Stop University of Windsor

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:

1. Upgrade my personal LinkedIn account to Premium (using my free trial to avoid charges).
2. Conduct research on their behalf, including identifying and contacting high-profile professionals (e.g., CEOs, industry leaders) via LinkedIn InMail.
3. 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?

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:

1. 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).
2. 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.
3. 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.

Colluded with CLA

University of Windsor & Legal Aid Collude to Force False Guilty Plea

THE SITUATION:
1️⃣ False Allegation: Accused of “academic misconduct” for unintentional citation errors in my thesis.
2️⃣ Legal Coercion: Community Legal Aid (CLA) pressured me to plead guilty despite:

• No intent to deceive
• Errors not meeting misconduct threshold
• My full cooperation in corrections

THE EVIDENCE (See Attached):
🔹 CLA’s letter admits they recommended a guilty plea before hearing my full defense.
🔹 University provided no evidence of intentional wrongdoing – only technical errors.

WHY THIS IS WRONG:
⚠️ Violates Due Process: Presumes guilt without proving intent (required by academic integrity policies).
⚠️ Exploits Vulnerable Students: International students pressured into false confessions to avoid deportation risks.
⚠️ Systemic Bias: Tenured faculty/Senate complaints ignored, but minor citation errors trigger extreme punishment.

Even after explaining to the CLA my mistake was not intentional and even so it was not characterized as misconduct this was their letter.

Colluded with CLA

After being falsely accused without evidence for falsifying data and requesting help from CLA to address this accusations, the CLA offered me to plea for guilty after questioning their impartiality they dropped my case.

🚨 ACADEMIC SABOTAGE: University of Windsor & Legal Aid Collude to Force Thesis Rewrite After False Misconduct Charges

THE TRAP:
1️⃣ False Allegation: Accused of “ghost references” with zero evidence of intent
2️⃣ Legal Betrayal: Community Legal Aid (CLA):

• Pushed guilty plea despite no misconduct proof
• Dropped my case when I questioned their bias
  3️⃣ Institutional Harassment: Now demanding full thesis rewrite regardless of misconduct outcome

THE SMOKING GUN (Attached):
🔹 CLA letter admits UWindsor ordered rewrite before appeal decision
🔹 Chair’s report suddenly cites new “revisions” – never mentioned during defense
🔹 No due process: Punishment imposed before proving allegations

THIS IS RETALIATION FOR:
• Filing complaints against supervisors
• Refusing false guilty plea
• Exposing unethical conduct

DEMANDING ACTION:
1️⃣ Immediate halt to rewrite demand
2️⃣ Law Society complaint against CLA for:
Conflict of interest
Coercing guilty pleas
3️⃣ Provincial investigation into UWindsor’s targeting of international students

TO OTHER STUDENTS:
If you’ve faced:
• Accusations
• Pressure to confess
• Sudden post-complaint thesis demands

MEDIA NOTE:
@CBCOmbudsman @TorontoStar
#UWindsor is weaponizing academia against whistleblowers.

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.

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

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.

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

1. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Police – “Involvement”

Over the past months, I have repeatedly reported serious misconduct by my supervisor and other university officials to the Windsor Police Service (WPS). Despite multiple reports, including allegations of fraud, obstruction of justice, and threats, these cases have been consistently dismissed as “civil matters” without any investigation. Meanwhile, unrelated incidents involving my family have been treated with far greater seriousness — highlighting a glaring double standard.

Key Incidents and Police Responses

1. Fraud Reports Against My Supervisor
   • Tracking Numbers: T24009856, T25001116
   • Incident Type: Fraud – General
   • Details: I reported my supervisor for abstaining from service and failing to fulfill their duties as an academic advisor. These actions directly impacted my ability to complete my program and were part of a broader pattern of neglect and retaliation.
   • Outcome: The WPS classified these reports as civil matters, refusing to investigate despite clear evidence of institutional malfeasance.
2. Obstruction of Justice and Mischief by Legal Services Director
   • Tracking Numbers: T25006255, T25006257
   • Incident Type: Misconduct, Obstruction of Justice
   • Details: I filed complaints against the Director of Legal Services for mischief, obstruction of justice, and unlawful denial/rejection of my Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy (FIPPA) requests. These denials prevented me from accessing critical documents related to my case, further delaying justice.
   • Outcome: Again, the WPS dismissed these reports as civil matters, ignoring the potential criminal implications of obstructing justice and violating privacy laws.
3. False Allegations Against My Wife
   • Incident Type: False Allegation of Aggression
   • Details: My wife was falsely accused of aggression, and the police took this matter very seriously, even without evidence. This incident has had significant consequences for our family, including the alienation of our son.
   • Outcome: While the police pursued this false allegation aggressively, they refused to investigate the much more serious claims of institutional fraud and obstruction of justice.
4. Threats and Harassment via Institutional Email
   • Details: Recently, I reported a direct threat made through a comment section on this online platform. The individual used an institutional email address to reference themselves, clearly linking the threat to the university.
   • Outcome: When I reported this to the WPS, they immediately rejected my complaint upon learning it involved the university. They claimed it was outside their jurisdiction, despite the clear threat and use of official university credentials.
   • Action Taken: I subsequently reported the official responsible to the Law Enforcement Complaints Agency (LECA) under tracking number E-202508061313578590.

Why This Matters

This situation highlights systemic failures in both the university and law enforcement:

• University Neglect: Officials are using their positions to obstruct justice, deny access to information, and retaliate against students who challenge their authority.
• Police Dismissal: The WPS is refusing to investigate serious crimes simply because they involve a university. This approach undermines public safety and accountability, especially for international students like myself who lack local legal support.
• Double Standards: While minor allegations against my family are taken seriously, major institutional violations go unaddressed. This disparity raises questions about fairness and transparency.

Legal Challenges

I have attempted to seek legal recourse through private counsel but have faced significant barriers:

• No lawyer in town would take a case against the university due to its perceived immunity or complexity.
• The university’s refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing leaves me with no viable legal path forward.

Call to Action

If anyone else has experienced similar situations where universities or law enforcement fail to address serious misconduct, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Together, we can advocate for better policies, transparency, and accountability within academic institutions and law enforcement agencies.

LECA – Response

LECA’s Key Findings and Decision:

1. No Investigation Conducted: The letter explicitly states that LECA has not investigated your complaint. This is because they determined, at the initial screening stage, that it was not in the public interest to proceed.
2. Reason for Non-Investigation – “Not in the Public Interest”: The primary reason for closing your file without an investigation is that LECA’s Complaints Director determined that your complaint “is not in the public interest to cause your complaint to be investigated.” This is a legal threshold under the Community Safety and Policing Act (CSPA). It means LECA believes the matter does not warrant the use of public resources for a formal investigation based on the information you provided.
3. Jurisdictional Limitation: The letter also clarifies a critical point: LECA only has jurisdiction over police officers, special constables, and peace officers as defined by the CSPA. It does not have jurisdiction over civilian employees of a police service. The letter notes it is unclear whether the individuals you spoke with were civilian employees or sworn officers, but even if they were civilians, LECA could not investigate them.
4. No Appeal Process: The letter is very clear that there is no right to appeal this decision within the LECA system. The CSPA does not provide for an appeal from the classification and screening decisions made by LECA.
5. Only Recourse: Judicial Review: The sole legal avenue available to challenge this decision is to apply for a judicial review in the Divisional Court. This is a complex legal process that typically requires hiring a lawyer and involves proving that LECA’s decision was unreasonable or made in error of law.

In Summary:

LECA has formally closed your file without conducting any investigation. Their stated reason is that, based on the information you submitted, pursuing your complaint would not serve the public interest. They have also highlighted that their authority does not extend to investigating civilian staff at the Windsor Police Service.

Collusion with My Wife to Fabricate False Allegations: A Strategy to Get Rid of Me.

This behavior reflects a disturbing pattern of abuse of power, exploitation of legal processes, and disregard for due process — all aimed at silencing me and undermining my efforts to seek justice.

The Incident

On January 12th, I received a Release Order from the Ontario Court of Justice, City of London, Canada, which outlines charges of Assault and Utter Threat filed against me. These charges were based on fabricated claims made by my wife, Noemi Ferreira Gaspar, despite there being no evidence to support these allegations. The release order includes conditions that restrict my ability to communicate with or be near my family, further exacerbating the stress and chaos in my life.

Key Concerns

1. Fabricated Allegations:
   The charges of assault and utter threat are entirely false. There is no credible evidence supporting these claims, yet they have been used as a tool to create additional barriers for me. This appears to be part of a coordinated effort to silence me and deter me from pursuing legitimate grievances against the university.
2. Collusion Between My Wife and the University:
   It is clear that my wife was encouraged or pressured to make these false allegations as part of a broader strategy to remove me from the institution. This collusion undermines the integrity of both the legal system and the academic environment, creating a toxic atmosphere where students’ rights are sacrificed for institutional convenience.
3. Impact on My Life:
   • Legal Restrictions: The release order imposes significant restrictions on my ability to interact with my family, including my son. This not only disrupts my personal life but also adds unnecessary emotional strain.
   • Academic Progress: These false allegations have further delayed my academic progress, as they distract me from focusing on resolving the underlying issues of discrimination, academic misconduct, and institutional negligence.
   • Financial Burden: Defending myself against these baseless charges adds to the financial burden I’ve already faced due to the university’s failures.
4. Abuse of Legal Processes:
   The university appears to be exploiting its influence to leverage legal systems against me. Instead of addressing legitimate concerns about academic misconduct and discrimination, they are using fabricated claims to create a narrative that discredits me and protects their own interests.

Evidence

Here is a direct excerpt from the Release Order:

“IT IS ORDERED THAT YOU BE RELEASED UPON SIGNING:”

Charges:

1. ASSAULT
2. UTTER THREAT

This document serves as undeniable proof of the false allegations and the restrictive conditions imposed on me. The fact that these charges were filed without any credible evidence raises serious questions about the motives behind this action.

Why This Matters

This situation highlights systemic issues within the institution:

• Lack of Accountability: Universities should be held accountable for their actions, especially when they involve discrimination, academic misconduct, and retaliation. Instead, this institution is using its influence to avoid responsibility.
• Exploitation of Legal Systems: The misuse of legal processes to silence dissenters sets a dangerous precedent and erodes public trust in both academia and law enforcement.
• Impact on International Students: As an international student, I am particularly vulnerable to such exploitation. Institutions profit from my enrollment while offering little protection when things go wrong.

Call to Action

If anyone else has experienced similar situations where universities or institutions have used legal or administrative tools to silence or harass students, I’d appreciate hearing from you. Together, we can advocate for better policies, transparency, and accountability within academic institutions and ensure that students’ voices are heard.