She was the teaching assistant in the Department of Communications that Wilfred Laurier University, who was subjected to a three member panel of inquiry after she showed a video taken from Canadian public television of me debating the compelled speech legislation introduced in federal Bill See, 16.

She showed my discussion with Nicholas Matt, who held the opposite position.

Here is part of the discussion in question.

Why don't we do this?

Let's take a moment.

We're gonna explain a few basic things here.

The issue of so called non traditional pronouns goes together with non traditional gender identities.

New York City, for example, recognizes 31 such gender expressions.

In other words, besides man and woman, there are 29 other gender expressions.

For example, pan gender, queer gender, gender fluid, cross dresser, bi gendered gender blender and the list goes on.

And Nicholas, this is where I want to bring you into the discussion because you teach this.

You teach trans study.

So if you would give us a brief primer on so many gender identities that, in your view require non traditional pronounce, basically it's not correct that there is such a thing as biological sex, and I'm a historian of medicine.

I can unpack that for you at great length if you want, but in the interest of time, I won't.

The three member panel included professors Nathan Rambo Cana, her supervisor, Herbert Pimlott, in charge of the master's program, and Adria Joel, manager of gendered violence and sexual assault prevention.

Shepherd taped the meeting and released it publicly, producing what I think was the biggest scandal that ever enveloped a Canadian university and certainly the only one in living memory that became news internationally.

The thing is, can you shield people from those ideas?

Am I supposed to comfort them and make sure that they're insulated away from this, like, is that with the point of this is because to me, that is so against what a university is about.

So against it.

I was not taking sides.

I was presenting both arguments.

So the thing of it is about fists is if you're presenting something like this, it, uh, you have to think about the kind of teaching climate that you're creating, and this is actually these arguments are counter to the Canadian human rights code.

Ever since I know that you talked about, um see, 16 ever since this past, it is discriminatory to be targeting someone, um, due to their gender identity or gender expression.

So bringing something like that up in class, Not critically.

And I understand that you're trying to like it was critical.

I I introduced it critically household.

Like Like I said, it was in the spirit of debate.

Okay, in the spirit of the debate is slightly different than being like, Okay, this is this is a problematic idea that we want what we want to unpack, but that's taking sides like it's taking sides for me to be like, Oh, look at this guy.

Like everything that comes out of the mountains B s, we're gonna watch anyway, So I understand the position they're coming from in your position ality.

But the reality is that it has created a toxic climate or some of the students.

You know how many?

It's great.

Oh, like how many?

One.

Yeah, I have.

No, I have no concept of like how many people complain.

Like what their complaint was.

You haven't showed me the complaint.

Yes, I I understand that this is upsetting.

But there's also confidential company and confidentiality matters.

The number of people's especial, yes.

Although the university apologized publicly for its treatment of Shepherd, as did Rambo Cana, it is not clear at all that the powers that be so to speak learned their lesson.

And the mistreatment of Shepherd not only continued but arguably intensified.

So she decided to press her case legally and presented a statement of claim against the three and Wilfred Laurier early in the second week of June.

It lists in painful detail the many ways that this situation was mishandled during and after the initial Inquisition.

I also discussed the situation with Howard Levitt, Sheppard's lawyer.

I decided that Wilfred Laurier had learned very little from its public embarrassment and that Shepherd's claims were valid, justifiable and necessary, including her statement that her future lack of employability in academia was improbable, To say the least.

I've bean on hiring committees and I can tell you that even then, the slightest whiff of scandal is enough to disqualify a candidate in consequence.

Not only did I decide to read and post the entirety of shepherds claims, which I will do in a few minutes, I also decided to launch a claim of my own against the same defendants.

I thought the two lawsuits might make the point better than one.

I'll read some of my claim to after shepherds and you can all make up your own minds about the suitability of this course of action.

Ontario Superior Court of Justice Between Lindsay Shepherd, Plaintiff and Nathan Rambo Cana Adria, Jule Herbert Pimlott and Wilfred Laurier University defendants Statement of claim to the defendant A legal proceeding has been commenced against you by the plaintiff.

The claim made against you is set out in the following pages.

If you failed to defend this proceeding judgement maybe given against you in your absence and without further notice to you.

To Nathan Rambo, Kanna and to Adrian Jule and a Herbert Pimlott and to Wilfred Laurier University Claim the plaintiff claims the following against the defendants individually and cumulatively.

The following 500,000 for the tort of harassment.

500,000 for the tort of intentional infliction of nervous shock.

500,000 for the tort of negligence.

100,000 for constructive dismissal.

Aggravated damages in the amount of 500,000 general damages in the amount of 500,000 punitive damages in the amount of a $1,000,000.

The plaintiff resides in the town of Waterloo in the province of Ontario.

The defendant's Herbert Pimlott and Nathan Rambo Cana, Our professors at the defendant Wilfred Laurier University Pin Lord was the coordinator for the master's program of the university, and Ramu Cana at the relevant time was the professor for the course, which Shepard was a teaching assistant for both had considerable influence over the plaintiff's employment as a teaching assistant and status as a master student.

The defendant, Adria Joel Waas at all Relevant times.

Acting manager of the university's Diversity and Equity office in charge of gender violence prevention, the defendant University is a creature of statute created pursuant to the provisions of the Wilfred Laurie Act.

The university is vicariously liable for all of the conduct of the individual defendants referred to here in and at all relevant times, created an environment supporting and facilitating, acquiescing to and implicitly and sometimes explicitly endorsing that conduct the constituents Statute of the university.

The Wilford Laurie Act 1973 as amended 2000 and one and 2016 in providing the fundamental jurisdiction and authority for the university to operate states as its object in Section four that the objects of the university are for the pursuit of learning through scholarship, teaching and research within a spirit of free inquiry and expression.

The university has no other object and no juristic and no jurisdiction to operate.

Otherwise.

The university has no other object and no jurisdiction to operate otherwise.

Pursuant to Section five powers of the university, the act further states that the university has all powers necessary and incidental to the satisfaction and furtherance of its objects.

As a university, the constituents statute creating an empowering the university provides it with no other power or authority.

Shepherd was at all relevant times a student in the university master's program, pursuing your master's degree and employed as a teaching assistant for a course under Rambo Cana and following that under Professor Judith Nicholson as a teaching assistant, Shepherd supported a class taught by Professor Rambo Khanna.

She was generally responsible for teaching two groups of approximately 25 students, was assigned topics and was entitled pursuant to the policies of the university end of Rambo Cana to devise her own curriculum.

Rambo Cana was an indifferent mentor who had only met with Shepherd twice about his course, and only then briefly, ironically, given his complaint against her as delineated below, he provided her with very limited direction as to the content to provide to her students in his class is the topic.

For one of her communication classes, held on November 1st, 2017 was grammar.

She taught three classes that day.

Shepherd introduced the topic of the grammatical correctness of gender neutral language in the evolution of various languages and to facilitate discussion on the subject showed a few minute extract from a TV Ontario program moderated by Steven Peikin, consisting of a debate between Professor Jordan Peterson of the University of Toronto psychology department and Nicholas Matt from the University of Toronto's Sexual Diversity Studies program.

Peterson and Nicholas Matt were debating compelled gender pronouns.

Peterson argued against being required to use thes new words, which he argued had not developed organically.

Matt took an opposing position shortly following that class.

Rambo Cannon ordered her to attend a meeting the very next day with himself.

Pimlott, the program coordinator for the entire master's program, and Adria Joel, acting director of the Diversity and Equity Office.

Both Rambo Cana and Pimlott had considerable authority over Shepherd's fate at the university.

Apparently, so did Joel.

Shepherd had never been called into such a meeting.

Indeed, Rambo Cana to that point had barely acknowledged her existence at this session.

All three lambasted Shepherd viciously attacking her personally, falsely alleging that there had been a complaint or complaints about her tutorial and insisting that in playing the TV Ontario clip she had been threatening to her students.

Rambo can.

It claimed that air showing this TV Ontario clip breached the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal bill See 16 which is not even governed, provincially regulated universities created on unsafe learning environment and was illegal.

Shepherd was accused of targeting trans folks even though Shepherd had chosen no side had up till that point, disagreed with what she understood to be Petersen's perspective and presented the arguments and the debate neutrally.

Rambo can attacked and slandered Peterson, claiming that he was part of the all right and that playing a clip of Peterson without first providing any previous context to the students was like neutrally playing a speech by Adolf Hitler, Shepherd argued that doing as he asked would be taking sides, and that was not her role.

She was then further rebuked for taking that position at various points.

During that almost hour long, vicious and abusive attack, Shepherd was reduced to tears.

Ironically, rather than being a present day personification of Adolf Hitler, as Rambo, Cana implied, Jordan Peterson has spent decades educating his students about the evils of the Holocaust and specifically as part of the psychological teachings, has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take place to the point where they take part in atrocities.

As part of his psychological teachings, he has studied and taught how individuals degenerate ethically to the point where they take part in atrocities.

During the meeting, Shepherd was effectively attacked as a protege and supporter of Peterson.

Pimlott continued to libel Peterson, explaining that people like him live in a fantasy world of false conspiracy and accusing Shepard of being an agent of those ideas because she had neutrally shown this video with its opposing viewpoints.

Rambo Cana, falsely but imaginatively claimed that Shepard herself was targeting people based on their gender identity or gender expression, and in doing so had violated the federal human rights code of Bill See 16.

Although Shepherd's conduct was in no way violent of of that or any law, Shepherd asked the individual defendants whether her job is a teaching assistant was to shield her students from debate and ideas.

Rambo Cana asserted that it was and then accused her of targeting students due to their gender expression and identity.

When Shepherd pointed out that she had not taken sides in this debate, the three rebuked her for creating a toxic climate.

The three refused to advise Shepherd what the complaint was or who complained, claiming that even the number of complaints was confidential, as was subsequently ascertained.

There had been no complaints at all.

Shepherd protested that she did not understand how our teaching methods constituted any disservice to the university.

Since the ideas in the video were already part of social currency, Joel responded without any foundation, accusing her of spreading transphobia Rambo.

Cana added to Jules attack by essentially comparing her actions to white supremacy.

Contrary to the allegations of the defendants at this meeting, Shepherd conducted herself at this seminar precisely as her rule required and singularly represented the principles of the Wilfred Laurier University Act.

For this, she was viciously attacked by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

They continued to abuse her even after she began sobbing, accusing Shepard of causing harm two unnamed students.

Shepherd apologized for crying during the meeting, pleading, I am stressed out because to me, this is wrong, so wrong.

Noting that the very spirit of the university is to challenge ideas that you already have and reminding them that she had not taken any side or position.

The meeting concluded with Shepherd being advised even after she promised to show no further videos of Peterson or anything of the like, that she now had to run all of her seminar notes past Rambo Kanna to obtain specific approval for any future clips of anyone that she attended to show and that Rambo Cana might have to sit in on her future classes.

She was prohibited from showing any further videos.

Finally, they suggested to her that her job might be in jeopardy.

The conduct of the defendants was objectively outrageous and flagrant.

They had reckless disregard for the fact that the foreseeable consequences of their conduct would cause Shepherd to suffer emotional stress, which it did.

There are various policies of the university, which constitute a contract between the university and its members, including Shepherd.

Article 1.1 of the procedures relating to the Prevention of Harassment and Discrimination Policy.

6.1 of the university notes that informal resolution possibilities as well as emotional, academic and departmental supports will be explored.

None of this occurred.

It also noted in Article 1.2 of the procedures relating to the Prevention of harassment Discrimination policy 6.1 that if the concern falls outside of this policies jurisdiction or could be more appropriately dealt with elsewhere, the individual be referred to the appropriate office that also did not occur.

Under Article 3.2 of Policy 6.1, the Office of Dispute Resolution and Support will determine whether a complaint may go forward.

Article 3.4 states that the office is available to provide guidance on the preparation of a complaint or response to a complaint.

That guidance was not provided to Shepherd.

Article 5.1 of policy 6.1 states that an investigation may be required when other efforts to resolve the complaint have not been successful or not appropriate.

In the complaint by Jackson referred to below, no other efforts to resolve the complaint were considered before proceeding to the formal investigation of Shepherd.

Article 8.3 of policy 6.1 states that Wilfred Laurier universities, prevention of discrimination and harassment policy is not intended to inhibit academic freedom.

It was used by Rambo Can a Jewel and Pimlott for precisely that purpose.

Article 8.5 notes that the university may take disciplinary action against those who make allegations of harassment or discrimination, which are reckless, malicious or not in good faith.

Although Pimlott, Rambo, Cana and Jule had acted recklessly, maliciously and in bad faith, and it was ultimately determined by the university that this meeting never should have occurred, no action has been taken by the university against them, and Shepherd was provided no protection from their predations.

The Prevention of Harassment Discrimination Policy provides an article 1.0 to that each member of the campus community is responsible for helping to create an environment that promotes mutual respect and understanding for the dignity and rights of others.

This policy was violated by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

The prevention of Harassment Discrimination policy defines workplace harassment in Article 2.4 as engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in the workplace that is known or off reasonably to be known to be unwelcome or workplace harassment.

This provision to was violated by Rambo, Cana, Pimlott and Jule.

Article 2.7 defines a poisoned environment as wear, harassing or discriminatory behaviors are severe and or pervasive and cause unreasonable interference with a person, study or work environment.

A poisoned environment may be created.