Scott Worsfold served as Associate Counsel at Memorial University beginning in 2016 before becoming General Counsel in 2021. During his tenure in the Office of General Counsel, Memorial has been embroiled in legal controversies, governance failures, and decisions that have undermined public confidence in the institution. A General Counsel is expected to protect an organization from these outcomes, not be part of causing them. Worsfold has become associated with repeated controversies involving free expression and questions surrounding the awarding of legal work to close personal friends.
The role of a General Counsel is to provide legal advice, help an organization comply with the law, and guide decision-makers away from actions that expose the institution to unnecessary legal and reputational risk. When an organization’s decisions are repeatedly under intense public scrutiny or are rejected by the courts, it is reasonable to ask whether the legal advice provided has served the university well.
Worsfold’s close personal friend Gladys Dunne has received nearly $100,000 for legal work performed for the university.
Worsfold was involved in the targeted campaign launched against me after I protested a president who has since been terminated. In December 2021, I silently protested then-President Vianne Timmons by holding up a stop-sign-shaped protest poster criticizing tuition increases and university spending. Although the event continued and Timmons completed her remarks, Memorial responded by banning me from campus, initiating disciplinary proceedings under the Student Code of Conduct, and ultimately placing me on one year of non-academic probation.
More than three years later, Associate Chief Justice Rosalie McGrath found Memorial’s decision to be unreasonable. The Court concluded that the university had failed to properly interpret and apply its own Student Code, relied on considerations that were not found in the Code itself, and inadequately addressed whether my protest actually disrupted university activities. The Court awarded me costs, and Memorial ultimately removed the sanctions that had been imposed against me.
A General Counsel is expected to identify legal weaknesses before decisions are made, not after they have been struck down by the courts. When a university’s disciplinary process results in a judicial finding that its decision was unreasonable, it is fair to ask whether those responsible for providing legal advice exercised appropriate judgment.
My concerns about Worsfold, however, extend beyond my own experience at Memorial. Worsfold also served as President of The Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador during the disciplinary proceedings involving St. John’s lawyer Bob Buckingham, who challenged the Law Society after it issued him a letter of caution arising from public comments he made following the death of one of his clients.
The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal ruled in Buckingham’s favour, and in April 2024, the Supreme Court of Canada dismissed the Law Society’s application for leave to appeal. Although that case involved a different organization and different facts, it also centred on freedom of expression. The outcome raises questions about Worsfold’s judgment in another high-profile dispute involving expressive rights.
Whether acting as Memorial University’s General Counsel or as President of the Law Society of Newfoundland and Labrador, Worsfold has repeatedly been associated with controversies involving freedom of expression, institutional overreach, and legal decisions that failed to withstand judicial scrutiny. Given that record, it is reasonable to ask whether Worsfold should remain Memorial’s General Counsel.
Matt Barter is a graduate of the Humanities and Social Sciences Faculty at Memorial University of Newfoundland, holding a degree in Political Science with a minor in Sociology. He enjoys reading thought-provoking articles, taking walks in nature, and volunteering in the community.
Leave a Reply