Written by Daniel Bitonti
A judge will decide by week’s end whether a referendum on continued membership in the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) will take place on the University of Guelph campus April 7-9.
On Tuesday, the national and provincial components of the Federation appeared before a judge of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to address accusations that they both had acted in self-interest and bad faith when they denied Guelph student petitions seeking a referendum.
Because CFS and CFS-Ontario (CFS-O) are separate organizations, Guelph student organizers had sent petitions to each organization in September and October of 2009. Both components have their own set of concerns regarding the petitions that were submitted.
CFS-Ontario outright denied the petitions back in January. The referendum process with the national petition had come to a complete standstill in the past three months.
Lawyers representing the CSA argued on Tuesday that it was a right of students to be able to vote on their national representation.
“Membership is the only opportunity in [the CFS] bylaws where students have individual opportunity to effect change,” said Sandra Barton, one of the lawyers representing the CSA.
CFS and CFS-O’s argument against holding the referendum is that the original petitions were not completed properly in the first place. The CFS-O also argued that the petition sent to them was not submitted on time.
Lawyers for the CFS argued that the right to determine the process used to verify the names on the petition lies solely with the national executive. Their primary complaint is that they were not made part of this process and were asked to accept a verification of the names, which was provided by Guelph University, after signatures had bee collected and sent to them.
“The fact that we have been shut out of the verification process and are now being told that we have to accept the verification process without our input is, in fact, bad faith on the part of the applicants,” said Gordon Douglas, a lawyer for the CFS.
According to the CSA, the process undertaken by the university had been accepted by the CFS at other universities. Lawyers for the CSA argued that it was in bad faith to require new verification criteria on the petition, especially criteria that had not been outlined in CFS bylaws. The CSA lawyers argued that hiding the criteria made it nearly impossible for any petition organizer to meet them.
With a report and files from Danielle Webb, Ontario Bureau Chief of the Canadian University Press
Loading ...
