The Peak

SFU still part of the CFS, for now

By Kendra Wong, News Editor

The B.C. Supreme Court judge, Richard Blair, has finally come to a decision regarding the nearly year and a half long trial waging between the Canadian Federation of Students and the Simon Fraser Student Society. The judge announced on August 10, that he could not come to a decision and instead of the case going to a 15 to 20 day trial, the two parties should attempt to settle their dispute out of court to avoid substantial legal costs.

The court case in late January 2009 was slated to last one day, but due to the overwhelming amount of evidence presented, it lasted three. In court, the legitimacy of the referendum to leave the CFS was questioned, as was the petition circulated by the SFSS to have the referendum results recognized (the CFS and its two components — CFS-BC, and the CFS -Services refused to accept the referendum results due to violation of the CFS bylaws.) The question of the unpaid membership fees was also a heavily debated topic.

SFSS lawyers Susan Coristine and Kevin Woodall originally filed for the case to be determined under Rule 18A, which would allow the judge to make a decision based on the evidence presented at the time, rather than taking the case to a full trial.

In the official court document, released in August, the judge concluded that the amount of material submitted in the January and May court hearings, which included approximately 2,500 pages, 30 affidavits filed from a variety of affiants, and a 620 paged affidavit sworn by Titus Gregory, an SFSS politician at the time, was significantly more than that of other court cases filed for a ruling under Rule 18A.

“The material is expressed in a fashion which leads me to conclude that the goal of finding a judgment will prove to be difficult, elusive, and not necessarily fair or just,” to conclude in a summary determination, the judge claimed.

He also stated it was because of the amount of evidence submitted and the flaws they possessed that it would be problematic for him to come to a full decision.

Blair reinforced the lack of evidence available to properly address the allegations of bad faith raised by both the SFSS and the CFS. Though SFSS and CFS representatives submitted affidavits, there was little evidence to support the allegations within them.

For example, in the two-day May court cases, the CFS lawyers argued that issues of bad faith arose during the referendum from instances of electoral misconduct by the SFSS campaigners. CFS-B.C. chairperson Shamus Reid submitted an affidavit claiming polling clerks were taking direction from SFSS representatives, among other allegations.

Some of the affidavits filed by the SFSS also contradict the assertions made by the CFS. Furthermore, the assertions of actions of bad faith by the parties coupled with the conflicting affidavits, raised questions concerning the weight to be given to the affidavit evidence and the affiant’s credibility.

The judge also claimed there are outstanding requests for documents, which may pertain to the issues of bad faith regarding the conduct during the referendum.

Another issue in the May court cases involved the unpaid membership fees that the SFSS owes the CFS. CFS lawyers demanded the payment of approximately $430,000 in membership fees that the SFSS continued to collect after the March 2008 referendum. The judge ruled that the SFSS will not have to pay the fees, as of yet.

The judge put forth two options: conduct a second referendum with court assistance or, if both parties fail to resolve the dispute, go to a conventional 15 to 20 day trial, which would ultimately cost students thousands of dollars, and would require the judge to call upon witnesses from the referendum.

“The cost of this litigation, no matter which party or parties are successful, will be borne by post-secondary students enrolled at SFU,” stated Blair. “I would anticipate that the student fees paid to the SFSS and the CFS can be used more productively for programs directly benefiting those students.”

While holding another referendum will require more funding, the cost would be significantly less than that of a 15 or 20 day trial.

The SFSS Board met last week with the lawyers to discuss their options for the future and were unable to comment on the nature of the court case.

Furthermore, at the CFS semiannual general meeting in early July, the group voted against reforming the CFS, which would have encouraged the federation to be a “fair” and “democratic” organization.

The reform would have imposed equal spending limits on both the CFS side and the non-CFS side of a membership referendum.

“As far as we’re concerned, in any referendum situation the ‘No’ side has an [inherent] advantage,” claimed York Federation of Students President Krisna Saravanamuttu, who voted against the notion. “They can break the rules as much as they want without any type of consequence.”

The case began in 2008 when an overwhelming 66 per cent of students voted in favour of leaving the Federation.