Article content continued

Photo by Tyler Anderson/National Post

In none of University president Deb MacLatchy’s several press releases on the subject was there any mention of the investigator’s task being employment-related.

Howard Levitt, the well-known Toronto employment lawyer who represents Shepherd pro bono, wrote Rob Centa, the lawyer Laurier hired to conduct the investigation, last weekend, asking for the details of the complaint or complaints made against her.

In reply, Centa told him “I do not believe there is a document that contains a ‘complaint’ made about Ms. Shepherd nor is there anything I would describe as a formal complaint under any WLU policy.”

But perhaps most surprisingly, Centa also answered Levitt’s question about the terms of his mandate by saying it is an employment-related matter.

“It’s certainly ominous,” Levitt told the Post in a phone interview Wednesday. He said it sounds like the university is taking “a backend run” at her, and that he’s advising Shepherd not to meet Centa.

“I think it’s a trap,” Levitt said.

Centa told the Post Wednesday evening in a brief phone call that he appreciated the opportunity to comment but “there’s nothing I can say,” including answering the question the Post put to him, which was, “Whose employment” is he investigating?

But Levitt isn’t the only one troubled by the way the university’s two-pronged approach to the Shepherd affair – the Centa review and a task force that will examine the intersection of free speech and diversity rights – remains opaque.