“Competition is the law of the jungle, but cooperation is the law of civilization.”
Peter Kropotkin:
The offer letter bait
Read it carefully as it does not states anything regarding the position except financial information regarding assistant-ship and tuition fees.
Professor name was thrown in there
Email request for ill use of personal account
Direct email with unethical, unacademic and unprofessional misconduct by 1st supervisor. Request to use personal account for personal use and spend my free trial for his affairs.
I am deeply troubled by an unprofessional and unethical request from my 1st supervisor. Attached is an email where they instructed me to:
- Upgrade my personal LinkedIn account to Premium (using my free trial to avoid charges).
- Conduct research on their behalf, including identifying and contacting high-profile professionals (e.g., CEOs, industry leaders) via LinkedIn InMail.
- Send invitations to an event under my name while attaching their files.
This request crosses clear ethical boundaries:
- Misuse of personal accounts for professional gain.
- Exploitation of free trials to avoid institutional costs.
- Misrepresentation (asking me to pose as the sender of official invitations).
Academic supervisors should uphold integrity, not compromise it. Has anyone faced similar demands? How would you address this?
The story with Dr. Kim went for 9 months from January to October.
He restarted my thesis 3 time being 1. Hololens, 2. Vibration-Harvester, 3. Flex-Harvester(impossible-task)
I would have a chance to fail to program threat
Threatened after 6 months into program, just paid the second term about CAD$16000/24000/year. For a 4 minutes lateness washroom stop. Retaliating against me from above email questioning.
I was 4 minutes late to a graduate seminar due to a washroom stop.
My supervisor falsely claimed I gave “wrong information” as an excuse, despite our lab meeting ending well before the seminar.
Threatened me with failing the course, despite no prior warnings or policy violations.
Financial & Academic Stress:
- I am an international student paying $24,000/year in tuition.
- This threat came just after I paid $16,000 for my second term.
Pattern of Unprofessional Behavior:
Now, they are using minor lateness as grounds for academic retaliation.
Previously, my supervisor demanded I misuse my personal LinkedIn account for their professional gain (see attached email).
No email reply or perfunctory addressing
More than 20 emails never replied and much more with perfunctory of mocking replies.
Breach of supervisory duty – Advisors are obligated to provide timely feedback.
Wasted time & resources – Delays due to unresponsiveness cost me months of work.
Academic sabotage – Ignoring thesis-related emails risks my graduation timeline.
Has anyone dealt with similar supervisor neglect? How did you escalate it? Should I:
- File a formal complaint with the Graduate Studies Office?
- Involve the Ombudsperson or Student Union?
- Request a supervisor change again?
Facing severe academic challenges due to consistent neglect and unprofessional behavior from all thesis supervisors at the University of Windsor.
Overruling Tenure
As stated by the rules of supervisor conduct they cannot stop service by will another retaliatory misconduct unaccountable by the Directors and Senate.
The Evidence:
- Admitted Retaliation (See Email):
- “I have come to understand that you have filed a complaint… I am putting my efforts on temporary hold until the issues are resolved.”
- No prior warning—this followed months of delayed feedback (despite my proactive revisions).
- Policy Violation:
- University guidelines explicitly prohibit supervisors from withholding support due to complaints (Senate Policy on Supervisor-Student Relations).
- Tenure does not grant immunity—faculty must uphold academic duties.
- Broader Pattern:
- 🚨 Breaking Protocol: My supervisor at the University of Windsor has unilaterally suspended all thesis support after I filed a formal complaint a clear violation of university policy and ethical obligations.
- Supervisor now weaponizes my complaint to stall my research.
International students are insulting
“International students are insulting. They use words to claim in an offensive act you are an unwelcome immigrant.”
THIS IS:
► Racist Microaggression (targeting immigrant status)
► Retaliation (after I filed complaints about supervision)
► Institutional Betrayal (tenured faculty weaponizing power)
CONTEXT:
1️⃣ First they demanded my private LinkedIn for their gain
2️⃣ Then withheld thesis feedback after my complaint
3️⃣ Now this openly hostile language – exposing their true views
WHY IT MATTERS:
🔴 International students pay $24,000+/year to face discrimination
🔴 Universities profit from us while enabling abuse
🔴 Complaints get buried by bureaucracy
TO OTHER INTERNATIONAL STUDENTS:
You’re not “unwelcome.”
You’re not “insulting.”
Reply “✊” if you’ve faced this – we’re organizing.
Overruling BYLAW-32
You try to engage by the rules asking for a discrimination investigation providing evidences 6 months absent supervisor. They dismiss your claims as if 6 months with no reply is normal, a whole term paid in vain no communication no guidance. Overruling BYLAW-32.
THE BETRAYAL:
My formal Bylaw 32 Petition – documenting:
✅ 6 months of absent supervision (emails ignored)
✅ Threatening conduct from faculty
✅ Procedural violations in thesis defense
Was dismissed because:
🔻 “Complaints about supervision aren’t discrimination“
🔻 “Feedback differs by faculty” (admitting inconsistent standards)
🔻 “Telling you to be on time isn’t harassment” (ignoring context)
THE IRONY:
The same Senate that enforces strict attendance policies for students excuses 6 months of faculty absenteeism after taking $24,000 in tuition.
THIS IS WHY STUDENTS LOSE:
1️⃣ Bylaw 32 is designed to fail – redefines “discrimination” to exclude academic neglect
2️⃣ No accountability for professors – “feedback differs” means no standards
3️⃣ Financial motive – international students pay dearly for non-existent supervision
DEMANDING ACTION:
1️⃣ Full Senate review of Bylaw 32’s exclusion of supervision complaints
2️⃣ Tuition reimbursement for unsupervised terms
3️⃣ Provincial audit of international student treatment
TO IMPACTED STUDENTS:
If you’ve faced:
• Ghosted supervisors
• Dismissed complaints
• Retaliation for speaking up
MEDIA NOTE:
@CBCOmbudsman @TorontoStarEd
#UWindsor protects professors, not students.
Unaware of students under his tenure
This statement was particularly troubling because:
- It’s His Responsibility: As my supervisor, Dr. Novak is expected to be aware of my academic and immigration status. Failing to acknowledge this basic information suggests a lack of attention or care.
- Mocking Implication: By claiming ignorance of my status, Dr. Novak implied that my concerns about my study permit were unwarranted or irrelevant. This came across as dismissive and mocking, especially when juxtaposed against his knowledge of another international student (a Canadian guest) who was present in the lab.
- Impact on Trust: Such comments erode trust in the supervisory relationship. As a student, I rely on my supervisor to guide me through both academic and administrative challenges. His apparent unawareness of my status undermines this foundation.
The Email
Here is a direct excerpt from Dr. Novak’s email:
“Sorry Danillo, I didn’t think about the implication that a leave would have on your study permit. In fact, I didn’t realize that you were on a study permit.”
This statement is particularly problematic because:
- It shifts the blame onto me for something that should have been clear to him.
- It minimizes the importance of my concerns, which are valid and directly affect my ability to continue my studies legally.
Why This Matters
As an international student, my study permit is not just a formality; it is essential for my legal presence in Canada and my ability to complete my degree. Dr. Novak’s claim of ignorance suggests a systemic issue: either he lacks awareness of his responsibilities or he is unwilling to take them seriously.
Call to Action
If anyone else has experienced similar situations with supervisors who fail to acknowledge their responsibilities toward international students, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Together, we can advocate for better support systems and ensure that all students feel valued and respected.
Denied to formally engage in a misconduct application
The Director fakes not to understand my concerns and ask me to submit another email as if that wasn’t the only thing I had done for the last 2, 1/2 years. He is simply denying a legal and academic procedure for investigation another misconduct, another accomplice.
n this video, the Director states clearly: There is no formal complaint method for reporting misconduct.
Let that sink in:
A senior academic leader admits, on camera, that there is no official channel to report wrongdoing — and then uses that very absence to deny your complaint.
This is not oversight. This is systemic failure.
What I’m Reporting
- A pattern of academic misconduct by a faculty member.
- Evidence of an accomplice enabling and covering up unethical behavior.
- Institutional refusal to initiate an investigation — not due to lack of evidence, but due to lack of will.
- A leadership team that hides behind bureaucracy, requesting endless re-submissions while refusing to acknowledge or act.
They invent procedures
My supervisor has created an arbitrary “rebuttal” procedure to justify my failure in the thesis defense process — a procedure that is not outlined in any official bylaw or policy. This invention of rules specifically for me raises serious concerns about fairness, transparency, and academic integrity.
The Issue
- Arbitrary Rebuttal Requirement:
During the thesis defense process, my supervisor, Dr. Colin Novak, introduced a new requirement for me to submit a “rebuttal” document. This document was supposed to detail how I addressed each comment from the committee, with specific references to sections and page numbers in my revised thesis. However, this “rebuttal” procedure is not mentioned in any official university bylaws or policies. It appears to have been invented solely for my case, raising questions about its legitimacy and fairness. - Lack of Precedent:
Bylaws such as Bylaw-55 outline general procedures for appeals and reevaluations but do not specify a formal rebuttal process. My supervisor’s decision to impose this additional requirement without any institutional backing suggests an abuse of power and a deliberate attempt to create unfair conditions for me.
- Impact on Fairness:
Imposing an ad-hoc procedure that is not part of established guidelines undermines the principle of due process. It gives the impression that the supervisor and committee are creating rules on the fly to ensure a predetermined outcome — in this case, my failure. - Disregard for Student Rights:
As a student, I am entitled to clear, transparent, and consistent procedures. By inventing a new requirement mid-process, my supervisor has violated these rights, leaving me at a disadvantage and forcing me to comply with arbitrary demands.
Decision Letter “memo”
Unethical Decision Letter from the Dean: A Vague and Disrespectful Memo
After three years in a 16-month course, I received a decision letter from the Dean that was so vague and unethical it left me feeling disrespected and undervalued. The letter, titled simply as “Memo,” lacked even the full word “memorandum,” reflecting a lack of professionalism and attention to detail. To make matters worse, the document had no watermark, relied solely on a digital signature, and was devoid of any formal structure or institutional branding — further undermining its credibility.
This letter served as the final blow to my investment of time and money in this program. It was not only dismissive but also riddled with inconsistencies and unfair practices. Below, I outline the key issues and provide context for why this situation is deeply concerning.
Key Issues
- Vagueness and Lack of Professionalism
- The letter is titled “Memo” instead of “Memorandum,” which suggests a lack of formality and respect for the gravity of the situation.
- There is no institutional watermark, making it appear informal and unprofessional.
- The reliance on a digital signature without additional verification raises questions about the authenticity and seriousness of the decision.
- Unfair Treatment Regarding Rebuttal Submission
- The Dean’s office created ad-hoc rules for submitting a rebuttal file without clear guidelines or precedent. This arbitrary approach undermines transparency and fairness.
- Despite providing the requested rebuttal file, my submission was ignored, indicating a disregard for due process and my right to respond to the committee’s feedback.
- Disrespectful Language and Implications
- The letter implies that my revisions were “superficial and editorial in nature,” suggesting a lack of substantive effort on my part. However, this characterization is subjective and does not address the technical changes I made.
- The committee’s claim that I “refused” to provide a rebuttal document is misleading. While I did submit a rebuttal, it was never acknowledged or considered.
- Failure to Address Core Concerns
- The letter focuses on minor issues like punctuation and phrasing, while ignoring the technical and conceptual changes I implemented based on previous feedback.
- The decision to fail me hinges on these superficial observations, rather than a comprehensive evaluation of my work.
- Impact on My Investment
- After dedicating three years to this program, receiving such a vague and disrespectful memo feels like a betrayal of trust.
- The Dean’s office has effectively wasted my time and financial resources by failing to provide clear, fair, and transparent communication.
1 – Request to Withdraw
Why This Matters
This situation highlights systemic issues within the academic institution:
Financial and Emotional Impact: For international students like myself, such decisions can have severe financial and psychological consequences, as they disrupt our plans and investments.
Lack of Transparency: The decision lacks detail and fails to explain the reasoning behind the failure, leaving students like me in the dark about where we went wrong.
Disregard for Student Rights: By expelling me without offering an opportunity to appeal or clarify my standing, the university has disregarded my right to due process and fair evaluation.
Bylaw – 55 overrule
Bylaw-55: A Flawed Process That Fails to Deliver Fairness
As mandated by Bylaw-55, I requested a new committee to reevaluate my thesis after receiving an unsatisfactory outcome. However, the process was deeply flawed, as the same committee that initially evaluated my work was tasked with conducting the reevaluation. Predictably, the result remained unchanged — a clear indication of bias or systemic issues within the evaluation process.
This experience has left me feeling disrespected and undervalued, especially given the significant investment of time and resources I have made in this program.
Key Details
- Request for Reevaluation Under Bylaw-55:
According to Bylaw-55, I had the right to request a new committee for a reevaluation of my thesis. This was intended to ensure fairness and objectivity in the assessment process.
Impact on My Investment:
After dedicating years to my studies and investing significant time and financial resources, being subjected to a biased reevaluation process feels like a betrayal of trust. It undermines the institution’s commitment to fairness and academic integrity.
Same Committee Reused:
Despite the mandate for a new committee, the university assigned the exact same panel of evaluators to conduct the reevaluation. This raises serious questions about the integrity of the process, as it effectively negated the purpose of having a fresh perspective.
Predictable Outcome:
As expected, the reevaluation resulted in the same outcome: my thesis was deemed unsatisfactory. The committee’s feedback echoed the initial concerns, suggesting superficial changes and a lack of substantial revisions. However, these claims were not supported by detailed evidence or constructive guidance on how to improve.
2 – Request to withdraw such as was the desire
After investing years into my Master’s program and dedicating myself to producing state-of-the-art research, I was met with an email from the Dean of Graduate Studies that felt like another attempt to affirm what I already knew — that my academic journey at this institution had reached its end. However, the tone and content of the email went beyond mere notification; it seemed designed to humiliate me by questioning my performance, despite the groundbreaking nature of my thesis.
This experience has left me feeling disrespected and undervalued, especially given the significant investment of time, effort, and resources I have made in this program.
This situation highlights systemic issues within the academic institution:
- Disrespect for Student Achievements: By failing to recognize the quality of my work, the Dean’s office has shown a lack of appreciation for the contributions students make to their fields.
- Unfair Treatment: The focus on minor issues while ignoring the broader significance of my thesis raises questions about fairness and objectivity in the evaluation process.
- Emotional Impact: Such language can have a profound emotional toll on students, especially those who have invested heavily in their education and research.
Call to Action
If anyone else has experienced similar situations where academic institutions have failed to recognize the value of their work or have used language that feels dismissive, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Together, we can advocate for better policies and ensure that students are treated with the respect and dignity they deserve.
Total account of my – “Investment”
The university’s website advertised this program as ‘affordable,’ citing costs of approximately CAD$32,000.00. However, the total expenses have now reached nearly CAD$65,000.00—double the amount I had budgeted for. Despite this financial burden, I have encountered nothing but stonewalling, a complete lack of empathy, and outright academic misconduct. The administration has systematically disregarded the very laws and policies designed to protect student welfare, demonstrating a blatant disregard for ethics and institutional accountability.
This exploitative practice not only breaches contractual fairness but also violates the trust students place in the institution an egregious failure of academic integrity.
Where Is the Accountability?
Despite submitting formal concerns, rebuttals, and evidence of misconduct, the administration:
- Refused to initiate a proper investigation.
- Reused the same committee for re-evaluation, violating Bylaw-55.
- Closed my file without due process.
- Allowed a non-gradable course to remain “In Progress” for three years.
- Issued a withdrawal order based on flawed reasoning — while profiting from my continued enrollment.
And now, I’m expected to walk away — with a failed thesis, a required withdrawal on my record, and no refund, no explanation, and no justice.
This Is Not Just About Money
It’s about:
- Transparency: Students deserve accurate cost projections.
- Fair Process: No one should be failed by a system that ignores its own rules.
- Dignity: After investing everything — time, money, health — students deserve to be treated with respect, not discarded.
Fake -Misconduct – Trial
In September 2024, my supervisor filed a misconduct allegation against me, citing errors in my thesis that resulted from their own lack of support. This video serves as undeniable proof of the committee’s blatant disregard for my supplementary evidence—none of which violates any actual rule or code of conduct. Despite this, I have faced repeated threats of expulsion, which would result in the total loss of my academic and financial investment. This treatment stems purely from discrimination, unethical behavior, and a shocking lack of professionalism.
The video exposes not just negligence, but deliberate cruelty. The committee’s actions are corrosive and cowardly a transparent attempt to fabricate misconduct and force my expulsion without justification.
Key highlights from the video:
- Violation of Bylaw 32: My supervisor knowingly disregarded established laboratory protocols to fabricate a false misconduct allegation. This act was aimed at tarnishing my reputation and undermining my academic standing.
- Adjudicator Lori Buchanan’s Dismissal of Evidence: During the hearing, Adjudicator Lory Bukana openly stated, “I don’t care about your submissions or rebuttals,” before leaving the meeting. Her dismissive attitude underscores the unethical practices and systemic failures within the institution.
- Corrosive and Cowardly Actions: The committee’s actions were not only negligent but also deliberately cruel. Their transparent attempt to fabricate misconduct and force my expulsion without justification reflects a deep-seated lack of integrity.
Bylaw-31 – “Misconduct”
I want to clearly explain the context behind the citations that were flagged during my thesis defense — not to excuse oversight, but to correct a false narrative that has been used to justify an unjust investigation and personal retaliation.
The references in question were never intended as deliberate fabrications. They were used temporarily as placeholders during the drafting phase of my thesis — a common practice among researchers when organizing ideas before finalizing citations. I selected these placeholder references because their titles and themes were very close to the actual papers I had read and intended to cite. In many cases, the journals and author names were real — only the titles were slightly mismatched due to formatting errors or confusion during the final editing process.
When the time came to submit my final thesis, I corrected the majority of these placeholder references. However, due to the intense time pressure and the proximity of the incorrect citations to the real sources, a few remained unchanged. This was not an act of deception — it was an honest oversight, amplified by stress, lack of supervision, and the absence of timely feedback from my supervisor.
This Is Exactly What the “Teachable Moment” Policy Exists For
The University of Windsor’s official Teachable Moment policy states:
“A teachable moment is an opportunity for a student to learn from a mistake in academic integrity, rather than being penalized as if the act were intentional misconduct. (including failure to document,insufficient or inaccurate citations, among those weaknesses)”
This is precisely the kind of situation the policy was designed to address.
- A student makes a citation error.
- The error stems from confusion, inexperience, or time pressure — not dishonesty.
- The proper response is education, not accusation.
Yet instead of treating this as a learning opportunity, my supervisor — who never read my thesis — seized on these errors to file a formal misconduct complaint under Bylaw-31. This was not about academic integrity. It was about control, retaliation, and obstruction.
He had already delayed my progress for years.
He refused to engage in meaningful supervision.
And when I moved forward without his approval, he responded by trying to crucify me over minor, correctable citation issues — issues the university itself says should be handled with guidance, not punishment.
A System Designed to Protect, Used to Harm
The “teachable moment” framework exists to protect students like me — especially graduate students working under pressure, often without adequate mentorship. But in this case, it was ignored. Instead, a policy meant for fairness was bypassed in favor of a punitive, personal agenda.
I did not falsify sources.
I did not plagiarize.
I did not act in bad faith.
I made a mistake — one that could have been corrected in a five-minute conversation. Instead, it was escalated into a formal investigation that threatens my academic future, my career, and my family’s well-being.
This specific point—that an instructor has falsely attested to meeting with a student—is a direct challenge to the integrity of the academic misconduct process outlined in Bylaw 31. It suggests that the formal procedure was not followed correctly, which could be grounds for appealing any resulting decision based on procedural unfairness.
This is not justice.
It is the abuse of a system meant to educate.
Misconduct
Normal for a non gradable W2022 Course to stay as if in progress “IP” in W2025, three year later. Even getting 95GPA in 2022 a grade evaluated graduate level course.
This situation highlights systemic issues within the university:
- Lack of Transparency: Students are expected to navigate these problems independently, often without clear guidance or support.
- Administrative Oversight: The persistence of such errors over multiple years indicates a failure to monitor and correct academic records promptly.
- Impact on Student Reputation: An inaccurate transcript can harm a student’s professional reputation, especially when applying for jobs, scholarships, or further studies.
Fake Linked-In account to harass me.
In this post the alleged professor falsified a user account to harass me and criticize me unhappy after bribing my wife and not having me jailed as he wished.
Borrowing time
In this Video from July 2022 the Dean asks what has happened and why I’m having trouble.
I explain I’m in the wrong course with a professor that said the laboratory money is his and he does as he pleases after buying all equipment I needed for my research and asking to change topic.
Denied misconduct application
In this video, the Director states clearly: There is no formal complaint method for reporting misconduct.
This is not oversight. This is systemic failure.
In this video the Dean acknowledges that something is wrong with my profile registration in the system and something was wrong on my admission letter.
The second assault
In this video the Dean now asks what is the problem with my second supervisor.
I told him he does not reply emails or plan for meetings he provided broken equipment and placed me in a different laboratory than other students, I call it the dumpster.
In spite of my research being over qualified for his students standards.
In this video the Dean asks Dr.Novak what is wrong.
Listen to his talk….
Created an institutional email harass me.
In this very same website the institution is now using the institutional email to harass me. Available at: -> https://stopuwindsor.wordpress.com/comment
Falsified claims of reputation damage with no legal standing!
In this email the ResearchGate support is taking my paper from view from claims of reputation damage.
The legal way is when the university sue me for that not just call their friends to exclude me.
University of Windsor Overrule – Bylaws
and collude with police to protect child abductors…
This is not just my story.
This is a case study in institutional betrayal of broken promises, invented rules, silenced voices, and the exploitation of trust.
Over the past three years, I have done everything a student is supposed to do:
I worked diligently.
I sought guidance.
I followed procedures.
I documented every step.
And when doors were closed, I knocked louder.
This experience has not only cost me $65,000 and three years of relentless effort — it has also cut deeply into my future.
The same referees who once supported my admission into this Master’s program have now made it clear they will not support me in future applications. Not because of my work — which I stand by as rigorous and original — but because of how the institution chose to end my journey: unfairly, without due process, and with no regard for the truth.
This decision doesn’t just close one chapter — it threatens to close all doors.
No references mean no PhD programs.
No academic opportunities.
No clear path forward.
And it’s not just my career that suffers.
My family has sacrificed alongside me — emotionally, financially, and across borders.
Their hopes, tied to my education, now carry the weight of this injustice.
This wasn’t just a failed defense.
It was a systematic dismantling of trust, support, and opportunity — and its consequences reach far beyond a single degree.
I share this not for pity, but so that no one else has their future dismissed so easily.
When I was misled, I asked for clarity.
When I was failed, I appealed.
When I was accused, I defended.
When I was ignored, I recorded.
When I was isolated, I reached out.
And now — after over 3,000 emails and documents, countless meetings, hearings, rebuttals, and appeals — I stand not with a degree, but with a mountain of evidence proving a pattern of academic misconduct, administrative negligence, and ethical collapse at the University of Windsor.
I recorded every meeting not out of distrust, but out of necessity.
Because every time I spoke, I was dismissed.
Every time I submitted proof, it was ignored.
Every time I followed policy, new rules were invented to invalidate me.
They claimed I didn’t submit a rebuttal — so I created one.
They said the committee was impartial — but reused the same members, violating Bylaw-55.
They demanded accountability from me — while refusing to answer for themselves.
And when I asked for justice, the system responded with silence.
While charging me nearly double the advertised tuition.
So I took my case beyond the university.
I have formally submitted my evidence to:
- The Office of the Ombudsman
- The Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) and RCMP
- LECA (Legal Aid)
- The Ministry of Colleges and Universities Inspectorate
- Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC)
- The Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario (HRTO)
- And relevant consular and embassy representatives
Because this is no longer just about a thesis.
It’s about integrity in education.
It’s about fair process for international students.
It’s about holding institutions accountable when they abuse power.
I no longer seek to be reinstated.
I seek to be heard.
I seek transparency.
I seek reform – so no other student has to endure what I have.
Falsified Assault Accusations and Immigration Implications
Beyond the academic misconduct I have endured, my family has suffered further injustice due to baseless assault accusations made by my wife, Noemi Ferreira. These allegations unsupported by any evidence appear to have been strategically used to manipulate custody proceedings and prolong her unauthorized stay in Canada.
My dependent permit expired in January 2025, and her Temporary Resident Permit application was rightfully denied. Yet, she continues to reside and work in Canada, potentially with institutional support from the University of Windsor. The involvement of the university’s legal team in her immigration matters raises serious concerns about conflict of interest, particularly given my documented complaints against the university’s academic misconduct.
This situation has had severe repercussions:
An unjust arrest warrant bars me from returning to Canada.
My Hague Convention application has been delayed.
I have been unlawfully denied access to my son, Isaac, for 275+ days (since January 12, 2025).
The exploitation of legal and immigration systems to suppress my complaints and restrict my parental rights demands immediate scrutiny by Canadian immigration authorities and the courts. This is not just an attack on my academic and professional future it is a violation of justice and family rights that must be addressed.
If you have been silenced, misled, or failed by a system that claims to educate but only protects itself — you are not alone.
My evidence is open. My story is public. And I invite you to join me.
This is a complete list of filed claims.
This is not the end.
It is the beginning of accountability.
Comprehensive List of Breached Laws
Brazilian Laws Breached
Law/Statute
Breach Description
Law No. 12,318/2010 (Parental Alienation Law)
Misused to penalize protective actions against abuse; in your case, Noemi’s alienation of Isaac (e.g., denying contact) constitutes interference in psychological development, punishable by custody changes or fines, yet not enforced despite evidence. UN Special Rapporteur calls for repeal as it weaponizes claims against mothers reporting abuse.
Law No. 13,431/2017 (Specialized Hearing Law)
References to parental alienation undermine child abuse reports; breaches child protection by ignoring Isaac’s harm from separation and potential exposure to unstable environment.
Brazilian Penal Code (Decree-Law No. 2,848/1940), Article 339 (False Denunciation)
False assault claim by Noemi led to your arrest without evidence; this constitutes false reporting to authorities, punishable by 2-8 years imprisonment.
Brazilian Civil Code (Law No. 10,406/2002), Article 1,631 (Custody Rights)
Violated by Noemi’s retention of Isaac, denying joint custody and causing alienation; in Brazil, alienation can lead to custody reversal.
Brazilian Penal Code, Article 240 (Child Endangerment)
Exposing Isaac to harm through alienation and unstable immigration status; punishable by detention or fines.
Canadian Laws Breached
Law/Statute
Breach Description
Community Safety and Policing Act, 2019 (CSPA), s. 153 (Misconduct)
WPS officers failed to investigate assault/breach reports (e.g., March 3/27, 2025), dismissed fraud as “civil matters,” and imposed barriers based on your location; IOP dismissal (25-312) without review breaches mandate for compliance oversight.
Criminal Code of Canada, s. 139 (Obstruction of Justice)
WPS and University obstructed investigations (e.g., no call recordings accessed in LECA E-202508061313578590); false claims by Noemi led to your arrest without probing evidence.
Criminal Code, s. 131-132 (Perjury/False Statements)
Noemi’s unsubstantiated assault claim (WPS 113228) constitutes false statements to authorities, punishable by up to 14 years.
Criminal Code, s. 140 (Public Mischief)
Fabricated claims diverted police resources; Noemi’s actions caused wrongful prosecution.
Ontario Human Rights Code, s. 1 (Services)
Discrimination in police/university services based on origin/citizenship (e.g., location barriers, retaliation against immigrant complainant).
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 7 (Life, Liberty, Security)
Wrongful arrest and prolonged alienation violated due process; delays in custody case (FS-25-00025167-0000) caused harm without justification.
Charter, s. 15 (Equality)
Discriminatory treatment as immigrant (e.g., denied Legal Aid, police inaction).
Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA), s. 41 (Overstay)
Noemi’s illegal presence post-visa expiry (Jan 30, 2025); University employing her breaches s. 124 (employing undocumented).
Children’s Law Reform Act, s. 24 (Best Interests)
Court ignored alienation harm to Isaac, denying psychiatric evaluation; breaches child welfare priorities.
Family Law Act, s. 28 (Custody)
Failure to enforce contact provision in restraining order.
International Laws Breached
Law/Statute
Breach Description
Hague Convention on Child Abduction (1980), Article 13(b) (Grave Risk)
Wrongful retention of Isaac; failure to recognize abuse/alienation as “grave risk” or “intolerable situation,” ignoring Noemi’s false claims and instability.
Hague Convention, Article 12 (Prompt Return)
Delays in custody case exceed 6-week timeline; breaches obligation for swift resolution.
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Article 9 (Separation)
Unjustified separation from father; alienation violates family unity.
CRC, Article 19 (Protection from Abuse)
Exposing Isaac to emotional harm through alienation; no protection from unstable environment.
CRC, Article 12 (Child’s Voice)
Court ignored Isaac’s potential harm; no evaluation despite requests.
UN Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), Article 16 (Family Relations)
Gender bias in misuse of alienation claims against mothers reporting abuse.
UN Convention against Corruption, Article 25 (Obstruction)
Potential deceit/false evidence in claims, obstructing justice.
This list is based on case facts and research; actual breaches require legal determination. For escalation, consider judicial review (Divisional Court) or complaints to UN bodies (e.g., CRC Committee).
Stop University of Windsor 
Leave a comment