Memorial University declined to investigate complaints against senior administrators concerning their handling of student protests and the application of university policies.
The complaints involved former President Vianne Timmons and Director of Student Life and Student Code of Conduct Officer Jennifer Browne, both of whom played roles in events surrounding my December 2021 protest against the university administration.
January 2022: Complaint Against Jennifer Browne
On January 21, 2022, my lawyer, Kyle Rees of O’Dea Earle, sent a letter to Browne challenging the interim campus restrictions imposed on me following my December 2, 2021, protest against then-president Vianne Timmons.
The letter argued that there was no justification for the interim measures and that the university had failed to identify any risk.
Rees noted that Memorial had modified the restrictions to permit me to attend classes and access the Queen Elizabeth II Library and University Centre, while continuing to prohibit me from accessing other parts of campus.
He questioned why I could attend the library but not other university facilities, including a Political Science society meeting.
The letter stated that the restrictions were punishment for my criticism of the university administration rather than measures necessary to protect campus safety.
“It has become clear to Mr. Barter in the last week that the interim measures under the Student Code of Conduct are being used by the Code of Conduct Office and University Administration to punish him for expressing his opinion about the way his University is being run,” Rees wrote.
He described the behaviour as “inappropriate, unfair and objectionable.”
The letter cited Memorial University’s Non-Academic Appeals Process, which provided students with a mechanism to complain about inappropriate, unfair or objectionable conduct by university employees and officers.
Under that procedure, an employee or officer whose conduct met those criteria could be investigated by the appropriate department and potentially face sanctions.
Because the procedure recommended that students first attempt to resolve complaints informally, Rees advised Browne that the letter constituted informal notice of a potential complaint concerning the application of the interim measures.
As a resolution, I requested the immediate removal of all interim restrictions and a written public apology from Browne and her office.
University Warned Against Filing Complaint
On January 25, 2022, Memorial University’s interim general counsel, Scott Worsfold, responded to Rees and rejected the suggestion that the interim measures were punitive.
Worsfold objected to the possibility of a formal complaint against Browne and suggested that such a complaint could itself constitute an additional offence under the Student Code. He said the university could charge me under two sections of the Student Code:
Section 5. Offences:
2) bringing false or malicious charges or complaints against any member of the University community
3) Retaliation against persons for laying a complaint or providing statements under this Code.
Supreme Court Later Questioned the Basis for Restrictions
Memorial University publicly defended the interim measures by stating that their application required a perceived risk to the safety of individuals.
However, more than three years later, on April 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador issued a decision concerning the university’s handling of my Student Code case.
Associate Chief Justice Rosalie McGrath found Memorial’s disciplinary decision unreasonable.
In addressing the interim measures imposed following my December 2021 protest, McGrath acknowledged that many of my submissions concerning flaws in the process had merit.
She noted that no written complaint had been filed under section 6(a)(1) of the Student Code when the interim measures were imposed.
McGrath also found that the explanation that section 6(b) of the Code could justify imposing restrictions was not compelling. That provision allowed the Student Code of Conduct Officer to initiate proceedings without a written complaint under certain circumstances, including situations involving a potential risk of harm to any person.
McGrath wrote:
“The information before the Student Code of Conduct Officer [Jennifer Browne] and the evidence as to the circumstances surrounding the Event do not suggest the Student posed a potential risk of harm to any person.”
The findings are particularly significant in light of the university’s earlier justification for restricting my access to campus.
March 2022: Complaint Against Vianne Timmons
On March 15, 2022, I filed a formal complaint with Memorial University’s Office of Student Support against then-president Vianne Timmons concerning public comments she had made about my protest activities.
On September 16, 2021, Timmons told CBC that posters I had displayed calling for her resignation over tuition increases and university spending violated Memorial’s Respectful Workplace Policy.
I disputed that characterization.
As a student rather than a university employee, I questioned the applicability of the workplace policy to my protest activities.
I also argued that the president should not be responsible for publicly determining whether criticism directed at her violated university policy.
In my complaint, I maintained that Timmons’ comments had unfairly discredited me in the eyes of students, the university community and the public.
On March 25, 2022, Roxanne Rideout-Scott responded that the complaint had been reviewed by her office and the Office of General Counsel.
Rideout-Scott stated that the complaint did not provide a sufficient basis to meet the definition required under the applicable complaint procedure.
“Complaints that do not meet the definition of inappropriate, unfair or objectionable complaints cannot move forward,” she wrote.
As a result, my complaint against the university president did not proceed to a formal investigation.
Timmons subsequently departed Memorial University in 2023 amid controversy over her claims of Indigenous ancestry.
A later performance audit by Newfoundland and Labrador’s Auditor General also identified concerns regarding expenses incurred during her presidency.
February 2025: Second Complaint Against Jennifer Browne
On February 6, 2025, I filed another formal complaint against Browne, alleging inconsistent, selective and unfair application of the Student Code of Conduct.
The complaint identified several student protests that had occurred before and after my December 2021 protest, including incidents involving criticism of university presidents and other senior administrators.
Among the examples were a May 2017 protest in which students blocked former president Gary Kachanoski from entering a Senate meeting while displaying a large pink slip sign addressed to him, and a December 2022 protest in which students confronted Timmons with a similar sign.
The complaint also referenced demonstrations in 2024, including protests concerning the war in Gaza, signs directed at then-president Neil Bose, and the occupation of the Arts and Administration Building.
I argued that these incidents demonstrated inconsistent enforcement of the Student Code, particularly when compared with the disciplinary action taken against me for silently displaying a protest sign during a university briefing.
The complaint also cited findings from the investigation into my December 2021 protest.
Investigator Kimberley Horwood had examined earlier demonstrations and was told that no Student Code investigations or sanctions had resulted from those incidents because the Code was complaint-driven.
Horwood expressed concern about the resulting inconsistency.
“This is concerning because the Student Code of Conduct should be uniformly applied to all students,” she wrote.
My February 2025 complaint argued that Browne’s handling of my case, when compared with other protests, warranted an independent investigation.
It also referenced statements from former Memorial provost Noreen Golfman, who had criticized Browne’s actions against me as a “real overreach,” and civil liberties advocates who had questioned the severity of the restrictions.
University Declined to Proceed With Second Complaint
On February 20, 2025, Carolyn Parsons, Memorial University’s Respectful Learning Environment Coordinator at Grenfell Campus, responded to my complaint.
Parsons explained that the complaint had been forwarded to her because the designated coordinator at the St. John’s campus reported to the individual against whom the complaint had been filed.
After reviewing the submission, Parsons declined to proceed.
“I cannot proceed any further with this complaint under the RLE policy as it falls outside the prescribed time limits,” she wrote.
Parsons explained that complaints under the policy were required to be submitted within 12 months of the incident.
She characterized the complaint as concerning the Student Code finding against me approximately three years earlier. She noted that students who consider a Student Code decision unjust have a right to appeal.
However, my complaint had also identified more recent examples of protest activity and alleged inconsistent enforcement of the Student Code.
Although Parsons relied on the 12-month limitation period, her response did not separately address my allegations concerning Browne’s handling of more recent protests. As a result, the university declined to investigate whether the Student Code had been applied inconsistently in the years following my December 2021 protest.
Questions About Administrative Accountability
Memorial University declined to proceed with complaints involving two senior administrators.
In January 2022, the university’s general counsel warned that pursuing a complaint against Browne could constitute another Student Code offence.
In March 2022, the university determined that my complaint against Timmons did not meet the applicable threshold for proceeding.
In February 2025, the university declined to proceed with my second complaint against Browne because it considered the matter outside the prescribed filing period.
These decisions raise legitimate questions about whether Memorial’s internal complaint procedures provide students with an effective and independent means of challenging the conduct of senior university officials.
The Supreme Court’s subsequent finding that the university’s disciplinary decision was unreasonable adds further significance to those questions.
Students should be able to criticize university leadership, challenge administrative decisions and submit complaints about university officials without facing the prospect of additional disciplinary proceedings merely for invoking an established complaint process.
Memorial University’s handling of these complaints raises an important question about institutional accountability: Who holds senior university administrators accountable when the university itself decides whether to investigate complaints against them?
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