RRC Polytech Says It Did Not Know I Was Indigenous. Its Own Human Rights Response Says Much More.

University of Manitoba

Ubisoft

RRC Polytech

Manitoba Education Research & Learning Information Networks (MERLIN)

University of Manitoba Students' Union (UMSU)

Winnipeg Game Collective

City of Winnipeg

Government of Manitoba

Future Generations Foundation

Hello everyone. It has been some time.

The underlying dispute described here has now been going on for more than a year. My formal Manitoba Human Rights Commission complaint against RRC Polytech is dated January 21, 2026. On September 16, 2026, I received RRC Polytech's formal response.

That response is signed by Carolyn Frost, General Counsel, Red River College Polytechnic.

That part matters.

This is not a random staff email. It is not a social media reply. It is not a misunderstanding in a hallway. It is RRC Polytech's formal legal position in a human rights proceeding.

And in trying to defend what happened, RRC put an extraordinary amount of the underlying conduct into writing.

RRC says my application was strong.

RRC says my portfolio was strong.

RRC says I was the top candidate on the waiting list.

RRC says it offered me an Indigenous Student Support Centre Navigator and Indigenous Elders in Residence.

RRC says it arranged for the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education to attend a meeting with me.

RRC says Ubisoft contacted RRC specifically about me and relayed information about a communication I had made to a Ubisoft executive.

RRC says it tracked or relied on material involving my website, Reddit, Winnipeg Game Collective Discord, LinkedIn, telephone communications, recordings, YouTube videos, outside organizations, donors, and industry partners.

RRC says it suspended me from applying to programs for one year.

RRC says it barred me from campus and issued a Trespass Act barring notice.

RRC says it cancelled a planned meeting.

RRC says it stopped offering me continued Indigenous student supports.

And then RRC repeatedly says all of this was unrelated to my ancestry, disability, accommodation needs, or protected rights activity.

That is what this post is about.

This is not a post asking people to take my word for a feeling.

This is a post about what the institution itself chose to put into a formal human rights response.

A note about who is named here

The organizations named at the top are there because they appear in the institutional, technical, funding, student, or game-development environment surrounding this dispute.

The direct respondent in the human rights complaint discussed here is RRC Polytech.

Ubisoft is directly named in RRC's own response as an "important Industry Partner" that contacted RRC about me.

Winnipeg Game Collective is directly named because RRC says it had information about my activity on its Discord.

University of Manitoba and MERLIN matter because I had already been reporting overlapping monitoring and network activity before I ever received RRC's legal response.

The point is not that every organization played the same role. The point is that the record now shows information moving across institutional and industry boundaries that were repeatedly treated as though they were unrelated.

The short version

Here is the shortest possible version of what RRC's own reply says.

I applied to its Game Development Program.

RRC says I had a strong application and a strong portfolio.

RRC says I was the top candidate on the waiting list.

I challenged the process and the way I was being treated.

RRC says it involved Indigenous-specific supports.

RRC says Ubisoft contacted it about me.

RRC says it gathered or received a large amount of material about my online activity.

RRC says it later suspended me, barred me from campus, cancelled a meeting, and stopped offering Indigenous supports.

I filed a human rights complaint alleging discrimination, failure to accommodate, and reprisal.

RRC answered by saying it had "no knowledge of the Complainant's ancestry" and that all of the adverse treatment was caused by what it calls my conduct.

That is the narrative contest.

My position is that RRC is trying to turn complaints about discrimination, accommodation, institutional conduct, and retaliation into a story about an allegedly difficult complainant.

RRC's position is that its actions were legitimate responses to my behaviour and wholly unrelated to protected characteristics or protected rights activity.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission has not decided that dispute.

RRC has asked for the complaint to be dismissed without investigation.

The Commission has placed the file into Early Assessment.

I will have an opportunity to respond to the Early Assessment recommendation before a final decision is made.

So no, RRC's response is not a judgment.

It is the respondent's legal advocacy.

And now we can read what that advocacy actually says.

January 27, 2025: the application

RRC's response says I applied to the Game Development Program on January 27, 2025.

It says there were 24 applicants total.

It says the program admits 10.

Most importantly, it says this:

the application was a strong application which was accompanied by a strong portfolio

That is RRC's wording.

Not mine.

This matters because one of the recurring ways the later conflict is minimized is by reducing me to an applicant who was simply angry about not getting into a program.

But RRC's own filing says my application was strong.

Its own filing says my portfolio was strong.

Its own filing says I was later placed at the top of the waiting list.

So the underlying dispute was never about me submitting an obviously weak application and refusing to accept reality.

RRC itself has now put the opposite into writing.

June 12, 2025: RRC says I was the top candidate on the waiting list

RRC's response says I was informed on June 12, 2025 that I was the top candidate on the waiting list.

Again, that is not my interpretation of the ranking.

That is RRC's formal position.

A program with 10 seats had placed me immediately behind the admitted group.

That context matters when RRC later tries to compress the whole dispute into disappointment about admissions.

If I had been ranked nowhere near admission, that would be one factual situation.

RRC says I was the top waitlisted candidate.

That is another.

June 16, 2025: feedback, dispute, and Ubisoft

RRC says I requested feedback about my portfolio, other applicants, and the reasoning for the waiting-list decision.

RRC says it collected feedback from the evaluators and gave it to me on June 16, 2025.

This is where the dispute accelerated.

RRC describes my response as accusatory and disrespectful.

That wording is important because it becomes the foundation for the institution's later character narrative.

But the same date contains something far more consequential.

RRC says that on June 16, 2025, Ubisoft contacted RRC about me.

The exact sentence in RRC's response begins:

"on June 16, 2025 Ubisoft, an important Industry Partner for RRC Polytech in the game development space, contacted RRC Polytech"

RRC says Ubisoft informed the institution that one of its executives had been contacted by me through a public LinkedIn profile.

RRC then recounts what Ubisoft says I told the executive about information concerning RRC and the possible reputational consequences for Ubisoft.

That is the point where the record changes.

Before receiving this response, I could discuss Ubisoft as part of the institutional and game-development environment around these schools.

I could point to partnerships.

I could point to overlapping student and professional spaces.

I could point to the fact that Ubisoft had relationships with post-secondary institutions in Winnipeg.

But I did not have a formal institutional document saying:

Ubisoft specifically contacted RRC about Tyler Johnston-Kent.

Now I do.

RRC wrote it.

RRC's General Counsel signed the response containing it.

RRC used the Ubisoft communication as part of the chronology supporting its defence.

That is direct involvement.

The remaining dispute is about scope, purpose, coordination, and what else was communicated.

Ubisoft was not just a company somewhere in the background

This is important because institutional disputes are often fragmented into little boxes.

RRC is one box.

Ubisoft is another.

University of Manitoba is another.

Student groups are another.

Industry partnerships are another.

Online platforms are another.

Everyone is supposedly isolated.

Then RRC's own response says an industry partner contacted the school about me and that communication became part of the school's conduct narrative.

The boxes were not actually sealed.

Information moved.

That is now documented.

It means the claim that Ubisoft had no specific involvement with me is no longer available.

Ubisoft was involved with me specifically.

Why the Ubisoft connection matters at the University of Manitoba too

I had already been raising concerns at the University of Manitoba involving student conduct, game-development networks, online activity, institutional monitoring, and the handling of my complaints.

One recurring response was that the UofM and RRC situations appeared unrelated.

RRC's own disclosure changes that position materially.

Ubisoft is not merely present somewhere in the same industry. Ubisoft has documented relationships in Winnipeg's post-secondary game-development ecosystem, including at the University of Manitoba, and RRC's General Counsel now says Ubisoft was communicating with RRC specifically about me.

That means the overlap is no longer hypothetical. The records now need to show how far the information sharing went, who participated, and whether communications crossed between the institutional and industry networks I had already been identifying.

RRC's response documents a multi-platform surveillance file

RRC's formal response does not describe casual awareness of a few public posts.

It documents a sustained collection of information about me across multiple platforms, communications, organizations, and channels.

RRC says it had material relating to:

• my website, "RRC Polytech Human Rights Scandal"
• Reddit
• Winnipeg Game Collective Discord
• LinkedIn
• telephone messages
• recorded phone conversations
• communications with industry partners
• communications reported back to RRC by Ubisoft
• YouTube videos
• usernames and online identities associated with me
• material later preserved and submitted as exhibits in RRC's human rights defence

RRC did not simply know that I was criticizing the institution.

It collected the material, received information about me from outside organizations, reviewed it, preserved it, characterized it, and then used it to construct a conduct narrative against me.

That is surveillance.

The Ubisoft disclosure makes this even more serious. RRC's own General Counsel states that Ubisoft contacted RRC specifically about my communications and that this information was incorporated into RRC's formal response to my human rights complaint.

At that point, this is no longer one institution passively reading public criticism.

It is information about one individual moving between an educational institution, an industry partner, online communities, students, and other third parties, with that information ultimately being assembled into a formal institutional file used to justify adverse action against me.

The important questions now are not whether I was being monitored.

RRC's own response establishes that I was.

The questions are who collected the information, who supplied it, who requested it, how widely it was circulated, how long the monitoring continued, what information was exchanged between organizations, and how that material influenced decisions concerning my suspension, campus barring, Indigenous supports, accommodation, and treatment as a supposed safety concern.

Those are the records RRC now needs to produce.

The response tries to turn documenting institutional conduct into "harassment"

This is one of the clearest narrative flips in the entire reply.

My position has been that I documented what was happening to me.

I saved emails.

I saved phone communications.

I maintained web records.

I wrote about my experience.

I contacted outside organizations.

I criticized the institution.

I made videos.

RRC's response takes that documentation and public criticism and places it under headings like harassment, disrespectful behaviour, unsupported allegations, worrying behaviour, staff distress, safety concerns, and interference with institutional relationships.

That framing is not a neutral description.

It is the legal strategy.

The institution takes the evidence trail created by the person complaining about the institution and tries to use the existence of that evidence trail as evidence against the complainant.

That circularity needs to be examined carefully.

"He recorded calls without consent"

RRC specifically emphasizes that I recorded telephone conversations with employees "without their consent."

That wording is doing rhetorical work.

It makes the recording sound inherently unlawful.

In Canada, that is not how the Criminal Code works.

The relevant law is section 184 of the Criminal Code, not a special Charter provision.

Section 184(1) generally prohibits knowingly intercepting private communications.

But section 184(2)(a) says that prohibition does not apply where the person has the express or implied consent of either the originator of the private communication or the person intended to receive it.

Section 183.1 also says that where a communication has multiple originators or intended recipients, consent from one of those persons is sufficient for the purposes of that Part.

In ordinary terms, Canada uses what is commonly described as a one-party consent framework for a participant recording a private conversation.

If I am a participant in my own call, the fact that the other participant did not separately consent does not by itself make the recording a criminal interception.

So when RRC repeatedly emphasizes "without their consent," that does not establish that I broke Canadian interception law.

And no, RRC is not automatically committing a crime merely because its response points out that staff did not consent.

The important point is simpler:

RRC's wording invites a reader to treat lawful documentation as inherently suspicious even though lack of consent from every participant is not, by itself, what Canadian criminal law requires.

That is exactly the kind of narrative framing I am talking about.

Official source: Criminal Code, section 184, Justice Laws Website

My website became evidence against me because I used it to preserve the dispute

RRC specifically identifies my website.

It identifies the title.

It describes my statements.

It cites exhibits.

It says I included staff names and photos.

It says I criticized the institution and its partners.

The institution's theory is that this supports its conduct case.

My theory is almost the reverse.

The website exists because I learned that if I did not preserve communications, screenshots, dates, links, and chronology, the institutional version would eventually become the only version anybody saw.

Then RRC's formal response arrived and demonstrated why preservation mattered.

It contains allegations.

It contains legal framing.

It contains selective descriptions.

It contains characterizations of intent.

It contains descriptions of my speech.

And it contains admissions that are extraordinarily useful when separated from the adjectives wrapped around them.

The cat video is apparently part of the legal response

RRC's response says I continued posting videos after the suspension.

It lists what RRC says those videos suggested about the institution.

Then it says:

"(See Exhibit 9 attached hereto, and a link to the YouTube video)"

Yes.

The institution's formal human rights response actually links my video.

The video is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5dNtDYVPAM

I described this as absurd because one of the things now sitting inside a formal human rights defence is my art and animation being reframed as part of a harassment narrative.

That is worth thinking about.

The institution:

1. found the video,
2. watched the video,
3. characterized the video,
4. preserved or referenced the video,
5. and submitted it through General Counsel in response to my human rights complaint.

That is not passive awareness.

That is active evidence collection.

And if the institution is going to characterize art and public criticism as evidence of harassment, then the public should be allowed to see the art and decide what they think the institution is describing.

RRC says my public statements harmed its industry relationships

RRC says my statements caused distress among staff and the broader RRC community.

It also says my statements affected RRC's relationships with industry partners.

This is another important narrative shift.

I complained to external organizations because external organizations were connected to the program and because internal resolution had failed.

RRC reframes that external escalation as an attack on institutional relationships.

But there is a basic accountability problem here.

If an institution has corporate partners, funders, donors, and professional relationships, does criticizing the institution to those stakeholders automatically become misconduct because the criticism might affect the relationship?

If so, partnership becomes insulation from criticism.

A complainant could never meaningfully escalate outside the institution because every external complaint could be recharacterized as interference.

That cannot be accepted without examining what was actually said.

RRC arranged an Indigenous Education meeting

RRC says it arranged to meet with me.

RRC also says it arranged for the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education to attend on RRC's behalf.

This becomes extremely important later.

Because remember RRC's formal response also says:

"RRC Polytech has no knowledge of the Complainant's ancestry."

Those are both statements in the same response.

No knowledge of ancestry.

Associate Dean of Indigenous Education brought into the meeting.

That is not something I have to invent.

It is on the page.

RRC says it offered an Indigenous Navigator and Elders

Earlier in the chronology, RRC says it provided additional support and specifically lists:

• RRC Polytech's Navigator at the Indigenous Student Support Centre
• Indigenous Elders in Residence

I dispute the way RRC describes those supports as though meaningful support was actually delivered to me.

But even if we temporarily take RRC's description exactly as written, it creates a problem for the ancestry denial.

RRC says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.

RRC says it offered Indigenous-specific supports.

RRC says the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education was involved.

RRC later says it stopped offering continued Indigenous supports.

These are RRC's own propositions.

The ancestry question cannot be disposed of by repeating "we did not know."

The records have to be examined.

My application was connected to Indigenous recruitment

There is another factual layer that matters here.

My application did not arise in a vacuum.

I applied through Indigenous-specific promotional or recruitment activity.

That is part of the reason the blanket statement that RRC had "no knowledge" of my ancestry is so important to challenge with the original records.

If the recruitment route, application record, outreach, or correspondence shows an Indigenous-specific pathway, then the institution needs to explain how that record coexists with its categorical denial of knowledge.

This is not complicated.

Produce the records.

Show the application pathway.

Show the correspondence.

Show the referrals.

Show when the Indigenous Student Support Centre became involved.

Show why.

Show why the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education was scheduled to meet me.

Show who knew what and when.

That is what evidence is for.

July 3, 2025: the donor voicemail

RRC says that on July 3, 2025 it received a voicemail from me in which I discussed approaching RRC donors.

RRC says I stated that donors would not "enjoy the fact" that RRC made me unhappy.

RRC interprets that as a threat to interfere with donor relationships.

This becomes one of the key justifications for the suspension.

Here is the narrative flip.

My position is that contacting funders, donors, industry partners, oversight organizations, advocacy organizations, and other stakeholders is a normal escalation mechanism when an institution refuses to resolve a complaint internally.

RRC's position is that my discussion of doing so demonstrates an intent to harm institutional relationships and reputation.

Those are not the same interpretation.

The actual voicemail matters.

The context matters.

The surrounding correspondence matters.

A legal response calling something a "threat" is not the same thing as an independent finding that a threat occurred.

Then RRC cancelled the meeting

RRC says that after the July 3 voicemail it concluded I was not prepared to discuss alternatives respectfully or comply with its respectful-conduct policies.

It says the planned meeting was cancelled.

That means the meeting involving the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education did not proceed.

So the sequence is:

RRC says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.

RRC says Indigenous supports were involved.

RRC says the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education was supposed to participate.

The conflict escalated.

RRC cancelled the meeting.

Later, RRC says it stopped offering continued Indigenous student supports.

That is the institutional chronology.

The one-year suspension

RRC says it suspended me from applying to RRC Polytech programs for one year.

It says I was also banned from campus for that period.

It says a standard barring notice was issued under The Trespass Act.

These are major adverse institutional actions.

RRC does not deny them.

It admits them.

The argument is about causation.

RRC says they resulted solely from my conduct and statements.

My complaint says the suspension, barring, loss of access, and surrounding conduct have to be examined in relation to discrimination, accommodation, and reprisal.

This is why the case cannot honestly be reduced to "he did not get admitted."

The admission decision was only the beginning.

RRC acknowledges that the suspension removed access generally available to the public

Later in the response, RRC makes another important admission.

It acknowledges that the ability to apply to an academic program is generally available to the public.

It acknowledges that access to some campus spaces is generally available to the public.

It acknowledges that its suspension decision prevented me from accessing those privileges.

Again, the adverse treatment is admitted.

The dispute is over why.

Then comes one of the strangest sentences in the entire document

RRC writes:

"RRC Polytech's decision to stop offering the continued services of its Indigenous student supports is wholly unrelated to the Complainant's ancestry or disability and entirely based upon the Complainant's actions outlined herein."

There it is.

The institution formally says it stopped offering me continued Indigenous student supports.

The institution also formally says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.

Those positions deserve direct examination.

I am Indigenous.

RRC says it did not know that.

RRC says it involved Indigenous-specific supports.

RRC says it later stopped those supports.

RRC says the withdrawal of Indigenous supports was unrelated to ancestry.

This is exactly why the original recruitment and support records matter.

The ancestry denial is not a side issue

RRC does not mention ancestry once and move on.

Its entire discrimination defence repeatedly depends on separating its actions from ancestry.

The response says ancestry was not part of the admissions rubric.

It says RRC did not consider ancestry in ranking my application.

It says the suspension was unrelated to ancestry.

It says the campus barring was unrelated to ancestry.

It says stopping Indigenous supports was unrelated to ancestry.

It says there is no link between my protected characteristics and the adverse treatment.

So the ancestry denial is structural.

It is one of the pillars holding up the defence.

That is why contradictory evidence about knowledge matters so much.

"We did not know he was Indigenous" cannot be a magic sentence

Institutions do not get to erase knowledge by writing that they had no knowledge.

Knowledge is a factual question.

Records can establish it.

People can establish it.

Referrals can establish it.

Application pathways can establish it.

Correspondence can establish it.

Internal notes can establish it.

The response itself can create evidence relevant to it.

If an institution wants the Commission to accept that it did not know I was Indigenous while simultaneously relying on a chronology involving Indigenous Navigators, Elders, the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education, and the later termination of continued Indigenous supports, that issue deserves actual scrutiny.

Not repetition.

Scrutiny.

The accommodation issue gets flipped too

My complaint alleges a failure to accommodate disability-related communication needs.

RRC responds in layers.

First it argues that feedback to unsuccessful applicants is not a public service in the relevant sense.

Then it argues that even if the Commission has jurisdiction, the duty to accommodate did not arise.

Then it says I did not identify relevant limitations.

Then it says my communication-related ADHD limitations are "not admitted."

Then it says it provided additional information and supports anyway.

Then it says that if there was still a duty to accommodate, continuing to interact with me would have imposed undue hardship because of what it describes as my behaviour.

That is a lot of fallback positions.

The practical narrative is:

There was no duty.

If there was a duty:

We met it.

If we did not meet it:

Doing more would have been undue hardship.

That is legal pleading.

It is not one simple factual finding.

"Undue hardship" arrives after the relationship breaks down

RRC's response says further accommodation would have imposed undue hardship because of my public and private conduct.

That phrase matters because undue hardship is a serious accommodation concept.

It should not simply mean:

We no longer wanted to deal with this person.

If RRC is relying on undue hardship, the underlying analysis should be capable of being examined.

What accommodations were considered?

What alternatives were considered?

Who performed the analysis?

When?

What hardship was identified?

Was there a contemporaneous accommodation assessment?

Was there documentation?

Or was "undue hardship" added later as a legal fallback once the relationship had already been terminated?

Those are factual questions.

Disability-related communication can itself become the misconduct story

This is one of the most dangerous parts of disability accommodation disputes.

A disabled person says:

I have communication limitations. I need more explicit information, more structure, more clarification, or a different communication process.

The institution experiences repeated questions, persistence, frustration, blunt language, or disagreement.

Then the institution says:

This person's communication is the misconduct.

At that point the disability issue can disappear inside the conduct issue.

The institution no longer asks how to communicate.

It asks how to control or remove the complainant.

That is precisely why accommodation and conduct cannot be separated mechanically.

RRC's reprisal defence is the same causation argument again

RRC accurately notes that the Manitoba Human Rights Code prohibits certain reprisals connected to enforcing rights under the Code.

Then RRC says I was not subjected to reprisal.

Why?

Because, it says, its actions were appropriate responses to my behaviour.

Again, that is the same central causal claim.

I say:

I raised protected rights issues, challenged discriminatory treatment, asked for accommodation, escalated externally, and then lost access, supports, campus privileges, meetings, and future application rights.

RRC says:

Those things happened because of his conduct, not because of protected rights activity.

That is the fight.

This is why "conduct" is doing so much work in the response

Every time the chronology reaches an adverse action, RRC returns to conduct.

Suspension?

Conduct.

Campus barring?

Conduct.

Cancelled meeting?

Conduct.

Stopped Indigenous supports?

Conduct.

No further accommodation?

Conduct.

No reprisal?

Conduct.

The word becomes the bridge that lets RRC admit the actions while denying discriminatory or retaliatory causation.

So the real evidentiary task is not merely proving that the actions happened.

RRC already admits many of them.

The task is testing the conduct narrative.

Was it accurate?

Was it exaggerated?

Was it selectively framed?

Was protected complaint activity itself treated as misconduct?

Were lawful recordings presented as suspicious?

Were outside complaints reframed as attacks on institutional relationships?

Was public criticism reframed as harassment?

Were disability-related communication difficulties treated as grounds to stop accommodating?

Were Indigenous supports withdrawn during a rights dispute and then declared unrelated to ancestry?

That is where the case lives.

The response's treatment of external complaints is especially revealing

RRC repeatedly emphasizes that I contacted corporate entities, industry partners, and donors.

That tells me something important about institutional priorities.

RRC was not only concerned about what I was saying to RRC.

It was concerned about what I was saying to people around RRC.

That includes organizations connected to reputation, funding, industry opportunity, and the program's external relationships.

That is why the Ubisoft communication is so significant.

I communicated externally.

Ubisoft reported that communication back to RRC.

RRC then used the report as evidence in its conduct case.

That is a feedback loop.

Industry partnerships create power, not just opportunity

Schools market industry partnerships as benefits.

And they can be benefits.

Industry partners can create internships, jobs, scholarships, events, mentorship, technology access, curriculum relevance, and professional networks.

But those same relationships also create power.

If a student or applicant criticizes the school to an industry partner, and the industry partner reports the complaint back to the school, then the partnership has become part of an information channel about the complainant.

That deserves scrutiny.

Especially in a small local industry.

Especially where the same companies, schools, student groups, Discord servers, events, faculty, graduates, and hiring networks repeatedly overlap.

RRC itself calls Ubisoft an important Industry Partner

This is not me exaggerating Ubisoft's institutional relevance.

RRC does the work itself.

Its response calls Ubisoft:

"an important Industry Partner for RRC Polytech in the game development space"

That is exactly why the communication matters.

A major industry partner contacted the institution about an applicant who was criticizing the institution.

The institution then put that communication into a formal legal response defending later sanctions against the applicant.

That should make anyone interested in student rights, academic freedom, complaint processes, or industry influence pay attention.

The University of Manitoba and MERLIN issue existed before this response

Months before I received RRC's response, I was already documenting institutional-network traffic to highly specific pages on my website dealing with RRC, Ubisoft, and the human rights dispute.

I raised that directly with the University of Manitoba.

On April 8, 2026, I emailed David Treble, then Acting Director, Information Security and Compliance at the University of Manitoba, and provided screenshots and logs.

On April 9, 2026, he reviewed the addresses and identified:

"198.163.150.16 = Red River College"

He also identified another address as Université de Saint-Boniface and another as a MERLIN partner address without a clear institutional label.

The important point is simple: the RRC attribution did not come from me guessing at an IP address. A University of Manitoba information-security official examined the address and identified it as Red River College.

What my MERLIN logs showed

My monitoring logs associated the RRC/MERLIN address 198.163.150.16 with visits to pages including:

• rrc-polytech-human-rights-scandal
• rrc-ubisoft-performative-selection-documentation

The logs preserved timestamps, routes, browser/session information, and repeat activity around those pages.

The address establishes institutional network origin. The remaining records held by the institutions are what can identify the people, accounts, systems, or processes behind the access.

That distinction does not weaken the evidence. It identifies exactly what still has to be produced.

The sequence matters

The chronology is straightforward.

First, I began documenting the dispute publicly.

Then I observed institutional-network traffic to highly specific pages about RRC, Ubisoft, and the human rights dispute.

I reported it.

A University of Manitoba information-security official identified one of those addresses as Red River College.

Months later, RRC's own General Counsel filed a response describing extensive possession and review of my website, social media, videos, partner communications, and other online activity. The same response disclosed that Ubisoft had contacted RRC specifically about me.

That later filing confirms the broader monitoring activity I had already been documenting. The remaining question is the full scope and coordination of it.

This is why dismissing the UofM and RRC issues as automatically "unrelated" no longer works

The record now contains actual bridges between the environments I had been reporting on.

Ubisoft is one.

MERLIN infrastructure is another relevant connection.

The game-development ecosystem is another.

The monitoring of the same dispute-related pages is another.

The response to that evidence cannot be to keep asserting institutional separation as though information could not move between them. The communications and records need to be examined directly.

Winnipeg Game Collective appears directly in RRC's reply

RRC specifically names Winnipeg Game Collective Discord when describing where it says I repeated my allegations.

That matters because it proves the response was not limited to communications directly sent to RRC.

RRC's knowledge extended into third-party community spaces.

Again, the important questions are:

Who collected that material?

Who forwarded it?

When?

How much?

Was it staff?

Students?

Partners?

Community members?

Was it centralized?

Was it informal?

Was it solicited?

Those questions are still open.

But RRC's knowledge of the material is not hypothetical.

It put the material in its response.

The narrative flip is almost mechanical

One of the reasons I am writing this in detail is that the narrative transformation becomes obvious when each step is put beside the next.

I document a phone call.

RRC says I recorded an employee without consent.

I publish a website.

RRC says I established a harassment campaign.

I criticize employees and decisions.

RRC says I denigrated staff.

I contact partners.

RRC says I interfered with industry relationships.

I mention donors.

RRC says I threatened donor relationships.

I post videos.

RRC says they contribute to staff and student distress.

I raise accommodation needs.

RRC says the duty did not arise, or was met, or further efforts would be undue hardship.

I raise Indigenous discrimination.

RRC says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.

RRC says it offered Indigenous supports.

RRC says it involved the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education.

RRC says it stopped offering Indigenous supports.

RRC says the Indigenous-support decision was unrelated to ancestry.

At some point, the public should be allowed to read those sentences beside each other.

The institution's adjectives are not findings

This distinction needs to be repeated because legal responses can look authoritative simply because lawyers wrote them.

RRC uses terms like:

• harassment
• disrespectful
• untrue
• unsupported
• distress
• apprehension
• threat
• worrying
• safety concern

Those are RRC's characterizations.

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission has not adjudicated them as facts.

RRC's General Counsel is advocating for RRC.

The response is supposed to persuade the Commission to dismiss my complaint.

That does not mean every factual statement is false.

It means readers have to distinguish between an admitted event and the label RRC attaches to it.

"He criticized us" and "he harassed us" are not interchangeable

This is a major issue.

Criticism can be harsh.

Criticism can be persistent.

Criticism can be embarrassing.

Criticism can name people responsible for decisions.

Criticism can be public.

Criticism can be sent to donors or partners.

Criticism can damage reputation.

None of those facts alone establishes harassment.

If RRC believes specific conduct crossed a legal or policy line, then the specific conduct should be examined.

But collapsing all criticism into a harassment narrative is especially dangerous when the criticism itself concerns discrimination and institutional misconduct.

Otherwise the institution gets a perfect loop:

1. person alleges wrongdoing,
2. institution denies wrongdoing,
3. person documents and publishes evidence,
4. institution calls the publication harassment,
5. institution punishes the person,
6. person alleges reprisal,
7. institution says punishment was for harassment,
8. continued documentation is treated as more harassment.

That loop can make accountability impossible if nobody stops and examines the underlying facts.

RRC's response is a defence of the adverse actions, not a denial that they happened

This is one of the most important ways to read the document.

RRC does not deny the suspension.

RRC does not deny the campus barring.

RRC does not deny the Trespass Act notice.

RRC does not deny the cancelled meeting.

RRC does not deny the loss of access.

RRC does not deny stopping Indigenous supports.

RRC does not deny Ubisoft contacted it about me.

RRC does not deny that it reviewed my website, online posts, communications, and videos.

Instead, RRC says those things were justified.

That is a completely different type of defence.

The factual skeleton is substantially admitted.

The fight is over motive, causation, context, proportionality, rights, and whether RRC's conduct narrative is a legitimate explanation or a narrative flip.

General Counsel signed this

I keep emphasizing this because it matters.

The response ends:

"All of which is respectfully submitted this 20th day of May, 2026."

Then:

Carolyn Frost

General Counsel

Red River College Polytechnic

RRC chose to make these arguments through its formal legal office.

That means the contradictory-looking positions are not random student-service chatter.

The institution had the opportunity to review its own chronology before submitting it.

The institution chose to say:

• no knowledge of ancestry,
• Indigenous supports,
• Indigenous Elders,
• Indigenous Navigator,
• Associate Dean of Indigenous Education,
• stopping continued Indigenous supports,
• Ubisoft reporting me,
• extensive online activity,
• suspension,
• barring,
• accommodation denial,
• undue hardship,
• no reprisal.

This is the formal defence.

That is why it deserves formal scrutiny.

A legal team can polish a narrative, but it cannot change the chronology

Lawyers are supposed to advocate.

I understand that.

But advocacy has limits.

A polished legal response can change wording.

It can select facts.

It can organize chronology.

It can emphasize certain motives.

It can call conduct "harassment."

It can call an escalation a "threat."

It can call criticism "unsupported."

It can call removal of services unrelated to ancestry.

What it cannot do is make the underlying documents cease to exist.

Emails still have dates.

Application records still have fields.

Support referrals still have records.

Website logs still have timestamps.

Partner communications still have senders and recipients.

Meeting invitations still identify participants.

Suspension notices still exist.

The Human Rights Commission can compare the advocacy to the evidence.

That is the entire point of an investigation.

Why I think this needs investigation rather than dismissal

RRC wants the complaint terminated without further investigation.

I think its own reply demonstrates why investigation is necessary.

There are direct factual conflicts.

There are knowledge questions.

There are causation questions.

There are accommodation questions.

There are reprisal questions.

There are information-sharing questions.

There are monitoring questions.

There are Indigenous-support questions.

There are partner-relationship questions.

There are internal decision-making questions.

There are records that exist almost entirely inside the institution.

Those are exactly the situations where simply accepting the respondent's narrative without investigation risks rewarding the party that controls the records.

What I would want an investigator to obtain

If this proceeds, the documentary questions are straightforward.

I would want the underlying application records.

I would want the recruitment records showing how my application entered the process.

I would want every record showing when RRC first recorded or became aware that I was Indigenous.

I would want the referral records for the Indigenous Student Support Centre.

I would want records concerning the Indigenous Elders.

I would want communications about involving the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education.

I would want the meeting-planning records.

I would want the decision records for cancelling the meeting.

I would want the records for the one-year suspension.

I would want the basis for the Trespass Act notice.

I would want internal communications concerning my website.

I would want internal communications concerning Reddit.

I would want internal communications concerning Winnipeg Game Collective Discord.

I would want internal communications concerning LinkedIn.

I would want internal communications concerning YouTube.

I would want the communications between Ubisoft and RRC about me.

I would want to know whether June 16 was the only Ubisoft communication.

I would want communications with any other industry partners about me.

I would want records identifying who collected my online activity.

I would want to know whether students or third parties supplied material.

I would want records discussing my human rights concerns.

I would want records discussing disability and accommodation.

I would want records showing the analysis behind the "undue hardship" claim.

I would want the decision record for stopping continued Indigenous supports.

I would want the policy relied on to terminate those supports.

I would want comparator records showing whether other applicants or complainants were treated similarly.

That is what investigation means.

Not guessing.

Records.

RRC says it prides itself on inclusiveness

Near the end of the response, RRC says it is a reputable institution that prides itself on values including inclusiveness, integrity, respectful behaviour, sustainability, and collaboration.

Institutional values are easy to publish.

The meaningful question is what happens when someone alleges those values were not followed.

Does the institution investigate?

Does it accommodate?

Does it preserve support?

Does it separate criticism from harassment carefully?

Does it allow Indigenous support to remain available during conflict?

Does it avoid retaliation?

Does it investigate information sharing with partners?

Or does it build a conduct file on the complainant?

That is where institutional values become measurable.

Indigenous support should not function like a behavioural reward

This issue deserves more attention than a single paragraph in a legal response.

If an Indigenous applicant is receiving Indigenous-specific support, what is the institutional purpose of that support?

Is it there only while the applicant is agreeable?

Can the institution terminate it as a consequence of conflict?

Who makes that decision?

Does the Indigenous support unit get a say?

Is there a policy?

Is there an appeal?

Is there a human rights analysis before it happens?

If a person is alleging discrimination and the institution responds by stopping Indigenous supports, that should trigger questions immediately.

Support should not become leverage.

The same applies to accommodation

Accommodation should not become a reward for being easy to deal with.

A person can be frustrated.

A person can be blunt.

A person can disagree.

A person can communicate differently because of disability.

A person can require repetition or clarification.

A person can challenge authority.

Institutions can still maintain genuine safety and conduct boundaries.

But they should not use vague conduct labels as a shortcut around individualized accommodation.

That is why the full communication record matters.

My documentation is not the crime here

I documented my own calls.

I documented my own emails.

I documented public web activity.

I preserved my website logs.

I kept screenshots.

I kept timelines.

I kept institutional responses.

I kept the RRC legal reply.

That documentation is the reason I can now compare what was happening in real time with what the institution later chose to say.

Without it, this would be my memory against an institution's legal department.

With it, there is a chronology.

That difference matters.

The MERLIN email is a perfect example

The MERLIN exchange matters because it predates RRC's legal response.

I saw institutional-network activity, preserved it, and took it to the University of Manitoba's information-security office. David Treble reviewed the addresses and identified one as Red River College.

Months later, RRC's own response confirmed that the institution had accumulated extensive material about my online activity.

The later admission gives the earlier network evidence context. I was documenting institutional monitoring before RRC formally acknowledged the scale of its own information collection.

The Ubisoft disclosure is another perfect example

The Ubisoft disclosure is even more direct.

Before RRC's response, I could identify Ubisoft as part of the same institutional and industry environment.

After RRC's response, I had a formal legal document stating that Ubisoft contacted RRC specifically about me.

That is a documented connection, not a theory. What remains to be disclosed is the complete communication chain.

The public should be able to see the difference between allegation and admission

I am going to keep publishing documents because the easiest way to stop narrative games is to show the text.

When I say RRC admitted something, I mean RRC's response states it.

When I say I allege something, I mean it is my allegation and I will show the evidence I rely on.

When something remains uncertain, I will say what remains uncertain.

That is a much healthier standard than allowing a formal institutional response to blur allegations into facts just because it came from General Counsel.

What RRC directly states in its own response

For clarity, these are not my characterizations.

These are propositions RRC itself put into its formal reply:

1. I applied to the Game Development Program.
2. My application was strong.
3. My portfolio was strong.
4. I was the top candidate on the waiting list.
5. RRC says it offered the Indigenous Student Support Centre Navigator.
6. RRC says it offered Indigenous Elders in Residence.
7. RRC says Ubisoft contacted it about me on June 16, 2025.
8. RRC calls Ubisoft an important Industry Partner in the game-development space.
9. RRC says it knew of my activity on Reddit, Winnipeg Game Collective Discord, and LinkedIn.
10. RRC says it knew about my telephone messages.
11. RRC says it knew I recorded calls.
12. RRC says it knew I contacted industry partners.
13. RRC says my statements affected industry-partner relationships.
14. RRC says it arranged for the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education to attend a meeting.
15. RRC says it cancelled that meeting.
16. RRC says it suspended me from applying for one year.
17. RRC says it barred me from campus.
18. RRC says it issued a barring notice under The Trespass Act.
19. RRC says it reviewed my videos and linked one in the human rights response.
20. RRC acknowledges the suspension prevented access to privileges generally available to the public.
21. RRC says it decided to stop offering continued Indigenous student supports.
22. RRC says that decision was unrelated to ancestry or disability.
23. RRC says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.
24. RRC says my disability-related communication limitations were "not admitted."
25. RRC says further accommodation, if required, would have imposed undue hardship.
26. RRC denies reprisal.
27. RRC asks the Commission to dismiss my complaint without investigation.
28. The response is signed by RRC Polytech's General Counsel.

Put those in one place and the shape of the dispute becomes much easier to see.

RRC's allegations are advocacy, not findings

RRC alleges that I harassed staff, made untrue statements, acted disrespectfully, threatened institutional relationships, caused distress and apprehension, and created safety concerns.

Those are allegations and characterizations in RRC's legal pleading.

They are not findings by the Manitoba Human Rights Commission.

That distinction matters because RRC uses those labels to justify the suspension, campus barring, loss of supports, accommodation position, and student safety narrative.

The labels have to be tested against the actual communications and records they describe.

What the records still need to show

RRC's response does not reveal the complete internal communication chain.

It does not identify every person who collected or forwarded material about me.

It does not say whether Ubisoft communicated with RRC more than once.

It does not disclose who supplied Discord material, who monitored my website, or who participated in the student safety process.

It does not disclose the full relationship between the RRC, UofM, MERLIN, student-group, and industry records.

Those are not gaps in whether monitoring occurred. They are gaps in who did what, with whom, when, and why.

That is exactly what the privacy, FIPPA, and human rights disclosure processes now need to expose.

A massive institution and a multinational company versus one individual

This is the power imbalance that has bothered me from the beginning.

RRC Polytech is a major public institution.

Ubisoft is a multinational game company.

The University of Manitoba is a major public university.

MERLIN operates major education-network infrastructure in Manitoba.

Each institution has staff, counsel, communications teams, security personnel, administrators, policies, records, and budgets.

I am one person.

And yet the institutional response treats my ability to preserve emails, record my own calls, write on a website, make videos, inspect my own server logs, and contact organizations as though those actions create some extraordinary threat.

That is backwards.

Documentation is one of the only tools an individual has when institutions control almost all of the internal records.

This is why the "harassment" label needs real scrutiny

The word carries weight.

It can justify restrictions.

It can justify access removal.

It can frighten third parties.

It can make a complainant sound dangerous.

It can discourage people from reading the underlying complaint.

That means the word should be used carefully.

If the evidence is criticism, documentation, lawful recording, public writing, partner complaints, and embarrassing questions, then calling the entire collection "harassment" risks turning institutional discomfort into a misconduct category.

If there is specific conduct beyond that, show it.

That is what records are for.

This is exactly why I kept everything

Imagine if I had deleted the emails.

Imagine if I had not saved the logs.

Imagine if I had not retained recordings.

Imagine if I had not kept screenshots.

Imagine if I had never built the website.

Then, months later, an institution could submit a polished response calling me disrespectful, harassing, threatening, and unsupported, while I tried to reconstruct a year of events from memory.

That is why documentation matters.

It prevents institutional language from replacing the historical record.

The Commission's September 16, 2026 letter

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission's September 16 letter says RRC's reply has now been disclosed to me.

The Commission says the complaint will go through Early Assessment.

It explains that the Early Assessment Team will recommend either:

• dismissal without investigation, or
• advancement to investigation.

It also says I will receive the team's findings and have an opportunity to respond before the Executive Director makes a decision.

The accompanying guide says the Executive Director considers:

• the complaint,
• the reply,
• submissions from the parties,
• and the Early Assessment recommendation.

So the case is not finished.

RRC asked for dismissal.

The Commission has not granted that request.

Why dismissal without investigation would leave the central evidence unexamined

A dismissal without investigation would leave the central evidence in the hands of the respondent whose explanation is being challenged.

RRC controls records about ancestry knowledge, Indigenous recruitment, Indigenous support referrals, the decision to stop supports, accommodation discussions, the claimed undue-hardship analysis, suspension decision-making, campus barring, Ubisoft communications, online evidence collection, student safety concerns, and the September 13 meeting.

Those issues cannot be resolved simply by accepting RRC's summary of its own records.

The underlying records are the evidence.

The public-interest issue is bigger than one applicant

People should care about this even if they never attend RRC.

What happens when a student or applicant criticizes a school connected to employers they may later need?

What happens when an industry partner reports criticism back to the institution?

What happens when an Indigenous complainant loses Indigenous-specific supports during an escalating rights dispute?

What happens when disability-related communication needs become part of the misconduct narrative?

What happens when public criticism is monitored across platforms and compiled into a conduct file?

What happens when the institution then asks to terminate the human rights complaint without investigation?

Those are systemic questions.

Small professional communities make retaliation especially dangerous

Winnipeg's game-development community is not infinitely large.

Schools connect with employers.

Graduates connect with studios.

Studios participate in education.

Students join shared Discords and community groups.

People attend the same events.

People use the same LinkedIn networks.

A negative institutional narrative can therefore travel much farther than the institution itself.

That is why information sharing around a complainant is so consequential.

A school suspension is one thing.

A narrative that follows someone into industry networks is another.

The person who complains can become the product being circulated

That is what this entire experience has sometimes felt like.

The original subject was institutional conduct.

Then the subject became me.

My tone.

My website.

My videos.

My calls.

My recordings.

My partner outreach.

My donor outreach.

My usernames.

My posts.

My criticism.

My reactions.

Eventually the institution's conduct almost disappears behind an enormous profile of the complainant.

That is a classic narrative reversal.

The person asking:

Why did you do this?

becomes the person being asked:

Why did you react like that?

Those are not the same question.

My reaction does not erase the original conduct

Even if an institution dislikes how someone reacts, that does not retroactively answer whether the original complaint had merit.

Even if a complainant becomes angry, that does not prove the institution was right.

Even if a complainant publishes criticism, that does not prove discrimination never occurred.

Even if a complainant contacts partners, that does not erase accommodation obligations.

Even if a complainant records calls, that does not make ancestry disappear.

Even if a complainant makes a cat animation, that does not answer whether Indigenous supports were withdrawn as reprisal.

The timeline still exists.

"Respectful conduct" cannot become immunity from accountability

Institutions need conduct policies.

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

But a respectful-conduct policy should not become a mechanism where the institution gets to decide that criticism is disrespectful and then shut down every underlying complaint.

If the institution controls both:

1. the conduct being criticized, and
2. the definition of acceptable criticism,

there has to be independent oversight.

That is part of why human rights commissions exist.

The public should read the response itself

Eventually, I intend to publish the response and supporting material in a way people can examine directly.

For now, I am highlighting the parts that matter most.

I want people to see the actual sentence saying RRC had no knowledge of my ancestry.

I want them to see the Indigenous supports listed nearby.

I want them to see the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education.

I want them to see the sentence saying RRC stopped offering continued Indigenous supports.

I want them to see the Ubisoft paragraph.

I want them to see the online-platform list.

I want them to see the YouTube reference.

I want them to see who signed the response.

Once people can read those pieces themselves, the narrative becomes much harder to sanitize.

My cat animation apparently required General Counsel

I cannot avoid the absurdity here.

RRC's legal response to an Indigenous disabled complainant includes a link to my YouTube video as part of its case against me.

A public educational institution had its General Counsel submit a response discussing my videos, my website, my social media, my communications, and my art while asking the Human Rights Commission to dismiss my discrimination and reprisal complaint without investigation.

That happened.

I do not need to exaggerate it.

It is already absurd.

And yes, there will probably be another cat video.

Art is one of the ways I document what happens to me.

Explaining your own experience is not automatically harassment

This point needs defending because institutions can make people afraid to talk.

Writing about your experience is not automatically harassment.

Publishing documents is not automatically harassment.

Criticizing a school is not automatically harassment.

Contacting stakeholders is not automatically harassment.

Recording a conversation you are participating in is not automatically a criminal act in Canada.

Making a video about your experience is not automatically harassment.

Calling something discrimination is not automatically defamation.

Of course speech can cross legal lines depending on content and circumstances.

But the institution does not get to establish that line merely by attaching the word "harassment" to criticism it dislikes.

Defamation is not simply "you embarrassed us"

RRC repeatedly emphasizes untrue and unsupported allegations.

Truth, evidence, opinion, context, publication, and applicable defences matter in defamation law.

I am not using this post to give a complete defamation-law lecture.

My point is practical.

If an institution says I lied, then I can show the emails, screenshots, logs, recordings, notices, and now the institution's own legal response.

That is why the documentary record matters so much.

A chronological recap

For anyone who made it this far, here is the core chronology in one place.

January 27, 2025

I apply to RRC Polytech's Game Development Program.

RRC later says the application was strong and the portfolio was strong.

June 12, 2025

RRC says I am informed I am the top candidate on the waiting list.

June 16, 2025

RRC says it gives me feedback about the assessment.

The dispute intensifies.

On the same date, RRC says Ubisoft contacts RRC about me and reports a LinkedIn communication with one of its executives.

Following the feedback dispute

RRC says I create and publish material about the dispute.

RRC says it knows about my website, Reddit, Winnipeg Game Collective Discord, LinkedIn, calls, recordings, and industry-partner communications.

RRC says it offers Indigenous-specific supports.

Planned meeting

RRC says it arranges for the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education to attend a meeting with me.

July 3, 2025

RRC says it receives a voicemail in which I discuss contacting donors.

RRC interprets the message as a threat to institutional relationships.

Suspension

RRC suspends me from applying for one year.

RRC bars me from campus.

RRC issues a Trespass Act barring notice.

RRC cancels the planned meeting.

Later online activity

RRC continues reviewing my public activity.

RRC says it reviewed YouTube videos and includes a link to one in the human rights response.

Indigenous supports

RRC later says it made a decision to stop offering continued Indigenous student supports.

It says this was unrelated to ancestry or disability.

January 21, 2026

My Manitoba Human Rights Commission complaint is dated January 21, 2026.

The complaint alleges discrimination based on ancestry and disability, failure to accommodate, and reprisal.

March and April 2026

My site monitoring records institutional-network traffic around specific pages dealing with RRC, Ubisoft, and the human rights dispute.

April 8, 2026

I email University of Manitoba Acting Director, Information Security and Compliance David Treble about MERLIN-linked traffic.

April 9, 2026

David Treble replies and independently identifies 198.163.150.16 as Red River College, while correctly cautioning that institutional IPs do not by themselves identify an individual user.

May 20, 2026

RRC's formal response is submitted.

It is signed by Carolyn Frost, General Counsel.

It asks the Commission to dismiss my complaint without investigation.

September 16, 2026

The Manitoba Human Rights Commission sends me RRC's reply and advises that the complaint is going through Early Assessment.

The Commission says I will have an opportunity to respond to the Early Assessment recommendation.

That is where things stand as I publish this.

The question I keep asking

Why did all of this become necessary?

Why did a program application turn into this?

Why did an Indigenous applicant asking questions end up with:

• cross-platform monitoring,
• industry-partner back-communication,
• a one-year suspension,
• a campus ban,
• a Trespass Act notice,
• a cancelled Indigenous Education meeting,
• stopped Indigenous supports,
• a disability accommodation dispute,
• a human rights complaint,
• and a formal legal response trying to classify the complainant's documentation as misconduct?

If the answer is really as simple as RRC says, then investigation should not be frightening.

The records should support RRC's story.

RRC's claims are testable against its own records

RRC has made strong factual claims in a formal legal response.

It says it did not know my ancestry.

It says the suspension was solely about conduct.

It says stopping Indigenous supports was wholly unrelated to ancestry or disability.

It says further accommodation would have caused undue hardship.

It says students had safety concerns serious enough to require a meeting.

Each of those statements is testable against records controlled by RRC.

The application files, recruitment records, Indigenous-support communications, Ubisoft communications, internal emails, security records, accommodation records, meeting records, and student-safety records should show whether the legal narrative matches the contemporaneous record.

If the records do not support the story, that is exactly why investigation matters

The alternative is obvious.

If internal communications show knowledge of ancestry earlier than claimed, that matters.

If Indigenous recruitment records contradict the denial, that matters.

If staff discussed my human rights allegations before imposing sanctions, that matters.

If partner communications influenced decisions, that matters.

If online material was systematically collected before the conduct rationale was formalized, that matters.

If accommodation was discussed only after the fact, that matters.

If undue hardship was not assessed contemporaneously, that matters.

If stopping Indigenous supports was a punitive measure, that matters.

This is why the evidence needs examination.

Nobody should have to reverse-engineer institutional conduct from server logs

This is another public-interest point.

An individual should not have to build honeypots, analytics, logs, screenshots, recordings, and archival systems just to understand why institutional networks keep appearing around specific complaint pages.

A healthy institution should communicate.

If staff are reviewing a public complaint for legitimate purposes, there are ways to handle that professionally.

If security is involved, there are policies.

If legal counsel is involved, there are processes.

If student safety is genuinely at issue, there are documented procedures.

The person should not have to discover the institution's level of attention months later by reading a legal defence.

I kept asking for communication

One of the most frustrating aspects of this entire experience is that I repeatedly wanted direct communication and explanation.

Instead, the institutional process kept getting more formal, more defensive, and more adversarial.

That matters because RRC's response later uses the deterioration of communication as evidence against me.

The institution can help create the communication breakdown, then cite the breakdown as justification for ending communication.

That loop should be examined carefully.

The broader Manitoba education ecosystem should pay attention

RRC Polytech, University of Manitoba, MERLIN, student organizations, industry partners, and government-supported education systems do not exist in sealed universes.

They share infrastructure.

They share professional networks.

They share employers.

They share students.

They share community organizations.

They share public funding environments.

They share industry relationships.

That does not make every institution responsible for every other institution's conduct.

It does mean accountability systems need to understand how information moves through overlapping networks.

Especially when the person at the center is a complainant.

What the record already establishes, and what disclosure must answer

The record already establishes several major facts. RRC says Ubisoft contacted it about me. RRC says it possessed material from my activity across multiple platforms. RRC says it offered Indigenous-specific supports, involved Indigenous Education, later stopped continued Indigenous supports, suspended me, barred me from campus, and organized a student safety meeting.

The remaining disclosure questions are about scope, participants, authorization, purpose, circulation, and causation.

Who supplied the material? Who asked for it? Who forwarded it? How widely was it circulated? How long did the monitoring continue? What did Ubisoft send? What were students told? What role did this material play in the suspension, barring, removal of supports, accommodation decisions, and safety narrative?

Those are not reasons to weaken the facts already in the record. They are the next records that need to be produced.

Accuracy does not require pretending the admitted facts are harmless

Precision does not mean inventing an innocent alternate explanation for every documented act.

Ubisoft contacted RRC about me.

RRC accumulated information across multiple platforms.

RRC stopped Indigenous supports.

RRC suspended and barred me.

RRC says students were gathered for a safety meeting because of me.

Those facts can be stated directly.

Precision is about identifying what the record proves and then demanding the records needed to answer the remaining questions. It is not about endlessly weakening documented conduct with hypothetical explanations.

This is why I am publishing now

I waited for institutional processes.

I saved records.

I filed complaints.

I contacted people privately.

I asked for explanations.

I kept documentation.

Now RRC has put its position in writing.

That changes the public-interest calculation for me.

I can quote the institution's own response.

I can show the contradictions.

I can show where Ubisoft appears.

I can show where Indigenous supports appear.

I can show where RRC describes its monitoring.

I can show where General Counsel signs it.

At this point, transparency is the cleanest response.

Read the documents, not the branding

Every institution has branding.

Inclusiveness.

Community.

Integrity.

Innovation.

Respect.

Student success.

Reconciliation.

Partnership.

Accessibility.

Those words are easy.

The difficult part is what an institution does when somebody says the words and the lived experience do not match.

That is the point where values either become procedures or become marketing.

Reconciliation language means nothing without accountability

This is especially important for institutions that publicly present themselves as supportive of Indigenous students.

You cannot point to Indigenous support structures as proof of institutional inclusion and then treat the withdrawal of those same structures as irrelevant when an Indigenous complainant challenges the institution.

You cannot have it both ways.

If Indigenous supports matter when advertising institutional commitment, they matter when examining institutional harm.

The phrase "wholly unrelated" deserves evidence

RRC does not merely say stopping Indigenous supports was unrelated to ancestry.

It says the decision was "wholly unrelated."

That is a strong factual claim.

Strong factual claims require evidence.

Who made the decision?

Why?

When?

What records exist?

Were the Indigenous support staff consulted?

Was ancestry discussed?

Was the human rights complaint discussed?

Was disability discussed?

Was accommodation discussed?

Was the decision reviewed?

That is the proper response to "wholly unrelated."

Show the record.

The same applies to "solely as a result"

RRC says the suspension happened "solely as a result" of my actions and statements.

Again, that is a strong causal claim.

If it was solely conduct, internal records should show that.

If rights complaints, disability, ancestry, reputational concerns, industry pressure, or partner communications were part of the decision-making environment, that would be relevant.

That is what investigation should determine.

Ubisoft's report should be disclosed fully

RRC relies on Ubisoft's contact as part of its chronology.

Then the actual communication should matter.

What exactly did Ubisoft send?

Who sent it?

Who received it?

Was it email?

Phone?

LinkedIn?

Was anything else attached?

Did RRC respond?

Was there follow-up?

Was the communication forwarded internally?

Did anyone discuss consequences for me?

Did Ubisoft express concern about reputation?

Did RRC ask Ubisoft for information?

Did Ubisoft volunteer it?

Did anyone discuss my application?

Did anyone discuss my human rights allegations?

Those are answerable questions.

"Safety concerns" should not become an evidentiary shortcut

RRC says that on September 13, 2025 students raised concerns about their safety because of my online activity.

That allegation deserves examination too.

What exactly did the students report?

What had they seen?

Who showed it to them?

What did they believe the risk was?

Was a formal threat assessment performed?

What objective evidence supported the concern?

What did RRC tell the students?

Were my disability or human rights complaints mentioned?

Were the students in the same program at the center of the dispute?

A safety label is serious.

It should produce serious records.

The institution had enough resources to build this file

That is another thing people should notice.

Somebody had time to:

• collect website material,
• collect social media material,
• preserve Discord material,
• preserve LinkedIn material,
• track external communications,
• review videos,
• include exhibits,
• prepare the response,
• involve General Counsel,
• manage a suspension,
• issue a barring notice,
• address student concerns,
• communicate with partners.

That is an enormous amount of institutional activity around one applicant.

So when institutions talk about wasted resources, I think the public is allowed to ask how those resources were used and whether earlier good-faith resolution would have been cheaper, safer, and more humane.

The institutional response became larger than the original dispute

This began with a competitive-entry game-development program.

Look at what it became.

A human rights complaint.

Ancestry.

Disability.

Accommodation.

Indigenous support services.

Elders.

Associate Dean of Indigenous Education.

Ubisoft.

Industry partners.

Online monitoring.

Discord.

LinkedIn.

Reddit.

YouTube.

Telephone recordings.

Donors.

Campus barring.

The Trespass Act.

MERLIN traffic.

University information-security correspondence.

General Counsel.

Early Assessment.

At some point the argument that this is simply about a disappointed applicant becomes absurdly incomplete.

My question to RRC is simple

If your response is accurate, let the records be examined.

If you had no knowledge of my ancestry, show the application and referral chronology.

If stopping Indigenous supports was unrelated to ancestry, show the decision record.

If the suspension was solely conduct-based, show the internal decision process.

If accommodation was properly handled, show the accommodation analysis.

If undue hardship existed, show the hardship assessment.

If Ubisoft's communication was benign, disclose it.

If online monitoring was routine and proportionate, show who authorized and performed it.

If student safety concerns were genuine and evidence-based, show the records.

Investigation should clarify all of this.

My question to Ubisoft is simple too

Why did you report my communication back to RRC?

What information did you send?

Was that the only communication?

Who at Ubisoft participated?

Who at RRC received it?

What was the purpose?

Did you know I was raising human rights concerns?

Did anyone discuss my access to the local game-development industry?

Did anyone discuss student groups or online communities?

If the answer is harmless, the records will show that.

My question to the University of Manitoba is also simple

When I repeatedly raised concerns about overlapping monitoring and game-development networks, why was the possibility of connection treated as though the institutions were inherently unrelated?

RRC has now formally disclosed direct Ubisoft involvement in my case.

That does not prove every UofM concern.

It does mean the overlap cannot be dismissed by assumption.

Review the communications.

Review the student-group relationships.

Review the relevant network and complaint records.

Then answer from evidence.

My question to MERLIN is technical

Institutional network attribution matters.

MERLIN provides infrastructure across Manitoba's education environment.

That means an address assigned within MERLIN space may represent a specific participating institution while still being used by many individual users.

Those two facts must be kept separate.

I am not asking anyone to identify a human from an IP by magic.

I am asking institutions to preserve and examine logs where there is a legitimate human rights and monitoring dispute involving highly specific page visits.

That is a normal technical request.

My question to the Manitoba Human Rights Commission

The respondent's own reply contains enough admitted conduct and enough factual conflict to justify looking behind the advocacy.

Please do not let a conduct narrative substitute for investigation of the underlying rights issues.

The Commission's own process exists to assess whether complaints should proceed.

This is exactly the kind of record where the difference between allegation, explanation, and documentary evidence matters.

And yes, I am Indigenous

RRC's response says it had no knowledge of my ancestry.

I am not debating my own identity with an institution.

The question is what RRC knew and when.

That is a records question.

The institution's support referrals and my application history are relevant to that question.

I use Indigenous, Native, and First Nations language for myself depending on context.

The institutional terminology is not the point.

The knowledge and treatment are.

A disabled Indigenous complainant should not have to become a forensic archivist

But that is what this process has required.

I have had to preserve everything.

Emails.

Calls.

Logs.

IP records.

Screenshots.

Web pages.

Applications.

Human rights filings.

Legal responses.

Videos.

Institutional correspondence.

Because every time a piece of the story is not preserved, there is a risk that the institutional description becomes the official description.

That is exhausting.

It is also why the current record exists.

The irony of calling the documentation harassment

The institution complains that I documented too much.

But the institution also documented me.

The institution tracked my posts.

The institution tracked my videos.

The institution tracked my partner communication.

The institution tracked my website.

The institution received reports from Ubisoft.

The institution gathered enough material to attach exhibits.

Then it says my documentation is the harassment problem.

That asymmetry should be obvious.

A large institution monitoring an individual across a digital ecosystem is treated as administrative evidence gathering.

The individual preserving evidence about the institution is treated as dangerous.

That is exactly the kind of power imbalance human rights processes should scrutinize.

I am not going to stop documenting this

That should be obvious by now.

I am going to keep the records.

I am going to keep writing.

I am going to keep making art.

I am going to keep showing the actual documents.

I am going to keep correcting false or misleading narratives with evidence.

I am going to keep distinguishing what is proven from what still needs investigation.

And I am going to keep asking why so many institutional resources were spent building a case against an individual instead of resolving the underlying concerns.

Sources and documents referenced

RRC Polytech formal response

In the Matter of the Complaint of Tyler Johnston-Kent under The Human Rights Code (Manitoba), File No. 25 EN 226, RESPONSE TO COMPLAINT.

Submitted May 20, 2026.

Signed:

Carolyn Frost

General Counsel

Red River College Polytechnic

Key paragraphs include:

• paragraph 6: RRC says it has no knowledge of my ancestry
• paragraphs 8 to 11: strong application, strong portfolio, top waiting-list position
• paragraph 14: Indigenous Student Support Centre Navigator and Indigenous Elders
• paragraph 16: website, platforms, recordings, industry partners, and Ubisoft contact
• paragraph 18: alleged effect on staff/community and industry relationships
• paragraph 19: planned meeting involving the Associate Dean of Indigenous Education
• paragraph 20: one-year suspension, campus barring, Trespass Act notice, cancelled meeting
• paragraph 21: YouTube videos and linked video
• paragraphs 26 to 28: admitted loss of public access and stopping continued Indigenous supports
• paragraphs 29 to 33: accommodation and undue-hardship arguments
• paragraphs 34 to 35: reprisal
• paragraph 40: request for dismissal without further investigation

Manitoba Human Rights Commission

September 16, 2026 disclosure letter concerning:

Johnston-Kent, Tyler v. Red River College Polytechnic

File No. 25 EN 226

The Commission advised that the complaint is undergoing Early Assessment and that I will have an opportunity to respond to the Early Assessment recommendation before a decision.

Canadian Criminal Code

Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, section 184

The relevant one-party consent principle comes from the Criminal Code's interception provisions, including sections 183.1 and 184(2)(a).

University of Manitoba and Ubisoft

Ubisoft Winnipeg Scholarship for Women in Computer Science, University of Manitoba awards database

This is cited only to establish a documented Ubisoft relationship with the University of Manitoba. It is not evidence by itself of wrongdoing or coordination in my case.

RRC and Ubisoft

RRC's own human rights response calls Ubisoft an "important Industry Partner for RRC Polytech in the game development space."

RRC has also publicly highlighted RRC graduates working at Ubisoft Winnipeg:

Game changers: RRC grads help build digital media industry at Ubisoft

MERLIN and University of Manitoba correspondence

On April 9, 2026, University of Manitoba Acting Director, Information Security and Compliance David Treble responded to my MERLIN traffic concerns and identified:

198.163.150.16 = Red River College

He also cautioned, correctly, that a shared institutional network address does not by itself identify the individual user.

My preserved logs associated that institutional address with visits around the RRC human-rights and RRC/Ubisoft documentation pages.

Final point

There is a reason this post is so long.

RRC's response depends on compressing the story.

Applicant did not get admitted.

Applicant became upset.

Applicant harassed institution.

Institution imposed reasonable consequences.

Human rights complaint has no basis.

Dismiss it.

That version is clean.

The actual chronology is not.

Strong application.

Strong portfolio.

Top waitlist.

Indigenous recruitment context.

Indigenous supports.

Indigenous Elders.

Indigenous Navigator.

Associate Dean of Indigenous Education.

Disability communication issues.

Website.

Public documentation.

Partner complaints.

Ubisoft reporting me to RRC.

Multi-platform monitoring.

Donor concerns.

Suspension.

Campus barring.

Trespass notice.

Cancelled meeting.

Continued monitoring.

YouTube evidence.

Stopped Indigenous supports.

"No knowledge" of ancestry.

Undue hardship.

No reprisal.

General Counsel.

Dismiss without investigation.

MERLIN network traffic.

UofM security correspondence identifying an RRC address.

Then months later, RRC itself confirms it had been watching the very online activity I said institutions were watching.

That is not a one-line story.

And I am not going to let it be turned into one.

If these institutions believe their actions were appropriate, they should welcome a complete evidentiary record.

I already have mine.

Now I want theirs.