact that Dalhousie recommended that, if licensing authorities asked him whether he had ever been suspended, he could answer no. Ryan has refused to do so, because he knows that would be both dishonest and unprofessional. I am also attaching the response we received today from the global law firm of Norton Rose Fulbright, written on behalf of Dalhousie. Despite all the issues identified by the Backhouse Task Force and described in our letter of last week, little appears to have changed: this lawyerly letter of rejection confirms that Ryan Millet has a record that he engaged in unprofessional conduct. It notes that Ryan Millet could have appealed through to the Main Academic Standards Committee of the Faculty of Dentistry, despite Professor Backhouses concerns about conflict of interest and lack of jurisdiction of all members of the Faculty of Dentistry. It ignores the fact that in February Ryan appealed directly to the President and the Chair of the Senate. It takes refuge under the constrained terms of the Task Force, which had no mandate to assign blame. It refuses to provide the requested hand up to Ryan Millet. It instead adopts the same adversarial tone that has been the pattern of Dalhousies communications with Ryan Millet since the inception of this controversy. There is an old adage: surgery successful, but the patient died. That describes how Ryan feels about his treatment at the hands of Dalhousie. President Florizone at his Press Conference last week publicly endorsed all 39 of the systemic Recommendations from the Task Force Report. That is all to the good.

However, Ryan believes that Dalhousie has conveniently chosen to focus on systemic changes in attitudes on a go forward basis, while ignoring accountability and those students who were directly harmed by the inept handling of this matter. That Press Conference provided the predictable short sound bites and generic statements from the President about moving forward. There was no focus on accountability or looking backwards. In contrast, a careful reading of the Task Force Report shows it was bluntly critical of the many ways Ryan and others were unfairly mistreated. The attached open letter lists those critiques. Ryan Millet remains unemployable as a dentist, despite having received his dental degree. He has been offered employment in the U.S., but he is still trying to convince American licensing authorities that he is not a sexist, misogynist and homophobic professional. If he gets licensing approval, it may come attached to further punitive restrictions. While his wife had hoped to be a stay at home parent, looking after their three very young children, she has had to return to the workplace, while Ryan stays at home and looks after their children. He does not know when, if at all, he will be cleared by American licensing authorities. All of this, for trying to do the right thing. The Backhouse Task Force Report remarkably mirrors and has now legitimized the long list of concerns that Ryan and his counsel originally brought directly to President Florizones attention several months ago, all of which fell on deaf ears. The Backhouse Report validates the mistreatment of Ryan and others, including:

undue pressure to join restorative justice; questionable and premature use of restorative justice in place of proper

investigation; conflict of interest and lack of impartiality within the Academic Standards Class

Committee; concealment of complaints against faculty who were simultaneously claiming to

sit in judgment of Ryan; allegations of non-existent threats to student and patient safety; hijacking of the Senate approved discipline process by the Faculty of Dentistry; the circumvention of due process and procedural fairness provided to all other

Dalhousie students, other than the Facebook 13. While systemic, attitudinal changes towards sexism, misogyny and homophobia are now purportedly underway at Dalhousie, the same players are in the same positions. Todays myopic response suggests that insight and perspectives have not changed much either, at least with respect to fair treatment of students. Ryan has been left to fend on his own, without any offer of assistance or making of amends. For those members of the media who wish to scratch below the veneer of last weeks public response by the President, the attached open letter may be of interest. Ryan is hoping that others, including the Dalhousie Senate, will take up the torch of accountability that he is presently incapable of carrying further.

Ryan Millet will not be available directly to the media, at least for the time being. The attached letter to the President is intended to speak on his behalf, until he is in a better position to do so directly.

1

June 30, 2015 Dalhousie University PO Box 15000 Halifax NS B3H 4R2 Attention: Dr. Richard Florizone, President Mr. President: Re: Ryan Millets Vindication: The Backhouse Task Force Report ACCOUNTABILITY TO RYAN MILLET I am writing you as the principal spokesperson for Dalhousie on the Backhouse Report. I am copying the Chair of Senate, for the Senate has ultimate constitutional jurisdiction over student conduct. I request this letter be circulated to all members of the Senate. This letter is an unconventional piece of advocacy on behalf of Ryan Millet, who has now graduated from and departed Dalhousie. The hearings are over. Ryan feels entitled to address his President and Senate directly. There has been much spilt ink and expended effort to address the fallout from the Dental School Scandal:

Ryan himself was subjected to protracted and totally futile legal proceedings to clear his professional reputation and remove the stain of blatant unprofessionalism, which remains a matter of record

The Dean of the Law School championed the first formal Report: BELONG: SUPPORTING AN INCLUSIVE AND DIVERSE UNIVERSITY.

Next came the self-congratulatory RESTORATIVE JUSTICE REPORT.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 2

Now we have the insightful and provocative BACKHOUSE TASK FORCE ON SEXISM, MISOGYNY AND HOMOPHOBIA.

Amidst all of that systemic effort, Dalhousie appears to have forgotten the student victims it has left in its wake, victims clearly identified in all but name in the Task Force Report. Perhaps second only to Student A, Ryan Millet (described as Student B in the Task Force Report) has been victimized by the extraordinarily long list of substantive and procedural shortcomings identified in both the Task Force Report and even in the RJ Report. I am reminded of the old adage: surgery successful, but the patient died. That perhaps describes how Ryan Millet feels about his treatment at the hands of Dalhousie. While the announced systemic and institutional reforms identified by the Task Force are imperative, no one seems to make the linkage between the need for those reforms and the impetus for those reforms, many of which were built on the back of Ryan Millets efforts. A significant portion of the Task Force Report embraces the very same issues Ryan first tried to bring to your attention in our letter and Brief to you of February 11th. As you know, each and every one of those concerns fell on deaf ears. The ASC Committee proceeded full steam ahead with the continuing and now much discredited suspension and remediation.

In the inevitable rush to report and absorb a hundred page Task Force Report, sometimes only small snippets get absorbed. The purpose of this letter is to ensure both the Presidents Office and all members of the Senate are provided the devastating context of the Backhouse Task Force Report, as seen through the singular lens of Ryan Millet, a Good Samaritan, who was severely punished and vilified in very hurtful ways, for doing the right things, over a protracted period of time, long before the Facebook Scandal of December 2014.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 3 The Backhouse Task Force delivered as requested, with independence, integrity and sensitivity. It had no authority to judge or find culpability, but a careful reading of its findings leads inexorably to accountability. While couched in non-adversarial language that was their mandate, their findings and observations are devastating to the positions Dalhousie took against Ryan Millet. While it is for Dalhousie to sort out those issues of accountability, it is appropriate for Ryan to seek remedy and rehabilitation, through the President and/or the Senate. This extraordinary indictment of the way matters were handled cannot come as a surprise to you or the Chair of the Senate. My conciliatory olive branch extended to you and the Chair of Senate of February 11, 2015, identifying the issues and requesting that matters be restarted on a proper footing without attribution of fault, is almost a mirror reflection of the eventual findings of the Task Force. That written Brief of more than 60 pages articulated all of the abuses of process and questionable issues and choices that the Task Force has now made a matter of record. Our early objections were the genesis of much of the legal components of the Task Force Report. Our objections, if far too late in the day, have finally been legitimized by your own Task Force. Those objections and concerns went largely unanswered, both by you and by the ASC Committee. That deafening legal silence, and the refusal to even explain or answer or rebut, was unprecedented in my several decades of experience in dealing with such matters. That non-responsiveness was arguably disrespectful, both of Ryan and of his counsel. The costly price of that silence has only been magnified by the fact the Task Force has now legitimized what Dalhousie deliberately chose to disregard, much to Ryans personal detriment. Our early list of objections and concerns described to you in our conciliatory February 11th overture included: 1. Public outrage and crisis management rather than due process investigation,

adjudication and procedural fairness were the catalyst for Ryans suspension from clinic and class. Dalhousie allowed its crisis management approach to trump its obligations of due process;

2. The University and/or the Faculty of Dentistry had a positive duty to properly investigate the Facebook matter. Without authority to do so, the ASCC delegated post-suspension investigation of Ryans conduct, and the conduct of the other 12 students, to the informal restorative justice process. When Ryan opted out, no substitute investigative process was created;

3. The intermingling of the ASCC process with the Restorative Justice process was

inappropriate. The result was a process which lacked procedural fairness, resulted in confusion about confidentiality and accountability, and placed undue pressure on students to join the restorative justice initiative;

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 4 4. The ASCC did not have the jurisdiction or the expertise to hear and decide what was

ultimately a disciplinary issue, notwithstanding the Universitys assertions that it was merely a professionalism evaluation;

5. Ryan posed no real or perceived threat to the safety of his classmates, patients or

members of the University community. In the absence of such safety concerns, his lengthy suspension was not warranted;

6. Students have the implicit right to be forewarned by the University of any standards

by which they may be judged and held accountable, including any new standard of social media accountability. No forewarning was provided to students of the Universitys new gold standard of accountability for even passive membership in social media groups;

7. The evaluation of students professionalism was intended to be restricted to activities

within clinic. The continuation of Ryans suspension, in the absence of an ongoing concern about safety or professionalism, was unwarranted and beyond the scope of the ASCCs authority;

8. Ryan was entitled to appear before an impartial adjudicative body which followed

due process and adhered to principles of procedural fairness. The ASCC lacked impartiality, jurisdiction and expertise and its processes breached the Universitys obligation to provide students with due process and procedural fairness in adjudicative hearings;

9. Faculty and staff were unable to speak freely on the Facebook issue, or in support of

Ryan. This resulted in an interference with evidence available in Ryans defence; and

10. Ryan has suffered direct harm, both personally and professionally, as a result of the

Universitys improper handling of the Facebook situation. Our proposal was respectful and modest, to a fault. We did not ask that Ryan be cleared. We simply asked that Dalhousie follow and respect its own policies and procedures, including due process and procedural fairness. We asked that the process be restarted, independent of a Faculty of Dentistry that had no jurisdiction to be handling student discipline and which in any event was partial and in conflict of interest. Your response: take it up with the ASC Committee. How different could have been the outcome, both for Ryan and for Dalhousie, had our recommendations been adopted. Ryan Millet now looks to Dalhousie to provide the fair and just outcome and accountability that you have repeatedly and very publicly promised over the last several months. While Ryan appreciates that you have already committed to implementing all of the 39 Recommendations of the Task Force, systemic change is not enough. He asks that you also right the wrongs done to him, as best as you are able.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 5 Our earlier plea for your intervention did not go totally unanswered. There was one very troublesome exception. Instead of accepting the olive branch we extended, I was invited to encourage Ryan to fall in line with the others, or face the dire consequences of a formal, written finding of unprofessionalism. Instead of addressing any of the concerns we raised, I was instead encouraged to advise Ryan to mislead and misinform all licensing authorities to whom he would be applying. Specifically, Ryan was encouraged to make no mention of his two month suspension and the finding of blatant unprofessionalism, when applying to licensing authorities. Instead, through legal sophistry that was the mantra of the ASC Committee, Ryan was told, via his counsel, that his suspension for academic unprofessionalism was not a suspension at all. In specific reference to a question on the Nevada State Board of Examiners: HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DROPPED, SUSPENDED, EXPELLED OR DISCIPLINED BY ANY SCHOOL OR COLLEGE FOR ANY CAUSE WHATSOEVER?, It was recommended that Ryan check the NO box. We were told that nothing of the blatant unprofessionalism or indefinite suspension would appear on Ryans Student Record, nor would any mention be made of it, if Dalhousie were contacted for a reference check by any licensing authority. That was the solution your Administration, not the ASC Committee, offered to Ryan. To say that my law partner Sarah MacIntosh and I were shocked at that proposition from Administration would be an understatement. In our opinion, we were being encouraged to counsel our client to mislead and misinform a licensing authority, an act of unprofessionalism that would have severe professional consequences for Ryan. The irony regarding standards of professionalism was not lost on us. The irony was also not lost on Ryan: he understood he was being invited to mislead and deceive his US licensing authority, by a University that had found him guilty of blatant unprofessionalism. Very shortly thereafter, we broke off from the only dialogue we had opened with your Office. Our indignation today is the same as it was when we first heard this preposterous proposition: it is a game of interpretive smoke and mirrors that has no place in the professional education of dental students. It is a rationalization straight out of Alice in Wonderland. A suspension is a suspension, except when Dalhousie says it is not a suspension. Sir, I invite you to try to explain to Ryan, his wife JaNae, his 3 children, his patients, his friends and his faith community that he never suffered the indignity of a nationally advertised two month suspension from both clinic and regular classes. We have reason to believe that this same type of rationalization and advice was being provided to the other 12 suspended students in the RJ process. If that was an enticement being offered by the Faculty of Dentistry or the RJ facilitators, then that is a matter of accountability for someone to address.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 6 Ryan was pleased when he learned of the recent steps taken by the Government of Nova Scotia and the Nova Scotia Provincial Dental Board to plug this Dalhousie inspired loophole, by amending the legislation to mandate such disclosure. Ryan was not amused when the Chair of his ASC Committee on April 15, 2015, wrote to all students and expressed her surprise by these new licensing and disclosure requirements. She wanted all students to be aware that the Faculty of Dentistry was not consulted on these changes and that the Faculty of Dentistry intended to reach out to the Provincial Dental Board to discuss the implications of those changes to all suspended students. Ryan requests that you make due diligence inquiries to determine what assurances and representations were provided to students and whether those assurances and representations met the standards of professionalism that have been so publicly espoused by Dalhousie and the Faculty of Dentistry. THE IMPACT ON RYAN MILLET We remind you that the Task Force specifically noted that Ryan has suffered specific individual harm1 as a consequence of the manner of his treatment by Dalhousie. The Task Force understates the impact this Dental School Scandal has had on the personal life of Ryan Millet. The Report describes Ryan as feeling like a scapegoat for the actions of others.2 Ryan felt he was vilified and shunned3, especially by the Restorative Justice (RJ) process, both for initially stepping forward and by subsequently refusing to participate in what he was legally advised was a fundamentally flawed and unfair process. Ryan Millets name has become inextricably linked with the Dental School Scandal. As the Task Force noted, his name has become almost a household word4. It is a notoriety Ryan did not invite. His public outing was the direct consequence of the public demonization of all 13 students, that Dalhousie created by lumping all of them in the same disciplinary pot, without any semblance of due diligence or investigation or explanation. This self-identification to the public was the unavoidable consequence of Dalhousies incompetent and unfair handling of the Scandal: Ryan felt it necessary for someone to set the record straight, since Dalhousie itself appeared incapable of doing so. RYANS STATUS Mr. President, I want you and members of your Senate to know directly what Dalhousies actions have done to a young man who tried to do the right things, under

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 7 very trying circumstances. Those trying circumstances, and the sexist, misogynist and homophobic climate and culture of the Faculty of Dentistry, have now been well chronicled by both your Task Force and the RJ Report. We have previously noted that Ryan is neither saint nor sinner, but, based on our dealings with him, we are satisfied that he has conducted himself at least as appropriately and professionally as most of your students and faculty at Dalhousie. Yet he was treated far differently, with consequences that gave the false impression that Dalhousie was handling this Scandal firmly and fairly. After four years of intense academic effort at Dalhousie Dental School, with an accumulated student loan debt of some $400,000, Ryan and his Family departed Nova Scotia as soon as the ASCC released its chains and told him he had qualified for graduation. Today, Ryan Millet is back in Utah, living at home under the roof and auspices of his parents, something he thought he would never again have to request. He is unemployed and providing childcare to his three young children. His wife JaNae prefers to be a stay at home mom, but has been required to re-enter the workforce to provide some source of income for their Family. Ryan will be a very good dentist, if ever given the chance. The unsolicited written accolades from his Dalhousie patients, which fell on the deaf ears of the ASCC, speak to his character and competence as a dentist. He has already been offered a very good position, but is unable to commence work until he receives licensing approval from the State of Oregon. Ryan has disclosed his predicament to the Oregon Board of Dentistry and that Board is presently conducting its own due diligence investigation. Ryan does not know how long that investigation will take or what its outcome will be. He is fearful that oversight mentoring may be imposed, which will disqualify him for the position he has been offered. Each passing month of unemployment results in significant lost income, while his student debt continues to accumulate. Ryan resents the fact that all of this is the direct consequence of Dalhousies unfair treatment of him. WHAT THE TASK FORCE REPORT REALLY SAYS Power to Suspend From earliest days, including in our letter to you of February 11th, we insisted that the Assistant Dean Clinic, Dr. Blaine Cleghorn, had no authority to use his limited powers of suspension to sanction private Facebook exchanges. The very limited powers delegated to him by the Senate pertained to Clinic-related activities. The repugnant Facebook entries were not Clinic-related. Such offensive student misconduct has always been the jurisdiction of the Vice-Provost, who deals with student discipline and who has the full panoply of due process, procedural fairness and experienced Committee members to deal with such disciplinary defaults.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 8 The proper tool for investigating and adjudicating such sexist, misogynist and homophobic misconduct was the Student Code of Conduct, with all its checks, balances and due process. Ryan was denied all of those legal protections for reasons we always argued were suspect. Now our suspicions have been documented by the Task Force. The Task Force verifies that Dr. Cleghorns use of the Faculty of Dentistry Policy & Procedures Manual was unprecedented. We argued it was the unauthorized creation of a brand new form of discipline, camouflaged as academic professionalism, which the Senate specifically prohibits. This hijacking of well-established due process had the convenient consequence of keeping matters confidential within the closed walls of the Dental School. The Task Force has now corroborated our objections. The Task Force also noted that those in charge of Ryans prosecution created the perception that they were not sure what to do and were adapting and creating processes on the fly.5 Given the seriousness of the crisis to Dalhousie, and the number of advisors that were providing you counsel and advice, how could that be? How could that have happened? We tried to convince both you and the ASCC that nothing within the Constitution of Dalhousie or the various delegations of authority from the Senate, granted either the Faculty of Dentistry or the Assistant Dean Clinic jurisdiction over a Facebook complaint that was already being investigated in the normal fashion by the Vice-Provost. We tried to convince yourself and the ASCC that the private Facebook entries, no matter how repugnant, were not Clinic related and should fall under normal student discipline procedures, with all the mature checks, balances, training and experience that those bodies already possess. Unlike committees of the Senate, neither the Assistant Dean Clinic or the ASCC had any experience or mandated training in this unprecedented exercise of indefinite suspension, camouflaged as an exercise of academic professionalism. The Task Force embraced our objections about this unprecedented power grab, that conveniently kept matters private and confidential within the Faculty of Dentistry:

Customizing the ASCC process also raises fairness concerns. The Clinic Policy and Procedure Manual and the ASCCs terms of reference do not appear to contemplate that the Clinic Assistant Deans powers to suspend, and the ASCCs power to confirm suspensions, apply to a situation like this, involving a large group of students, and conduct that occurred outside of the ClinicThe ASCC created a special process for the suspended students in its January 6th Decision, but gave no information about the factors it considered in doing so. Together with the fact that it gave no notice to those affected and did not hear from them, the fairness of customizing the ASCC process is questionable.

Assistant Dean Clinic Cleghorn was Ryans prosecuting officer. The Task Force says his decision making process raises substantial fairness concerns.6 The Task Force described Ryans suspension as uncertain, indefinite and without precedent.7 The Task Force also impugned the subsequent Decision of the ASCC to suspend from regular

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 9 classes, as well as Clinic: the Task Force said this classroom suspension also raised issues of fairness and that it was unclear what evidence could support triggering of such a sanction. The Task Force said it was unclear what authority the ASCC had to suspend from regular classes in the first place, all of which contributed to the perception of unfairness.8 The Task Force noted that Dr. Cleghorns initiatives had significant consequences for the students.9 The Report noted neither Ryan nor others were given the required prior notice of possible suspension, nor any opportunity to provide their perspectives before suspension was imposed.10 The Task Force said there was no demonstrated need for action that would warrant such unilateral suspension.11 The Task Force reiterated the basics of procedural fairness, which requires prior notice, an opportunity to be heard and disclosed reasons for suspension, none of which were provided to Ryan or others.12 The Report says that the practical effect of this unprecedented seizure of jurisdiction by the Assistant Dean Clinic was to preclude an external formal process in favour of an internal confidential process.13 The Task Force found that troubling, given that the initial complaints of the four students were not only about the Facebook pages, but also the climate and professionalism of Faculty itself.14 Put less delicately, given the undisclosed Complaint against faculty, it was the legal equivalent of the fox being placed in charge of the henhouse. The Task Force again with deferential words noted that it was troubled about the timing of the Assistant Deans intervention15 and the practical effect it had of undermining the formal complaint process initially launched by Student A and subsequently taken up by the four professors, and always supported by Ryan. Through the questionable legal gymnastics of declaring a complaint filed on December 21st as really not being filed until December 23rd, Dal Administration was able to declare that the Assistant Deans unwritten and unannounced decision of December 22nd to suspend (made in his own mind and without written notice to the Dean, as mandated by the Policy & Procedure Manual), magically trumped the full investigation, due process and procedural fairness that Ryan kept arguing he was entitled to receive. At page 57:

This was troubling because the initial complaints included not only the Facebook posts, but also the dentistry climate and professionalism. We believe that this created a reasonable perception that Dentistry might have had an interest in the outcome of the complaints. In these circumstances, we also think it was reasonable to think that the ASCC, a body internal to Dentistry, was not an impartial decision maker.

Safety of Female Students and Patients The only legal justification for Ryans indefinite suspension would have been if there were a serious threat to female student safety or patient safety within the clinic. The

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 10 Task Force found that there was no evidence to suggest that Ryan Millets passive membership in the Facebook Group constituted a safety risk to his classmates or to his patients. The Task Force pointedly notes that suspension should have followed investigation, not trumped investigation. Only on reading the Task Force Report have we learned, for the first time, that Dal Administration had already conducted a thorough and secretive five person review of the issue of safety. That Committee concluded there was no safety risk. The four female complainants themselves told Dalhousie that they did not feel threatened or at risk. Eventually an undisclosed and withheld collective letter from female classmates to the ASCC, arguing there was no threat to safety, added to the evidence that undermined the basis for Ryans suspension. Through all of this, yourself, the ASCC and the Assistant Dean Clinic remained implacable and immoveable. You, Mr. President, publicly stated that safety of the students was the justification for suspension from classroom. What evidence were you relying upon, given that your secretive Committee found the very opposite? Was it paternalism, or pandering to public pressure? As the Task Force notes, surely Ryan is entitled to your explanation as to why you so publicly announced that safety was at risk if Ryan and others attended regular classes. Not a single classmate ever complained to Ryan in that regard. Had you inquired, I suspect his classmates would more likely describe him as a puppy dog than an attack dog. He was known to be kindly and respectful to those around him, not a safety threat to the clinic workplace. Your Task Force had this to say in response to these unprecedented legal machinations that resulted in Ryans suspension:

As the ASCC made clear in its March 6th Decision about Student B (Ryan Millet), it does not have disciplinary powers, so the suspension of the students was not justified as a punitive measure. It was only justified as long as there was an objective basis for concern about safety or about a students capability to act professionally. That decision was ASCCs to make about each suspended student individually. Without that process, the suspensions appeared disciplinary and arbitrary.16

From the beginning, we tried to convince you and the Chair of the Senate to take control of this power grab by the Faculty of Dentistry. Ryan was being indefinitely suspended under the camouflage of what was labelled as academic professionalism, not a disciplinary suspension. From the beginning, we argued that was stuff and nonsense. The Task Force more politely called it disciplinary and arbitrary. Whatever label is selected, Ryans very public and humiliating suspension was as disciplinary and punitive as any disciplinary act Dalhousie has taken against any of its students in recent years, to the point of the President making regular nationally circulated pronouncements on what otherwise should have been a private disciplinary or academic matter.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 11 As you well know, none of the steps for adjudicating normal academic professionalism were followed, as specified in the Academic Policy Manual . While our pleas for fairness fell on deaf ears, the Task Force knew that a rose by any other name is still a rose:

In our view, the ASCC process raises serious questions about fairness. These include questions about whether the Clinic Assistant Dean and the ASCC have the authority to act as they did, whether requirements such as notice and the opportunity to be heard were satisfied, and whether there was a reasonable perception of a conflict of interest. Although it is not a disciplinary body, the ASCC effectively took on that role in this case, and was widely understood to be the body that decided on sanctions for the identified Facebook posters. The ASCCs proper focus was professionalism and a concern that the identified Facebook posters would not meet professional standards was the only basis for continuing these suspensions. This was no punishment for what the students had already done. In our opinion, the suspensions were only justified for as long as there was a risk that the students would continue to act unprofessionally.17

Mr. President, your Task Force Report advises you that the circumstances should have aroused concern that this was not an incident between a few individuals, but potentially a much more complex situation that might require the University to assume responsibility. Despite the fact you met personally with Student A and her parents, the Task Force notes that there is no indication anyone in Administration seriously considered the possibility of the University assuming carriage of the matter from the Faculty of Dentistry.18 The Report is critical of Administrations failure to support Student A and others, including Ryan Millet, who wanted a formal process and the appointment of an investigator.19 Conflict of Interest of ASCC The ASCC was linked inseparably to the RJ process, even for Ryan Millet who refused to participate. When the RJ Report was filed several weeks ago, we learned for the first time that the complaints of the other four female dental students under the Sexual Harassment Policy were not restricted to Ryan and his 12 classmates. Very much to our surprise, the RJ Report informed us that those complaints also complained against the Faculty of Dentistry itself, as the originating source of a climate and

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 12 culture of sexism, misogyny and homophobia. We have reviewed all of your media releases and nowhere do we find you, as President, disclosed to the public or Ryan or the other 12 students that the RJ process was mandated to include Faculty misconduct as well as student misconduct. This was an extraordinary revelation to us, that obviously has troubled the Backhouse Task Force as much as it has Ryan Millet and his counsel. The Task Force pointedly noted:

, the practical effect of the Clinic Assistant Deans decision was to preclude an external formal process in favour of an internal confidential process. This was troubling because the initial complaints included not only the Facebook posts, but also Dentistry climate and professionalism. We believe that this created a reasonable perception that Dentistry might have had an interest in the outcome of the complaints. In these circumstances, we also think it was reasonable to think that the ASCC, a body internal to Dentistry, was not an impartial decision maker.20

Mr. President, that indictment by your own Task Force is deeply troubling. This conflict of interest was something you and others within senior Administration were aware of, yet you stood back and allowed Ryan to be judged by those who were themselves being judged for the very same alleged misconduct. The Task Forces indictment is entirely consistent with our earlier objections about the lack of impartiality of Faculty to sit in judgment of Ryans sexism, misogyny and homophobia, when in fact Ryan had repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted to address such issues with Faculty in the past. Unbeknownst to Ryan, he was trying to convince them why he was not guilty of those unprofessional attitudes, while some of those very same Faculty members were under scrutiny and investigation for creating a climate and culture that promoted and condoned such attitudes. At no time was this extraordinarily material fact disclosed to Ryan or his counsel, either through your public pronouncements or through an ASCC process that promised us full disclosure. With your appointment of the Task Force and its spotlighted attention on attitudes within the Faculty of Dentistry, you obviously were aware of this conflict. Given that context, Ryan is entitled to know why his pleas of conflict and partiality of February 11th were left unanswered and unaddressed. We are stating the obvious when we note the tempting convenience of scapegoating my client and the other 12 students as the public face of sexism, misogyny and homophobia. The fox in charge of the chicken coop does not do justice to this legal affrontery. Even persons untrained in the law innately know that one should not secretly sit in judgment of another, when accused of the very same misconduct, particularly

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 13 when the temptation of conviction might readily distract the public call for more systemic accountability. The Task Force had more to say:

Some Senators, the authors of the Dalhousie Faculty Complaint, and Student B (Ryan Millet), among others, said that the ASCC was in a conflict of interest because some people on the ASCC were the subject of some of the Facebook posts. The fact that neither the University nor Dentistry responded to this concern increased public perception that the process was unfair. It was described as a coverup or contain and control technique that showed that the Universitys only concern was its reputation. Concerns about conflict of interest should always be taken seriously. If not addressed promptly and directly, they can undermine an otherwise fair process. Fairness principles apply not only to actual conflict or bias, but they require there be no reasonable perception of bias or conflict of interest. This requirement grows more stringent where the decision has greater potential for adverse impact on the individual. Here, two factors provided a reasonable basis for the perception that Dentistry might be biased or in a conflict of interest. First, the complaint pursued through RJ under the Policy included allegations about the culture and professionalism inside Dentistry, as well as Facebook posts, so necessarily implicated Dentistry administrationThe potential consequences of the ASCC proceedings were very severe up to academic dismissal in the case of any suspended student who had not participated in RJ ( Ryan Millet was the only such student) which heighted the importance of ensuring that there was no perceived conflict of interest. Concerns about the ASCCs impartiality were raised in other forums soon after it issued its initial decision. Fairness could have been enhanced by acknowledging and openly addressing those concerns. That would mean either explaining why the perception of bias was not well-founded or responding to the concerns. For example, review of the suspensions could have been moved outside of Dentistry to the Senate Academic Appeals Committee, which hears appeals on professionalism matters that originate within Dentistry.

As you well know, our submissions on this conflict of interest and impartiality went unaddressed by both you and by the ASCC. This was not an issue of an esoteric legal argument that could only be understood by professionally trained lawyers. It was an issue fundamental to the fair process that you repeatedly promised my client and

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 14 others, through your many public pronouncements. The Task Force critically observed your deafening silence on this issue in its following comments:

There was another opportunity to address the perception of conflict of interest when Student B (Ryan Millet) raised the issue of the ASCCs impartiality, along with a number of other procedural fairness concerns, at the hearing into his suspension and in his Submissions. In its Decision of March 6th, the ASCC did not address this issue. The failure to address the significant conflict of interest concern damages public perception of the institutions commitment to fairness.21

Mr. President, those carefully chosen words of your Task Force are addressable to you. You were provided our Submissions, in advance of their filing with the ASCC, in the hope you would intervene and re-start the process on a proper legal footing. You were aware the Complaints being informally investigated by RJ were not restricted to Ryan and his classmates, but included climate and culture within Dentistry, yet you failed to inform us or intervene. When the Vice-Provost decided to pursue the Complaint under her jurisdiction, the Task Force noted that she implicitly did so in recognition that a body outside Dentistry was the appropriate avenue to investigate the matter.22 The Task Force commented:

The question of who is the appropriate body in charge of a process is always important. Where there is any possibility that a complaint may implicate or involve the Faculty itself, it is essential that both the process and any decisions be independent of that Faculty.

The Task Force was perhaps too gentle and too respectful when it commented that perceptions of fairness would have been enhanced by using a process and a decision maker outside of Dentistry.23 The Task Force also commented:

In our justice system, complainants are entitled to a formal process for reviewing the complaints and determining whether they are substantiated. Informal resolution is always an option, but it takes place against the background framework of legal rights and obligations, although formal and informal processes may proceed together. However, an informal process chosen by some individuals would violate both principles of fairness and the legal entitlement of others if it precluded them from pursuing a formal complaint. It is not clear whether that happened here, but there is cause for concern.24

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 15 The Task Force concluded with the observation that there were very substantial concerns about the ASCC process.25 Fundamentally Flawed RJ Process As you may recall, Ryan Millet has always supported the concept of restorative justice, when used properly. In his case, he did not feel he was guilty of blatant unprofessionalism and for that reason he refused to participate in a process that started and finished with an assumption of guilt and accountability. Based on legal advice received, Ryan Millet understood that a finding of blatant unprofessionalism and the resulting indefinite suspension could never be erased by a restorative justice process. As he explained at length before the ASCC, he felt he had done more than his share of trying to intervene and address issues of sexism and respectfulness within and amongst students and faculty, long before the Facebook issue arose. His willingness to stand against the repugnant Facebook entries in December 2014 was only the last in a succession of earlier interventions by Ryan that demonstrated a degree of maturity and professionalism that should have been rewarded, not punished. Shortly after Ryan sought legal advice, he opted out of the restorative justice process. Ryan has publicly explained why he did so. Your RJ facilitators have been openly critical of Ryans withdrawal and the reasons for withdrawal. That criticism has included overt criticism of Ryans legal counsel in the RJ Report. Both Ryan and the undersigned found some solace in the fact that we were not alone in the long list of culpable parties that the RJ Report criticized, some would say in a most unprofessional manner. That public debate over differing perceptions of Dalhousies RJ process has now been independently adjudicated by the Backhouse Task Force. The Task Force has landed solidly on Ryans side of this abuse of process. Task Force comments included:

The RJ process changed over time and that it is especially important to be clear and consistent about the overarching framework, to provide certainty that the framework will not change without adequate notice to those affected26;

The RJ process was established without adequate information on its mandate27;

It came as a surprise to many to discover in the RJ Report that the mandate included the authority to investigate the sexual harassment complaint, to address the harms it caused and to examine the climate and culture within the Faculty that may have influenced the offensive nature of the Facebook group content28;

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 16

It was not clear that the RJ process was capable of conducting the kind of independent investigation that leads to reliable findings of fact29;

Certain key individuals, including Student A and Ryan Millet, were not interviewed as part of the RJ investigation30;

Since successful completion of RJ was essential to avoid the possibility of academic dismissal, the directive from the ASCC that indefinite suspensions would only be lifted upon successful completion is inconsistent with a voluntary process31;

The suspended students did not feel that they had enough information when given 48 hours to elect into or out of RJ, nor were they clear what successful completion of RJ meant, or who would decide successful completion, or what more could be required32;

The ASCC decision to make successful completion RJ key to lifting the suspensions compromised the voluntariness of the RJ process for those students33;

The possibility of dismissal, which only arose from not participating in RJ (i.e. only applicable to Ryan Millet), put pressure on the suspended students to choose RJ and do everything the RJ facilitators required of them. In these circumstances, it could be argued they did not consent freely;

While the informal RJ process can be adaptable to a wide variety of situations, it must still comply with the principles of informed consent, transparency about the process, impartiality and certainty34;

Concern about the impartiality of RJ arises from its claim that it conducted an investigation sufficient to support factual findings about the Facebook group and the culture and climate in Dentistry. Basic fairness principles apply to investigations, including the requirement to gather information from available sources, and evaluate that evidence objectively. There is no indication that the RJ facilitators interviewed students who did not participate in RJ to gather information about the Facebook group or Dentistry culture and climate, or that they sought this information from faculty members, staff, or administrators. Gathering information from these sources was not central to the RJ function of bringing participants to a deeper understanding of what happened and equipping them with the tools to constructively reflect on their behaviour. However, it was essential to a full and fair investigation35;

The role of RJ facilitators did not lend itself to objectively assessing informationThe role of RJ facilitators, as we understand it, is not to stand back from participants and assess their credibility. It is to stand with them

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 17

and help them to gain insight into their motivations and interest. This is difficult to reconcile with the requirements of an investigation36; and

While we agree that RJ was a useful process that achieved significant results in this case, we have reservations about how it was established, some aspects of its process, and its relationship to other processes37.

Mr. President, that is yet another damning indictment. The undue influence or pressure to sign on to the RJ process was not restricted to the RJ facilitators. Your own Task Force concluded that your public pronouncements were part of the problem:

The other condition governing the fairness of a voluntary process is the absence of improper pressure to make a particular choice Sources of these pressures included the President, who publicly endorsed RJ as the most appropriate response before students had decided on this process and the HREHP Office, which some said gave short shrift to the formal process and advocated for RJ38

Your Task Force did not restrict its critique of RJ to your own involvement, or the absence of a free and voluntary choice to elect into or out of RJ. More substantively, the Task Force concluded that the RJ process itself was not a remediation process in the sense that term is used in professional regulation39. The Task Force noted that the intertwining of RJ with the ASCC was less than fair to students like Ryan. The most targeted indictment of this particular RJ process is found within the Task Forces Recommendation that you order an external review of the way in which RJ was exercised in this instance40. Recommendation 13 of this Task Force raises the spectre of what Ryan Millet has described as the Gulag-style imposition of remedial education, that was forced upon him by the ASCC as a prerequisite to graduation. Despite his conviction that his personal values and conduct were not sexist, misogynist or homophobic, Ryan graciously, if reluctantly, embraced this mandatory re-education, as a necessary concession to achieve graduation. It was one of those times in life where Ryan concluded practicality trumped principle. He allowed pretty words to be placed in his mouth and by written word, to accommodate the new found stridency of the ASCC on issues of sexism, misogyny and homophobia. His original sincere letter of apology and contrition, for not intervening and objecting more than he already had, were the true measure of this man, and his non-discriminatory and inclusive attitudes towards his fellow human beings. Implicit in the messaging of your Task Force is the warning that forced contrition, either through the edict of the ASCC or the more subtle machinations of an involuntary RJ process, is to be received with skepticism.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 18 Thankfully, your Task Force scratched deeper than the ASCC. The Task Force has raised a fundamentally important educational, ethical and disciplinary question: whether attitudinal and behaviour change in the student body, staff and faculty can or should be imposed through this type of RJ process41. Recommendation 13 raises the spectre of the old adage about leading a horse to water, especially with punitive whip in hand. While the RJ Report was laudatory and self-congratulatory in tone, your Task Force has raised more appropriate questions about the use and abuse of RJ. From Ryans personal perspective, the rather lengthy list of remediation initiatives imposed upon him by the ASCC were more Orwellian than educative. It will be for you and others to reflect on whether this type of imposed re-education is appropriate for an institution of higher learning. Interference by Administration As we set out in some detail in our written Submissions to the ASCC, the Senate is mandated exclusive control over student conduct. Any body that claims jurisdiction to regulate student conduct must do so through delegated authority from the Senate. There is no evidence that the powers relied upon by the Assistant Dean Clinic were ever authorized or delegated by the Senate. In this instance, we argued at length and without any response, that neither the Assistant Dean Clinic nor the ASCC had any legal jurisdiction to be regulating student conduct with respect to private Facebook content. That type of jurisdiction has been delegated by the Senate under the well-established protocols of the Student Code of Conduct, which includes all the checks and balances one would expect of a disciplinary process. The Task Force has already commented that the ASCC was disciplinary in everything but name. The pretext of academic professionalism, as the grounds for punitive and indefinite suspension, was not convincing to Ryan Millet, nor was it to your Task Force. As you are aware, matters of student conduct and discipline are generally treated as confidential in nature. Despite that entitlement to privacy, because of the public furor that ensued, you took it upon yourself to make the suspension of these 13 students a very public demonstration of Dalhousies commitment to accountability. You repeatedly commented that there would be consequences for these actions. Your public messaging could not help but influence the objectivity and independence of the ASCC itself and the members of the Faculty of Dentistry. You further injected yourself into the process by becoming the public advocate for the private and confidential RJ process that was the antithesis of our clients pleas for transparency and due process. Had Ryan Millet been provided due process and procedural fairness by a proper investigation of his conduct and communications, there can be little doubt that he would have been praised rather than condemned for his repeated efforts to bring civility and respectfulness into the affairs of the School of

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 19 Dentistry. This refusal to conduct a proper due diligence investigation, as is the legal right of any other student at Dalhousie, was our first and foremost objection when we went public on Ryans behalf. The absence of that investigation is what leaves Ryan Millet unemployed as a dentist today, with a name that is notorious and a taste in his mouth that is resentful of what once he was proud to call his alma mater. In that context, we note the remonstrations of the Task Force42, suggesting that Administration could have addressed and supported Ryans request for a formal process and the appointment of an investigator. Instead:

The University only proceeded by initiating the RJ process. On December 17th, the President announced that a number of women targeted in the Facebook posts had chosen RJ, and explained what that was. He noted that others could pursue formal complaints under the Policy and that various disciplinary actions were available. He rejected the call for an investigation. We have some concerns with what was decided at this time. In our view, an investigation was critical, and it was not inconsistent with the RJ process. An investigation is not the same as a disciplinary proceeding. The Code and Policy make it clear that an investigation provides the basis for deciding whether disciplinary proceedings are needed.43

Had that critical investigation been conducted, and had you not rejected the call for an investigation, Ryan Millet is convinced that his many acts of civility and respectfulness, including the manner in which he disclosed the repugnant Facebook pages to the initial primary victim, warranted commendation for his professionalism, not disciplinary action wrapped up in the camouflaged blanket of blatant academic unprofessionalism. That continuing interference by the Office of the President in nationwide media statements dealing with the privacy rights of individual students is a matter of deep disappointment by Ryan Millet. While he endeavors to understand and appreciate the extraordinary pressures brought upon you by this Dental School Scandal, he remains unconvinced that reputation management did not underlay some of the long list of procedural and substantive shortcomings identified by your Task Force. REMEDY Based upon the damning indictment you have been provided by your own Task Force, we request you find a way to expunge Ryans suspension and the disciplinary finding of

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 20 misconduct (a description used by the Task Force itself, if not the ASCC), on the grounds of an unauthorized and fundamentally flawed process undertaken by the Faculty of Dentistry. I am confident your lawyers can work wonders in finding the mechanical ways of putting the genie back in the bottle, if you have the political will to right the wrongs inflicted on Ryan. If you find it in your heart to do so, a personal and private note of regret and apology from you to Ryan might start to heal the rift that your Administration has allowed to develop between Ryan and his alma mater. We are asking you to use the powers of your office to help Ryan, not next month or next year, but immediately. While the Backhouse Task Force did not have the power or authority to right the specific wrongs that were inflicted on Ryan, you and/or members of the Senate have it within your means to do so. Mr. President, your Task Force placed direct accountability for these lost opportunities directly on your doorstep. The Report lists the missed opportunities very specifically. Proportionate with that responsibility, Ryan Millet now asks you to accept responsibility, by doing whatever is possible to remove the stain from his professional reputation that is the Decision of the ASCC. That, accompanied by a letter from you to licensing authorities, clearing his professional reputation, will constitute an important first step in righting the wrongs that have been inflicted upon him, all in the name of the fairness that you repeatedly promised would be the foundation of the assessment of every students conduct. It is one thing to express generic commitment to 39 Recommendations that are systemic in nature. Those are laudatory, impersonal and assignable tasks. As important as they are, those commitments do not address the personal consequences that are the genesis of many of those Recommendations. Your Task Force was not given the mandate to recommend remedy to those most harmed. That authority rests with you and the Senate. While we are prepared to continue to represent your debt-ridden former student to provide him the legal accountability to which he is entitled, we instead invite you or your delegate to reach out and find common ground to address and resolve the manner of Ryans treatment. Until that reconciliation occurs, there will be no opportunity for the healing and the collective and constructive pulling together that the circumstances warrant and the Task Force recommends. Ryan Millet does not seek to pull down Dalhousie. He is requesting that Dalhousie provide him a lifting hand up. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED.

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 21 Yours truly, MACINTOSH, MACDONNELL & MACDONALD

Bruce T. MacIntosh

Bruce T. MacIntosh cc. Chair of Dalhousie Senate Client Direct Line: (902) 753-3303 Email: bmacintosh@macmacmac.ns.ca

BTM/as Z:\Civ_Lit\CIV-LIT\BTM\17725-1\Cor\CT RF 6-30-15.docx

Dr. Richard Florizone June 30, 2015 Page 22

PAGE REFERENCES RE BACKHOUSE TASK FORCE REPORT 1 Page 29

2 Task Force Report, page 15

3 Page 29

4 Page 25

5 Page 53

6 Page 56

7 Page 57

8 Page 57

9 Page 56

10 Page 56

11 Page 56

12 Page 56

13 Page 57

14 Page 57

15 Page 56

16 Page 62

17 Page 74

18 Page 72

19 Page 72

20 Page 57

21 Page 63-64

22 Page 57

23 Page 58

24 Page 58

25 Page 59

26 Page 59

27 Page 73

28

Page 73 29

Page 73 30

Page 73 31

Page 74 32

Page 60 33

Page 60 34

Page 61 35

Page 62 36

Page 62 37

Page 73 38

Page 60-61 39

Page 63 40

Page 67 41

Page 84 42

Page 72 43

Page 72-73