Declan McCool, who had to resign as vice-president of McGill University's Students' Society after being anonymously accused of secual assault and convicted by an internal tribunal, has successfully settled his $1 million defamation suit against McGill and 10 other defendants.
Former McGill student politician satisfied with defamation settlement | Montreal Gazette - Michelle Lalonde:
Apr 0, 2023 - "Declan McCool, the former vice-president of the Students’ Society of McGill University who successfully appealed a sexual assault complaint by a fellow student, has reached an out-of-court settlement in his defamation suit against his accuser and 10 other defendants. In a suit launched in the fall of 2020, McCool claimed $1.5 million — later reduced to $1 million — for lost income, pain, suffering and damage to his reputation due to the actions or inactions of his accuser, McGill University, the Engineering Undergraduate Society of McGill University (EUS), the Students’ Society of McGill University (SSMU), three SSMU executives, the publisher of the McGill Daily newspaper and three of its editors.
"The amount of the settlement and the details of its negotiation remain confidential, but McCool’s lawyer, Christopher Spiteri, said the matter has been settled to the satisfaction of his client.... Lawyers for McCool’s accuser and for the other defendants declined to comment on the settlement when contacted by the Montreal Gazette last week. Some did, however, issue statements to McCool as part of the settlement....
"In February 2020, McCool, then 24, was acclaimed to the position of VP internal with the SSMU. The job would have paid $35,000 for the term and was to start officially in June. But on March 12, 2020, McCool learned a fellow student had filed an anonymous complaint of sexual violence against him under the SSMU’s then-new All-Faculty Involvement Restriction Policy (IRP). The policy enables the SSMU and student associations to restrict the participation in student events of a person who is found, on a balance of probabilities, to have engaged in discrimination, harassment, violence and/or improper conduct. Although both McCool and his accuser were arts students, the complaint was filed with the Engineering Undergraduate Society.... The EUS appointed four engineering students to investigate the complaint against McCool. On April 2, McCool was informed that the committee had concluded there was a greater than 51 per cent chance that the alleged sexual violence had occurred. As a sanction, he was barred from events organized by student associations where alcohol was served.
"Both McCool and his accuser were bound by confidentiality rules outlined in the IRP, but eight hours after McCool was informed of the decision, an article was published in the McGill Daily revealing the decision against him. The article included an anonymous statement from the complainant calling upon McCool to resign as SSMU VP internal-elect, and on the SSMU to 'release a statement that condemns Declan McCool’s actions and acknowledges the continued prevalence of sexual and gendered violence at McGill.' On April 15, the newspaper published another statement by the anonymous complainant, in which she addressed McCool directly, calling him 'a perpetrator of gendered and sexual violence.' Again, she revealed no details of the allegations. McCool maintains the newspaper did not contact him for comment....
"McCool launched an appeal of the EUS committee decision on April 22. While that appeal was underway, the SSMU suspended him from his position without pay and took steps to have him removed from the position. Three SSMU executive members published a joint statement denouncing McCool and made comments on social media 'portraying him as a sexual predator,' according to the defamation claim. McCool had to step down from the McGill men’s rowing crew after the McGill men’s rowing coach advised other crew members to cut ties with him, and he was ousted from his fraternity housing.
"The EUS appointed an independent investigator, lawyer Anaïs Lacroix, to conduct the appeal.... It was during this appeal process, more than three months after the EUS committee had convicted him, that McCool was informed of the details of the allegations against him. According to Lacroix’s report, McCool and his accuser had met for drinks on Feb. 25, just weeks after he was acclaimed VP, at an off-campus bar. They later went to McCool’s fraternity room, where they had sex that night and again on the morning of Feb. 26.... The complainant alleged McCool did not receive continuous consent from her, and that he choked her, pulled her hair and pinned her down. She alleged she was unable to consent to sexual activity because of her level of intoxication. Since the case did not go to court, none of those accusations have been proved or disproved....
"But Lacroix’s report references screenshots of troubling text messages that the complainant sent to friends on the night of her encounter with McCool, and in the weeks following. At 1:30 a.m. on Feb. 26, the complainant texted friends to say she was considering having sex with either McCool or another SSMU executive. 'Declan it is,' the complainant texted about an hour later. When her friend asked her whether she had followed through, the complainant responded with a photo of a naked McCool, sleeping in bed beside her, according to evidence submitted in the defamation suit.
"The text messages also revealed that the complainant may have had a motive to accuse McCool, Lacroix wrote.... 'Witness testimony and evidence suggest that the complainant had expressed a desire to run for SSMU VP internal — the position that Mr. McCool was elected to'.... Lacroix granted the appeal, concluding that on the balance of probabilities and according to the evidence, McCool did not commit sexual violence against the complainant nor engage in improper conduct, the two were likely equally inebriated and the complainant communicated her consent affirmatively and continuously to McCool.
"McCool was initially given only a two-page summary of Lacroix’s report. He had to go to court to get access to the full report — granted in October 2021 — and again to have it unsealed so that it could be used in his defamation suit. In her Oct. 28, 2022 decision to unseal the report, Superior Court Judge Marie-Christine Hivon wrote: 'The sealing of the entire Lacroix decision constitutes a serious obstacle in (McCool’s) attempt to restore the truth and his reputation, in full view of everyone, and this, considering that Lacroix concludes that the sexual assault charges appear to be unfounded, according to the burden of proof that applies to his case.'
"The McGill Daily did not report — until Monday in its publisher’s statement — that McCool won his appeal of the EUS sanction back in August 2020, nor did it report relevant evidence revealed in the Lacroix report, which has been public since October 2022."
No comments:
Post a Comment