I represent one of the infamous Dal Dental 13. His name is Ryan Millet.

Normally I represent my clients in a court of law, not the court of public opinion. These
circumstances are different. I have advised my client that there is little value in winning
the easy battle on suspension, if he loses the subsequent war on dental licensing and
the trust of his patients.
Like his 12 classmates, Ryan has been publicly pilloried and secretly convicted, without
due process or the right to be heard. At least three separate times in the last month, a
Dental School internal process has met behind closed doors and found him guilty of
blatant unprofessionalism, without once demanding a due diligence investigation or
offering the opportunity to be heard.
Ryan is not misogynistic, sexist or homophobic. He is neither hateful nor disrespectful
towards his female classmates. He does not defend the unacceptable comments that
were made on Facebook. He recognizes the hurt those comments have inflicted on his
female classmates, and others. He was the one who blew the whistle on those
comments.
Ryan, alone amongst the Facebook Group, took a vocal stand against those offensive
posts. He alone forced the removal of earlier Facebook entries that were similarly
disrespectful. In earlier days, he spoke to Faculty about disrespectful attitudes and
incidents at the Dental School, long before the media became involved. Those tests of
character explain why anonymous Student AB, the primary female target of the hateful
Facebook poll, will tell Ryans Discipline Committee she supports his legal efforts to
have his suspension expunged from his student records.
In the rush to quench the unquenchable public thirst for retribution, no one stopped to
interview the victims, or the alleged perpetrators, to determine which students were truly
culpable. Instead, a cloak of unprofessional misconduct was conveniently cast over all
Facebook members. Then, both perpetrators and victims alike were prematurely enticed
into a restorative justice system which started with acceptance of guilt. To be clear, my
client agrees restorative justice is an invaluable legal and social tool for those guilty of
unprofessional conduct. However, that tool should only be used after there has been a
due diligence finding of guilty conduct, not assumption of guilt by association with
others.
The original Complaint from Student AB should have been processed as requested,
formally and outside the Dental School. Instead, Dal tried to cajole victims and
perpetrators alike into a premature restorative justice process. It was to be a behindclosed-doors process that was confidential and without prejudice. It required victims,
perpetrators and other classmates to sit down and talk with each other, before any
investigation had been conducted or discipline invoked. Some call that re-victimization.
There was a better way, that would not have further victimized those who felt
threatened, including my client as whistleblower. A prompt investigation could have led
1

to the interim suspension of the readily identifiable offenders. Student calm could have
been preserved and student safety reassured. Exams could have been finished. In the
fullness of time, a more proper investigation into systemic student and faculty attitudes
could have been conducted, fairly.
Instead, the perpetrators were allowed to remain in the classroom for a week. The
primary victim was isolated and outed to her peers by the insensitive security steps that
Dal took to separate her from her classmates. From that point, things unraveled rapidly,
when the story was leaked and damage control took precedence over protocols for
student discipline. Like the wild-west, it became shoot first and ask questions later. My
client, and others in his class of both genders, became collateral damage.
From there, bloggers, tweeters, politicians, editorial writers, coffee pot gatherers and
Joe/Jane Public have all opined on the various ways in which these students, including
Ryan, can and should be made to suffer. One of the silver linings in this dark cloud of
procedural unfairness: Canadians are now openly discussing the societal presence of
misogyny.
My client understands that he cannot plead for public understanding and the trust of his
patients if he remains hidden behind his right to student privacy. Consequently, he
requested that his disciplinary hearing this Tuesday be made public, so that his fellow
students could hear firsthand his story and his perspective. That request was denied,
despite his promise to protect the identities of others from public disclosure.
Ryan is a happily married, young man with three young children. He tries to be devout
in his Christian faith. He is neither saint nor sinner. When he is not cramming for
exams, his Family and his faith are his anchor. He does not consume alcohol or drugs.
While he confesses to letting slip the occasional curse word, he believes in treating all
Gods children respectfully. Before dental school, he spent two years providing
volunteer service to others, including assisting the elderly, the indigent and those whose
lives were being destroyed by alcohol and drugs. He is a typical struggling student,
caught in the crossfire of something that has acquired a life of its own, beyond his
control.
In an early effort to restore peace and trust amongst his classmates, Ryan was the one
who put his name to a widely circulated, signed letter of apology to his classmates. It
was repentant in tone and was seeking forgiveness from his female classmates for not
having been stronger in his efforts to dissuade., That heartfelt apology was not an
admission of professional misconduct. It was an attempt to heal.
Ryan Millet was the whistleblower who has said enough is enough. When the repugnant
hate ballot was placed on the Facebook Group, it was Ryan who told his female friend
she was being targeted. He promised her that he would try to have the offending
classmates apologize, and mean it. He failed. Consequently, he resigned from the
Facebook Group and gave her access to his account, so that she would have the
evidence required for her Complaint. The rest is history.
2

Despite the unfairness of his treatment, Ryan Millet seeks no harm to Dalhousie. It has
already paid a high a price for its mishandling of complaints, past and present. He
believes the Presidents Task Force is a step in the right direction. For Ryan, he just
wants to get back to his books and his patients. He wants his fellow students to have
the same legal fairness that he demands. He pleads with all members of the public to
exercise patience and let the student disciplinary process take its course, without the
influence of indignation, however well-intended.
Bruce MacIntosh, Q.C. is a former President of the Nova Scotia Barristers Society, practicing litigation at Mac, Mac & Mac Law
Offices in New Glasgow, NS.