After the appeal had been filed and I could consider the matter without the pressure of having to get an appeal filed, it became clear to me, Henya's attorney, that:  > the government,  > the court (which threatened Henya and I against coming back to the court)  > and the media, were going to do whatever it took to protect the university and the government from having to answer questions in an open public trial, and therefore an open public trial would never be allowed.

Consequently, continuing in the court system was useless, the only possibility is if the government changes its mind, and that is the point of this website, maybe if enough people contact their elected representative and ask them to respond to the documents on this website, some day, some government, will start to restore the Constitutional Rights, Civil Rights and Human Rights that have been taken away.

In a truly free society, Human Rights, Civil Rights and Constitutional Rights mean one thing: Everyone gets an equal chance; which cannot happen with secret scores, secret meetings and criteria that are not related to personal merit for what is being applied for.
The inequity of a  university and the government against a person  is staggering.

The university and the government have their legal bills paid by government money; so the people of the government and university are at no personal monetary risk.

No-one at the university or in the government is personally accountable for their own actions when the are done as part of their employment, therefore, even if those actions are unconstitutional and illegal, the people doing them have no personal consequences.

All work done by the government and university personnel toward defending against a lawsuit is done as part of their paid employment duties, hence they don't lose any of their own time defending their illegal, unconstitutional, and anti-human rights actions.

They personally, will never have to pay any court costs, the government will pay them.

The university and government people are like boxers covered head to toe in impenetrable armor, fighting Henya, who is a boxer wearing her normal clothing.  In no world is that a fair fight.

In Henya's appeal to the University Senate, she asked the Senate:
(A)  to rule that the Multi Mini Interview ( MMI ) was invalid, illegal and
       Unconstitutional; and
(B)  to rule that she should have been admitted into Medicine because
       she earned a sufficiently high admissions score (based on the Faculty
       of Medicine's own published admissions scoring formula) to entitle
       her to be admitted.

Below is a quote from the University Senate's decision letter:

Hence the University Senate, with the advise of its lawyer (who was present during Henya s hearing before the University Senate), directly told Henya that it did not have the jurisdiction to rule on her questions.  Everyone who has passed their first year of law school knows that by writing to Henya that they did not have jurisdiction to determine the matter the University was telling Henya that if she wants the matter resolved she has to go to the one place that does have jurisdiction, which is the court.

When the first statement of claim was served on the university, the people on whom it was served gave me the impression that they were happy Henya was suing the university because they felt she had been wrongly not admitted into Medicine and they were cheering for her.

I was under the impression that the University and the Government would want the Court to determine if they were breaching the Constitution, violating Civil Rights, violating UN Human Rights law, and breaking contracts with students, because they would want to know the answers to those important questions which will affect all of Canada for decades to come.

I was also under the impression that the Court would want to rule on some of the most important and Nation shaping questions that have ever been before a court, as the answers to those questions would determined if all people had equal opportunity to enter the professions and to higher education.

You can read the whole transcript of what the original judge, the judge that was seized of the matter and should have been the judge to rule on the statement of claim, Judge Kaufman, said to me, by clicking the link to it at the bottom of our home page.  There are links to documents proving all of the above at the bottom of this page.

Judge Kaufman stated that Henya's case may have important enough national issues to go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  In his judgment he stated that the goal could be achieved by starting from scratch and filing a new statement of claim.  He acknowledged that I was an experienced lawyer, and advised that I should go to the courthouse and look at some complex statements of claim that had been accepted by the court to see how they met the rules with a long and complex statement of claim; so that my new statement of claim would bring about an open and public trial on those important national issues.  (It is very normal and a good legal practice to review other, out of the normal, statements of claim when filing an out of the normal statement of claim.  For example, over the years other lawyers have included in their statements of claim points that were in my revised statement of claim.)

Following Judge Kaufman's advice I removed 105 pages from the original statement of claim, reducing it to less than one-third of its original length.  That new statement of claim expertly fit within the Court's rules and very clearly and explicitly brought before the court all of the unconstitutional, contract breaching, UN Human Rights laws violating, and unethical actions of the university and the government.

As quoted above, Judge Kaufman stated that it was commendable that I (counsel for the plaintiff) said that too brief a statement of claim leads to confusion.  Judge Kaufman also stated that the statement of claim cannot be reduced to a few sentences and that the facts have to be in the statement of claim.  Judge Kaufman also stated that there was no limit to the number of pages in a statement of claim.
Judge Kaufman was seized of the matter and should have been the judge to rule on my second statement of claim which he suggested I file, for the following reasons:

(i)   he heard the declaration evidence on the matter, and

(ii)  he made a ruling on the matter; and

(iii) he stated that the best way for the case to continue was to file a
      new statement of claim; and

(iv) he gave advice on what research to do in order to prepare the
      new statement of claim;

     therefore, as Judge Kaufman was seized of the matter, legally
     the new statement of claim should have gone back to
     Judge Kaufman for him to rule on, not to Judge Martin.