Newsletter

September 2025

Thompson Rivers University Uses a Harassment Investigation to Block FOI Requests

Derek Pyne

This article will recount a case of Thompson Rivers University (TRU)
using a harassment investigation to try to block Freedom of Information
(FOI) requests they deemed as portraying the institution in an
unfavourable way.

It will also highlight the fact that TRU has either openly, or by
implication, denied that two of the most obvious predatory publishers
and conference organizers in the world are illegitimate.

FOI Requests and TRU’s Response

In April 2017, I published a paper about the widespread publishing in
predatory journals by TRU’s business school faculty (Pyne, 2017a). For
the uninitiated, predatory journals claim to be peer reviewed but in
reality simply publish papers in exchange for payment from authors. I
followed this paper with an op-ed on the subject (Pyne, 2017b).

TRU did not take much notice of my paper until the media started
reporting on it (see, for example, Kolata, 2017), at which time they
retaliated against me. This retaliation has been widely reported in the
media (e.g., Scientific Journals, 2018; Todd, 2018a; Barns,
2018; Mason, 2018). Although I intend to write about the retaliation, I
will leave that for another time.

Later, I decided to investigate the possibilities for expanding my
research to predatory conferences. Predatory conferences have been
described as academic vacation planners. The conferences themselves have
no academic merit but they are usually in desirable locations. This
allows academics to submit travel expenses to their employers and thus
subsidize vacation travel. They can also claim credit for conference
presentations.

For predatory journals, a number of lists exist that identify them.
This is not true for predatory conferences. Thus, I started by
identifying a couple of obvious cases: OMICS International and the World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology (WASET). The journals of
both organizations are included on every list of predatory journals I
have encountered.

India-based OMICS International is the largest predatory journal
publisher and predatory conference organizer in the world. The American
Federal Trade Commission obtained a judgement against OMICS for $50.1
million (Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc., 2019).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit upheld this
judgement (Federal Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc.,
2020).

At the time, WASET’s predatory conferences were attracting a lot of
attention in the media (e.g., Todd, 2018b; Grove, 2018). Today, even
Google’s AI application identifies it as a predatory publisher.

My first action was to search the website of both organizations for
authors affiliated with TRU. I recorded every TRU presenter I found.
Most were from the nursing school, which is a faculty made up primarily
of women. A few were from education and economics. I also found others
from TRU listed but, as these individuals were not presenters (e.g.,
members of “International Scientific Committees”), I ignored them.

I likely would have eventually moved on to other predatory conference
organizers but first I wanted to get an idea of the cost of these
presentations to the public. Thus, I submitted Freedom of Information
Requests (FOI) to TRU for the presenters’ conference expenses. Under the
Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) there are
many exceptions that public bodies can use to avoid providing
information sought through FOI Requests. However, in this case, none of
the exceptions applied, even as debating points. This forced TRU to
become imaginative.

Initially, TRU did not provide a response. I filed a request for the
Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
(OIPC) to review this failure as a Deemed Refusal. OIPC
expedites the review process for deemed refusals so they only take a few
months rather than years to reach the inquiry stage. TRU responded by
having their then Human Resources (HR) Director Larry Phillips file a
harassment complaint on the grounds that some of the FOI’s were for
female faculty conference expenses. I will note that under Section 32 of
FIPPA rules (and TRU’s stated privacy policy for processing FOIs),
Phillips should not have even been aware of the requests.

TRU’s HR department arranged for Sarah Chamberlain from Southern
Butler Price LLP to investigate their harassment complaint against me.
TRU and Chamberlain both claimed that I would have to keep the
investigation confidential despite both knowing that the information
would be relevant to the upcoming OIPC inquiry.

I did inform OIPC, arguing that TRU was trying to use the
investigation to intimidate me into withdrawing my FOI requests, which
effectively denied my rights under Section 4 of FIPPA:

4 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an
applicant who makes a request under section
5 has a right of access to a record in the custody or under the control
of a public
body, including a record containing personal information about the
applicant.

I also mentioned that if TRU thought they had a case, they would have
petitioned OIPC to apply Section 43(b) of FIPPA which states:

43 If the head of a public body asks, the commissioner may authorize
the public body to disregard requests under section 5 or 29 that

…
(b) are frivolous or vexatious

Then, before the inquiries were set to begin, TRU attempted to delay
them by claiming they needed time to consider filing an application
under Section 43. When their attempt to delay the inquiries failed, they
then attempted to delay the disclosures by again arguing at the
inquiries that they needed time to consider making a Section 43
application.

At the inquiry, TRU argued that the American case law on OMICS being
a predatory publisher was not relevant. This was despite their claim
that somehow requesting information on their effective support for this
predatory publisher was “frivolous or vexatious”.

TRU did lose at these inquiries (Order F21-24 and Order F21-26).
Nonetheless, even when obliged to supply the materials, they did so with
threats. In each of their cover letters supplying the material, one of
their lawyers wrote:

Disclosure of the attached documents was withheld while TRU
considered potentially making an application under s.43 of FIPPA, on the
basis that this, taken together with other access requests you have
made, may constitute harassment against female TRU employees. While TRU
has decided not to make such an application at this time, we must bring
to your attention that, depending on how this information is used, your
use of this information could constitute harassment under TRU’s policy.
TRU expects that you will use this information in a respectful and
appropriate manner. (Blackford, 2021a, 2021b, 2021c, 2021d, 2021e,
personal communications, June 30, 2021).

Then TRU seemed to just abandon the harassment investigation without
informing me. Clearly, they realized that it had failed to intimidate me
into withdrawing my FOI requests. Thus, it no longer served any
purpose.

Moreover, TRU continued to claim that OMICS International might not
be a predatory publisher. For example, on November 1, 2024, TRU first
claimed:

He accused the University of being complicit in this practice, which
Dr. Pyne deems unethical. The issue of “predatory publishing” is the
subject of considerable discussion in the academic community. Amongst
other things, scholars on the subject have differing views on
appropriate inclusion criteria as to what constitutes a “predatory
publication”. One of Dr. Pyne’s colleagues, Dr. Peter Tsigaris, has
written academic papers on the issue of predatory publishing, many of
which are focused on rebutting the Pyne Article’s
[sic] thesis and Dr. Pyne’s theories of what
constitutes a “predatory” publication. (M. Sparks, 2024. Initial
submission for OIPC inquiry into file F24-02690, Paragraph 5(c))

TRU goes on to specifically discuss my submissions regarding OMICs
conferences. For example, in relation to OMICS conferences, they imply
that I was alone in claiming the conferences were predatory:

The Applicant also filed complaints under the University’s
Whistleblower Policy, complaining, among other things, about his
colleagues who had attended conferences sponsored by journals the
Applicant deemed to be predatory, including Dr. Bovis-Cnossen (then the
University’s Provost and Vice-President academic) and Donna Petrie. then
Vice-President Academic (the “Whistleblower Complaint”). (M. Sparks,
2024a. Response submission for OIPC inquiry into file F24-02690,
paragraph 5(i))

F21-85784, F21-85938, F21-85982, F21-86067 and F21-86071 all sought
records showing expenses/approval for TRU employees attending OMICS
conferences. The responsive records in TRU file A21- 69 include a letter
sent by the Applicant to the TRU Audit Committee which alleged that
“OMICS International is the largest predatory publisher and predatory
conference organizer in the world. Predatory conference organizers are
sometimes referred to as academic vacation planners. This is because
they exist so academics can use them to get their universities to
subsidize their vacation travel.” Though these requests are based on
concerns for predatory conferences rather than predatory publishing,
they are related to the same overarching matter. (M. Sparks, 2024b.
Response submission for OIPC inquiry into file F24-02690, paragraph
16(iv))

A fine line exists between some journals and conferences that are low
quality but try to be legitimate, and predatory journals and
conferences. However, unless one has zero faith in the American legal
system, including the appeal courts, it is hard to see how this can
apply to OMICS International. Moreover, one would be hard pressed to
find any honest academic aware of either OMICS International or WASET
who does not consider them to be predatory publishers and conference
organizers.

Conclusion

One of the most remarkable aspects of this case is TRU’s insistence
that it was somehow a matter of opinion that OMICS International and
WASET are predatory publishers and conference organizers. However, an
issue of greater interest to SAFS is the use of the threat of a
harassment investigation as an intimidation tactic to discourage
research it opposes.

It is also remarkable that TRU took the position that faculties that
consist mainly of women are exempt from scrutiny.

Faculty in an institution are in the best position to be aware of
wrongdoing, whether in regards to predatory practices or other issues.
Not only is academic freedom promoted by exposing such actions, but the
greater public good is also promoted. The use of public funds to support
predatory conferences and journals is not in the public interest.

References

Barns, C. (2018, November 25). Probes
launched into academic freedom dispute at B.C.’s Thompson Rivers
University. The Globe and Mail.

Federal
Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc., No. 2:16-cv-02022-GMN-VCF (D.
Nev. Apr. 3, 2019).

Federal
Trade Commission v. OMICS Group Inc., No. 19-15738 (9th Cir.
2020).

Grove, J. (2018, October 18). ‘Predatory
conference’ organiser ‘flees’ from angry academics: Strathclyde
education lecturer calls for other academics to speak out. Times
Higher Education.

Kolata, G. (2017, October 31). In
Academia, a Predatory Twist in Publishing. New York Times, New
York edition, page D5.

Mason, G. (2018, November 13). The
future of academic freedom and the curious, disturbing case of Derek
Pyne. The Globe and Mail.

Order F21-24, Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
(2021).

Order F21-26, Office of the
Information and Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia
(2021).

Pyne, D. (2017a). The rewards of predatory publications at a small
business school. Journal of Scholarly
Publishing, 48(3), 137-160.

Pyne, D. (2017b, April 5). Are
Universities Complicit in Predatory Publishing? Ottawa
Citizen.

Scientific
Journals: Publish and Don’t be Damned. (2018, June 23). The
Economist.

Sparks, M. (2024, November 1). Thompson Rivers University initial
submission for OIPC inquiry into file F24-02690
[Submission]. Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Sparks, M. (2024, November 18). Thompson Rivers University
response submission for OIPC inquiry into file F24-02690
[Submission]. Office of the Information and
Privacy Commissioner for British Columbia.

Todd, D. (2018a, August 11). B.C.
economist in grim battle against deceptive scholarship. The
Vancouver Sun.

Todd, D. (2018b, October 30). Bogus
Vancouver academic conference erupts with outrage, police. Vancouver
Sun.

Derek Pyne (DerekPyne@shaw.ca) is a
former Associate Professor of Economics at Thompson Rivers University.
His earlier academic freedom cases were widely reported in the media but
legal advice prevented him from discussing more recent actions. As that
advice is no longer relevant, he plans on publishing additional articles
on these issues.