Harassment complaint ...
In June 2011, I submitted a harassment complaint against Robert Hilts, Patrick Sullivan, and David Higgins (the respondents). The investigation into my harassment complaint dragged on slowly because the respondents "had difficultly finding time to meet with the harassment investigator." Indeed, I was forced out of MacEwan just before the external investigator issued his report (probably not coincidental).
During his investigation, the investigator collected both oral and written submissions. He then allowed the parties to review and respond to the evidence submitted by other (in effect, a cross-examination). I was shocked by the false and misleading statements submitted by the respondents. The respondents were clearly not expecting me to ever see their responses. Below is a summary of the false and misleading submissions, and contemporary evidence proving their submissions false. This document was submitted to the harassment investigator as part of my cross-examination submissions.
Summary of the respondent submissions
This is the only opportunity I had to see and respond to the evidence submitted by others, and it is evident that the respondents readily provided false and misleading statements to justify their actions. The internal investigations conducted by Higgins, May, and Paterson-Weir were closed, with little to zero opportunity to see and respond to evidence submitted by others. Given how readily and how significantly the respondents lied to the harassment investigator, I openly question the veracity of the evidence they submitted during other investigations or the neutrality of Higgins' investigations.
And through all this, the FA Executive refused to get involved.