Sac Decision Garner V. Wolfe 2009

April 6, 2009

STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

PARTIES:

RENAUD-PHILLIPPE GARNER MAUREEN HASINOFF ALEXANDRE CHAPUT Appellant

-ANDSEAMUS WOLFE ROXANNE DUBOIS JULIE SEGUIN JEAN-S. GUILLAUME Respondent

APRIL 6, 2009 STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE, STUDENT FEDERATION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA GARNER V. WOLFE PRESENT: ARBITRATOR DAVID DAVIS, ARBITRATOR CHRIS SHULZ, ARBITRATOR MICHELLE NADEAU THE DECISION OF THE STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE WAS WRITTEN BY ARBITRATORS D. DAVIS, C. SCHULZ AND M. NADEAU, WRITING FOR THE PANEL.

2

ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURE All parties collectively established and agreed to a binding procedure with the Student Arbitration Committee(SAC) for this case of Garner v. Wolfe on March 30, 2009. The hearing was scheduled for April 4, 2009 and went ahead as planned. It began shortly after 1 p.m. in Fauteux Hall, Room 147, and concluded over 7 hours later. All parties understood and acknowledged through the meeting on procedure that the SAC had the powers to decide this case instilled directly from a binding motion of the Board of Administration (BOA) of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa. All participants were reminded of this point at the hearing. The Board of Administration exercised its broad powers under section 3.1.4 of the SFUO Constitution. From that point on, the SAC had jurisdiction over the affair and the mandate to fulfill its role under By-Law 8 of the SFUO Constitution and this Constitution in general. On the basis of nonconformity with the procedure, the written testimony of witness Cameron Montgomery for the appellants and that of witness Léonie Perron for the respondents were deemed inadmissible. Two respondent witnesses’ signatures were authenticated in the predetermined manner according to the established procedural agreement at the time of the hearing. The testimonies of these two witnesses were deemed admissible as the submissions on the one hand and the authentication as a separate condition both met the procedural requirements. These testimonies were those of Becky Dier-McComb and Geneviève Latour. Witness Sidney Loko’s email was deemed admissible. The reasons were provided to Mr. Loko at the hearing. His evidence was deemed pertinent enough to include under the circumstances. Furthermore, there was no issue as to the authenticity of the email. The standard of proof for this decision is the civil standard in Ontario, as understood by both sides, namely, the balance of probabilities.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SFUO AND THE APPLICATION OF S. 4.7.1: SLATES Regarding the Constitution of the SFUO:

3

3.5 of the Electoral regulations stipulates that candidates must be aware of the SFUO Constitution and follow it. The Electoral regulations are therefore subject to the SFUO. Section 4.13.5 stipulates that all outgoing SFUO executive members must hold meetings will all candidates running for her position. Constitution 4.7.1 is not limited to the official campaign period as defined by the Electoral Regulations. This section of the Constitution does not limit the definition of a campaign to the official campaign under the Electoral Regulations. 4.7.1 b) is at issue: “participate in any way in the campaign of one or more other candidates” is an activity falling under the prohibitions for candidates under the definition of slates. 7.9 of Electoral regulations covers the specific timeframe for the campaign. Precampaign campaign activity, especially in the days leading up to the official campaign period, can be construed as participating in a campaign by a reading of 4.7.1 of the Constitution as described above. The Electoral regulations are therefore determined to be subject to the SFUO Constitution. All fines imposed by the SAC in this decision are payable to the SFUO. DECISION

QUESTION 1: IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SEAMUS WOLFE, AND/OR HIS VOLUNTEERS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES, VIOLATED ARTICLE 4.7.1 OF THE SFUO CONSTITUTION? Seamus Wolfe, current Vice-President University Affairs for the SFUO, presented himself as candidate for the position of President of the SFUO in the 2009 general elections. He ran against three candidates: Renaud-Philippe Garner, Tyler Steeves and Marc Kelly. Seamus Wolfe won the election with a margin of 749 votes, over the second place candidate Garner. After the election results

4

were made public, the appellants decided to contest the election and to make an appeal to the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC). The appellant party is composed of Renaud-Philippe Garner, Maureen Hasinoff and Alexandre Chaput. Hasinoff was running for the position of Vice-President Finance and Chaput was running for the position of Vice-President Social in the 2009 general elections. The appellants’ claim was forwarded to the Student Arbitration Committee by means of a Board of Administration motion on March 31, 2009. It sets out accusations toward Mr. Wolfe. The hearing took place on April 4, 2009. After reading all the documentation from the appellants and the respondents, and after the hearing, here is what the SAC concluded.

Accusation 1: Wolfe admits to having infringed the constitution. On February 12, 2009, Mr. Chaput and Cameron Montgomery, a candidate running for a position on the BOA at the time, met Wolfe at the couch lounge in the University Centre. Chaput stipulates that Wolfe said Chaput was going to loose the elections but that Jean Guillaume, a candidate running for the position of Vice-President Social, was going to win his campaign. Chaput alleges that Wolfe told him and Cameron Montgomery that he had been helping Guillaume all week. The testimony of Montgomery is inadmissible as it did not conform with the established procedure. It was not authenticated as required. RULING Regarding Chaput’s accusation that Wolfe made such a statement, the appellants failed to prove by a balance of probabilities that such a statement was made. It is Chaput’s testimony against Wolfe’s.

Accusation 2: Wolfe attends a meeting to help Sidney Loko’s campaign The appellants allege that Wolfe and Dubois met with Sidney Loko, a candidate running for Vice-President University Affairs. At this meeting it is alleged that Wolfe and Dubois told Loko about the existence of a slate comprising themselves Jean Guillaume, Julie Séguin and Eve Ferrara-Aganier.

5

Wolfe and Dubois admit to meeting with Sidney Loko and many other candidates. In the course of a campaign, it is normal for an incumbent candidate on the SFUO executive, as per their duties, to meet with other candidates to discuss the nature and the duties of the executive. Wolfe denies ever talking about a slate. Loko also admits to meeting with other candidates, including Wolfe, Garner, Dubois, and others. Dubois, Loko and Wolfe all deny that any meeting took place where a slate was discussed. Loko says he never was asked to join a team. The accusation of the appellants is that four people acted as a slate. Sidney Loko is not mentioned as a member of this alleged slate.

RULING Having produced no evidence of such a meeting beyond merely asserting that a meeting took place, the appellants have failed to show that a meeting took place between Loko, Dubois and Wolfe where the formation or existence of a slate was discussed.

Accusation 3 Accusation 3 was split into two parts. The first part, accusation against Guillaume volunteer MacKay by Kishek, is addressed under accusation 11. The second part, Kishek accusation against Wolfe and Guillaume, is addressed under accusation 9.

Accusation 4: Wolfe gets help from one of Guillaume’s volunteer in the making of a survey The appellants failed to present any significant evidence on this matter.

RULING

6

The SAC finds that they failed to prove that Guillaume’s volunteer was involved in the making of the survey.

Accusation 8: Guillaume took part in Wolfe’s campaign and received his support.

Kishek accusation that Guillaume and Wolfe working together during class presentations

Amy Kishek, a contestant running for a BOA position at the time, claims she witnessed Wolfe and Guillaume campaigning together including doing class presentations. During the elections, all candidates were doing class presentations in groups or alone. This was asserted by witnesses of both parties. This is normal during elections and is not prohibited. No other witness gave testimony on confirming that Guillaume and Wolfe were supporting each other during class presentations. RULING As a result, we find that the appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Wolfe was participating in Guillaume’s during class presentations.

Kishek accusation of illegal campaigning during 1 on 1 encounters with students Kishek alleged that Wolfe and Guillaume regularly endorsed each other while campaigning among small groups of students. She singled out the evening of Feb 11 as a date where this took place in the cafeteria. Both the respondents denied the allegation. The heavy involvement of both Kishek and Wolfe and Guillaume in the election, in addition to the absence of third party confirmation, make it difficult for the SAC find a conclusive result.

7

RULING Since the burden is on the appellants to prove their accusation, we find that the on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish that Guillaume and Wolfe endorsed each other in 1 on 1 encounters with students.

Belvitt accusation regarding Guillaume Belvitt accuses Guillaume of campaigning in the cafeteria promoting himself and Wolfe. She identified a particular incident involving Guillaume and two black students in the cafeteria where she maintains that he showed these students to vote for himself, Wolfe and herself on the e-vote system. He maintains that he was showing them how to use the system. She maintains that he was speaking in English. He maintains that he was speaking in Creole.

Guillaume denies her accusations involving any campaigning for any other party. He maintains that “he did not need anyone,” to win. He also maintains that Belvitt asked him for assistance in getting support from the francophone community. He said he helped her get access to a francophone class where they made a presentation together. This last statement was not contested by any of the appellants or by Belvitt. RULING In light of Belvitt’s earlier inconsistencies in her testimony involving Seguin (see Seguin decision and/or accusation 7), we find that on a balance of probabilities that Guillaume did not violate s. 4.7.1 in this instance.

Accusation 9: One of Guillaume’s volunteer actively participated in Wolfe’s campaign Kishek accuses Elizabeth Mackay, a registered volunteer for Guillaume, of making buttons for Wolfe. Kishek claims that MacKay admitted this to her. McPhee, a registered volunteer for Wolfe, also singled out MacKay as someone who made buttons for multiple candidates. Dier-McCombe, Mike Fancie and Iain Brannigan affirmed that when they witnessed MacKay making buttons that she only made buttons for Guillaume. Picard claims that he witnessed the bulk of the button making happen in the evening and testified that since it was at his residence, he was present at the

8

bulk of the button making. He affirms that MacKay only made buttons for Guillaume. RULING Conflicting testimonies, the lack of substantiation of Kishek’s testimony and the tense emotional state between McPhee and Brannigan have resulted in the SAC finding this matter to be inconclusive. As a result, the appellants have failed to make the case on a balance of probabilities that Mackay made buttons for Wolfe.

BUTTONS: ACCUSATION 11 (& PART 1 OF ACC 3)

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 11(also includes part 1 of accusation 3) Lauren McPhee is a registered volunteer for Wolfe and the official representative for Board of Governor candidate and Wolfe campaign Director, Iain Brannigan. It is uncontested that she lived at the residence of Iain Brannigan, François Picard (current SFUO Executive Coordinator) Elizabeth MacKay (registered volunteer for Guillaume) and Becky Dier-McComb (registered volunteer for Guillaume) for a period of three weeks during some or most of the election period. It is uncontested that this residence is the place where the bulk of Wolfe, Guillaume and Dubois’ buttons were made. While McPhee was living there, she was in a casual relationship with Brannigan, a relationship that ended under emotionally difficult circumstances shortly before the filing of the complaint in issue. She makes a number of allegations including that she violated s. 5.3 of the Electoral regulations, and that she witnessed multiple candidates violate s. 5.3 of the Electoral Regulations.

McPhee making buttons for multiple candidates McPhee alleges that she violated s.5.3 of the Electoral regulations by making buttons for multiple candidates, including buttons for Guillaume and Dubois. McPhee explained that she did not know about the restriction on registered volunteers working on multiple campaigns. She also gave testimony that Wolfe never instructed her to make buttons for multiple candidates.

9

Picard claims that the bulk of the button making happened in the evening. Since it was at his residence, he was present for the bulk of the button making. He states that he observed that McPhee made buttons on two occasions, always in the company of Brannigan, and that she only made buttons for Wolfe. Mackay and Dier-McCombe also gave evidence that although they were not with McPhee at all times, they only saw her making buttons for the candidate she was registered for and this was Wolfe. RULING Based on the conflicting testimony, the complicated emotional situation of some of the parties and the absence of uninvolved witnesses, the SAC finds this matter to be inconclusive.

McPhee witnessed registered volunteers making buttons for multiple campaigns (excluding MacKay) Although she did not give a complete roster of names (excluding MacKay) McPhee also stated that she witnessed numerous volunteers violate s. 5.3 of the Election Regulations with regard to the production of buttons. Oral evidence was given by Dier-McCombe, Genevieve Latour, Taiva Tegler, Brannigan, and Myriam Bérubé denying that they ever made buttons for more than one candidate. In addition, written testimony was submitted by Elizabeth Mackay, C.J. Symons and Michael Fancie in denial of this same allegation. RULING For the most part it seems that the buttons were made in the same specified location by the aforementioned volunteers. Many of them used the button maker intermittently, when it was not being used by another volunteer. This is in addition to the fact that a significant number of the volunteers in question resided at the address in question and gives considerable weight to their testimony. Based on a number of testimonies provided opposing the allegations of McPhee and the circumstances surrounding the breakup of Brannigan and McPhee’s association, we find the following: the appellants have not, on a balance of probabilities, shown that volunteers made buttons for multiple campaigns. 10

McPhee & Kishek: Separate button maker McPhee claimed that the button maker in question did not belong to OPIRG. Instead she maintains that Brannigan told her that this button maker came from the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA). Also, Kishek claims that Elizabeth Mackay said that the button maker did not come from OPIRG. Bérubé, Tegler, Picard, Cheevers, and Brannigan all deny this allegation. RULING Based on the conflicting testimonies, and the lack of substantiation of the Kishek testimony, the SAC rules that the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a second or different button maker machine.

Accusations of Kishek & McPhee against MacKay Kishek accuses Elizabeth Mackay, the registered volunteer for Guillaume, of making buttons for Wolfe. Kishek claims that MacKay admitted this to her. McPhee also singled out MacKay as someone who made buttons for multiple candidates. Dier-McCombe, Mike Fancie and Iain Brannigan affirmed that when they witnessed MacKay making buttons that she only made buttons for Guillaume. Picard claims that he witnessed the bulk of the button making happen in the evening and testified that since it was at his residence, he was present at the bulk of the button making. He affirms that MacKay only made buttons for Guillaume. RULING Conflicting testimonies, the lack of substantiation of Kishek’s testimony and the tense emotional state between McPhee and Brannigan have resulted in the SAC finding this matter to be inconclusive. As a result, the appellants have failed to make the case on a balance of probabilities that Mackay made buttons for Wolfe.

11

Common resources The OPIRG button machine is a student resource, and its use was monopolized by a number of candidates. It was kept in the living room of a few registered volunteers over a number of days. Their possession of the machine resulted in other parties not being able to have access to a commonly held student resource. OPIRG, or any other campus group, should not allow the use of a student resource to be monopolized by any individual or individuals, especially during an election.

RECOMMENDATION The BOA should clear up Election rules regarding commonly used student resources, specifically there should be rules prohibiting the monopolization of common student resources. This refers especially to scarce resources such as the button maker.

RULING

Despite the absence of a clear rule governing the use of common resources, the SAC maintains that the volunteers monopolizing the button maker should have known that by removing the button maker from OPIRG for an extended period of time they were denying the other parties access to a common resource. The presence of the button maker at the residence of the principal volunteers of Guillaume and Wolfe gave them a particular benefit. Dubois’ volunteers, Latour and Newell, got in contact with Guillaume’s volunteer, Dier-McComb, and also benefitted by arranging access to the button maker. Section 5.5 of the Electoral Regulations makes candidates responsible for the actions of their volunteers. For the above-mentioned reasons, the SAC fines Wolfe and Guillaume $30 each. For her reduced involvement in the monopolizing of the button maker Dubois is fined $20.

12

Question II – Est-il possible de démontrer que Roxanne Dubois, et/ou ses bénévoles et représentants officiels don’t il est responsible, a (ont) violé l’article 4.7.1 de la Constitution de la SFUO?

QUESTION II - IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ROXANNE DUBOIS, OR HER VOLUNTEERS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES FOR WHO SHE IS RESPONSIBLE, VIOLATED SECTION 4.7.1 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SFUO?

Roxanne Dubois was a candidate in the 2009 SFUO general elections. She ran for the position of V.P. Finance. She won her election with 1261 votes more than her opponent, and with 59% of the overall vote. After the election results were made public, the appellants decided to contest the election and to make an appeal to the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC). The appellant party is composed of Renaud-Philippe Garner, Maureen Hasinoff and Alexandre Chaput. Hasinoff was running for the position of Vice-President Finance and Chaput was running for the position of Vice-President Social for the 2009 general elections. The appellants’ claim was forwarded to the Student Arbitration Committee by means of a Board of Administration motion on March 31, 2009. It sets out accusations toward Mr. Wolfe, Ms. Dubois, Ms. Hasinoff, and Mr. Guillaume.

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 2 The accusation is that Roxanne Dubois participated in a meeting with Sidney Loko and Seamus Wolfe during which Dubois explained the existence of a slate comprised of herself, Wolfe, Guillaume, Séguin, and Eva Ferrara-Aganier. Sidney Loko admits to meeting with other candidates, including Wolfe, Garner, Dubois, and others. In the course of a campaign, it is normal for an incumbent candidate on the SFUO executive, as per their duties, to meet with other candidates to discuss the nature and the duties of the executive. Dubois was an incumbent candidate. Part of their duties include the encouragement of student participation.

13

The accusation by the appellants is that four people acted as a slate. Sidney Loko is not mentioned as a member of this alleged slate. Sidney Loko’s position is that he was not asked to be on a team or to join a slate. Wolfe also denies this element of the accusation, as does Dubois.

Decision On a balance of probabilities, the appellants have failed to prove this accusation against Roxanne Dubois.

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 5 This is an accusation against Roxanne Dubois to the effect that she participated in meetings in which she admitted to being part of a slate in violation of s. 4.7.1 b) of the SFUO Constitution. Based on the testimony given, the discussions referred to in this accusation occurred before the official campaign period and consisted of general conversations regarding the SFUO Board of Administration (BOA) elections excluding the executive positions. There were separate events raised. The first was a meeting at Michael Cheevers’ in November and the second was a separate meeting at Amy Kichek’s house closer to the election.

November meeting at Cheevers’ It is established that a November meeting occurred at Michael Cheevers’, witnesses for the appellant and the respondent parties agree that a discussion about possible candidates for the upcoming BOA elections took place. Both parties gave testimony that no specific discussions occurred that related to the formation of a slate among candidates for the SFUO executive. DECISION Since both parties gave testimony that there was no discussion about a slate at the November meeting at Cheevers’ house, there is no need for the SAC to make a ruling here.

Meeting in Kishek’s living room

14

A meeting occurred in Amy Kishek’s living room. Evidence and testimony in relation to this event were highly conflicting and contradictory. Kishek, Garner and Belvitt stipulate that Loko told them how Dubois approached him to join their slate. Loko and some of the respondents maintain that there was no discussion of a team at this meeting or at any other time. The appellants and others maintain the opposite. DECISION There was conflicting testimony with regard to this meeting. The matter was inconclusive. The burden of proof rests on the appellants. On a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to discharge this burden for this particular accusation against Roxanne Dubois.

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 6 Roxanne Dubois is accused of participating in the campaign of Sidney Loko by correspondence and by providing an information session, in a manner contrary to 4.7.1 b) of the SFUO Constitution. This article itself covers a very broad range of situations. The criteria for its application are not specified in the SFUO Constitution. Loko was approaching Dubois to get advice about executive positions from a sitting member of the executive, at least in part because of Dubois’ experience in running in student elections at the University of Ottawa. Dubois’ assistance in helping to improve Loko’s poster photo and offering suggestions about his platform seem grounded in a genuine desire to help a student who has never been involved in student politics become more involved in student life. Roxanne Dubois had certain duties to respond to questions from potential candidates about the SFUO executive. Nonetheless, Dubois was familiar with the SFUO Constitution and rules and should have been aware that offering assistance in this manner was a contravention of section 4.7.1 b) of the SFUO Constitution. Although, she did so in a very isolated and private way, that could in no way have been perceived by the public as her support for another candidate’s campaign, there was a clear violation of s. 4.7.1 b) of the SFUO constitution. DECISION

15

The SAC fines Dubois $20 for violating s. 4.1.7 of the SFUO constitution. Minor penalties may be issued according to 18.1.1 and 18.1.2 of the Electoral Regulations. We impose this penalty in accordance with the powers to sanction of the S.A.C. under section 8.2.3 of the SFUO Constitution. In light of this candidate being a repeat offender regarding minor infractions, we impose this sanction in conformity with how such an infraction should have been sanctioned if it had been proven during the elections. In no way should this action result in disqualification from the campaign or removal from the position of V.P. Finance-elect. That would not be in conformity with the Constitution as a whole. RECOMMENDATION Section 4.7.1 b) is written in such a way that it is very broad. Take for example the situation of a student who approaches a member of the sitting executive, indicates his interest in running for a position in the next election and asks about an inexpensive shop to have posters printed. If an executive complied, suggested an appropriate place, and eventually both the executive and the approaching student ran for separate positions in the next election, a literal reading of s. 4.7.1 would find that their prior collaboration constituted “participation” in another candidate’s campaign. The scope of this restriction seems to create an undesirable effect. It seems clear that 4.7.1 seeks to prevent the formation of slates among parties, not to prohibit all manners of communication between persons interested in getting involved with student life. To that end, the BOA should consider drafting legislation and policy that establish criteria to clearly identify what constitutes the type of activity they are trying to prohibit.

BUTTONS: ACCUSATION 11 (& PART 1 OF ACCUSATION 3)

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 11 Roxanne Dubois is accused of having a volunteer or official representative from another campaign work on her buttons. Geneviève Latour, volunteer for Roxanne Dubois, testifies that she and another volunteer for Dubois, Andrée Newell, went over to Becky Dier-McComb’s

16

residence. This residence is shared with Iain Brannigan and Elizabeth Mackay as well as François Picard. Lauren McPhee is a registered volunteer for Wolfe and the official representative for Board of Governor candidate and Wolfe campaign Director, Iain Brannigan. It is uncontested that she lived at the residence of Iain Brannigan, François Picard (current SFUO Executive Coordinator) Elizabeth MacKay (registered volunteer for Guillaume) and Becky Dier-McComb (registered volunteer for Guillaume) for a period of three weeks during some or most of the election period. It is uncontested that this residence is the place where the bulk of Wolfe, Guillaume and Dubois’ buttons were made. While McPhee was living there, she was in a casual relationship with Brannigan, a relationship that ended under emotionally difficult circumstances shortly before the filing of the complaint in issue. She makes a number of allegations including that she violated s. 5.3 of the Electoral regulations, and that she witnessed multiple candidates violate s. 5.3 of the Electoral Regulations.

McPhee making buttons for multiple candidates McPhee alleges that she violated s.5.3 of the Electoral regulations by making buttons for multiple candidates, including buttons for Guillaume and Dubois. McPhee explained that she did not know about the restriction on registered volunteers working on multiple campaigns. She also gave testimony that Wolfe never instructed her to make buttons for multiple candidates. Picard claims that the bulk of the button making happened in the evening. Since it was at his residence, he was present for the bulk of the button making. He states that he observed that McPhee made buttons on two occasions, always in the company of Brannigan, and that she only made buttons for Wolfe. Mackay and Dier-McCombe also gave evidence that although they were not with McPhee at all times, they only saw her making buttons for the candidate she was registered for and this was Wolfe. RULING Based on the conflicting testimony, the complicated emotional situation of some of the parties and the absence of uninvolved witnesses, the SAC finds this matter to be inconclusive.

17

McPhee witnessed registered volunteers making buttons for multiple campaigns (excluding MacKay) Although she did not give a complete roster of names (excluding MacKay) McPhee also stated that she witnessed numerous volunteers violate s. 5.3 of the Election Regulations with regard to the production of buttons. Oral evidence was given by Dier-McCombe, Genevieve Latour, Taiva Tegler, Brannigan, and Myriam Bérubé denying that they ever made buttons for more than one candidate. In addition, written testimony was submitted by Elizabeth Mackay, C.J. Symons and Michael Fancie in denial of this same allegation. RULING For the most part it seems that the buttons were made in the same specified location by the aforementioned volunteers. Many of them used the button maker intermittently, when it was not being used by another volunteer. This is in addition to the fact that a significant number of the volunteers in question resided at the address in question and gives considerable weight to their testimony. Based on a number of testimonies provided opposing the allegations of McPhee and the circumstances surrounding the breakup of Brannigan and McPhee’s association, we find the following: the appellants have not, on a balance of probabilities, shown that volunteers made buttons for multiple campaigns.

McPhee & Kishek: Separate button maker

McPhee claimed that the button maker in question did not belong to OPIRG. Instead she maintains that Brannigan told her that this button maker came from the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA). Also, Kishek claims that Elizabeth Mackay said that the button maker did not come from OPIRG. Bérubé, Tegler, Picard, Cheevers, and Brannigan all deny this allegation. RULING

18

Based on the conflicting testimonies, and the lack of substantiation of the Kishek testimony, the SAC rules that the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a second or different button maker machine.

Accusations of Kishek & McPhee against MacKay Kishek accuses Elizabeth Mackay, the registered volunteer for Guillaume, of making buttons for Wolfe. Kishek claims that MacKay admitted this to her. McPhee also singled out MacKay as someone who made buttons for multiple candidates. Dier-McCombe, Mike Fancie and Iain Brannigan affirmed that when they witnessed MacKay making buttons that she only made buttons for Guillaume. Picard claims that he witnessed the bulk of the button making happen in the evening and testified that since it was at his residence, he was present at the bulk of the button making. He affirms that MacKay only made buttons for Guillaume. RULING Conflicting testimonies, the lack of substantiation of Kishek’s testimony and the tense emotional state between McPhee and Brannigan have resulted in the SAC finding this matter to be inconclusive. As a result, the appellants have failed to make the case on a balance of probabilities that Mackay made buttons for Wolfe.

Common resources The OPIRG button machine is a student resource, and its use was monopolized by a number of candidates. It was kept in the living room of a few registered volunteers over a number of days. Their possession of the machine resulted in other parties not being able to have access to a commonly held student resource. OPIRG, or any other campus group, should not allow the use of a student resource to be monopolized by any individual or individuals, especially during an election.

19

RECOMMENDATION The BOA should clear up Election rules regarding commonly used student resources, specifically there should be rules prohibiting the monopolization of common student resources. This refers especially to scarce resources such as the button maker.

RULING

Despite the absence of a clear rule governing the use of a common resources, the SAC maintains that the volunteers monopolizing the button maker should have known that by removing the button maker from OPIRG for an extended period of time they were denying the other parties access to a common resource. The presence of the button maker at the residence of the principal volunteers of Guillaume and Wolfe gave them a particular benefit. Dubois’ volunteers, Latour and Newell, got in contact with Guillaume’s volunteer, DierMcComb, and also benefitted by arranging access to the button maker. Section 5.5 of the Electoral Regulations makes candidates responsible for the actions of their volunteers. For the above-mentioned reasons, the SAC fines Wolfe and Guillaume $30 each. For her reduced involvement in the monopolizing of the button maker Dubois is fined $20.

QUESTION 3: IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT JULIE SÉGUIN, AND/OR HER VOLUNTEERS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES, VIOLATED ARTICLE 4.7.1 OF THE SFUO CONSTITUTION? Julie Séguin, current Vice-President Communications for the SFUO, presented herself for re-election in the same position at the SFUO in the 2009 general elections. She ran against Tristant Dénommée. Séguin passed the mandatory bilingualism test during the 2008 election. Dénommée failed this year’s

20

bilingualism test, and Séguin ended up running unopposed. After the election results were made public, the appellants decided to contest the election and to make an appeal to the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC). The appellant party is composed of Renaud-Philippe Garner, Maureen Hasinoff and Alexandre Chaput. Hasinoff was running for the position of Vice-President Finance and Chaput was running for the position of Vice-President Social for the 2009 general elections. The appellants’ claim was forwarded to the Student Arbitration Committee by means of a Board of Administration motion on March 31, 2009. It sets out accusations toward Mr. Wolfe, Ms. Dubois, Ms. Hasinoff, and Mr. Guillaume.

Accusation 2: Seamus Wolfe attends a meeting to help Sidney Loko’s campaign The appellants allege that Wolfe and Dubois met with Sidney Loko, a candidate running for Vice-President University Affairs. At this meeting it is alleged that Wolfe and Dubois told Loko about the existence of a slate comprising themselves Jean Guillaume, Julie Séguin and Eve Ferrara-Aganier. Wolfe and Dubois admit to meeting with Sidney Loko and many other candidates. In the course of a campaign, it is normal for an incumbent candidate on the SFUO executive, as per their duties, to meet with other candidates to discuss the nature and the duties of the executive. Wolfe denies ever talking about a slate. Loko also admits to meeting with other candidates, including Wolfe, Garner, Dubois, and others. Dubois, Loko and Wolfe all deny that any meeting took place where a slate was discussed. Loko says he never was asked to join a team. The accusation of the appellants is that four people acted as a slate. Sidney Loko is not mentioned as a member of this alleged slate.

RULING Having produced no evidence of such a meeting beyond merely asserting that a meeting took place, the appellants have failed to show that a meeting took place between Loko, Dubois and Wolfe where the formation or existence of a slate was discussed.

21

Accusation 7: Séguin participates in the conception of Wolfe’s posters Aminka Belvitt testifies that she saw Julie Séguin working on a photograph of Seamus Wolfe on January 31 and accuses Séguin of designing Wolfe’s election poster. Belvitt later clarified that she did not see a campaign poster, simply the same photograph used on the campaign poster. Belvitt also made clear that she did not see an election poster, that there was no writing and there was no photo of Tabaret, just a photo of Wolfe. Séguin admits to working on this photograph taken from facebook, as Wolfe is her friend and colleague on the 2008-2009 SFUO executive. It is not abnormal under the circumstances for her to be doing this. Séguin presented evidence that she gave the photo an “extreme makeover.” Receipts were given to indicate that Wolfe posters were printed on Jan 30, the night before the Seguin –Belvit encounter making it impossible that Seguin was designing the poster at this time.

RULING On a balance of probabilities, the appellants failed to prove the accusation that Seguin was working on Wolfe’s poster.

SEGUIN E-MAIL TO CAMPAIGN VOLUNTEERS Seguin sent an e-mail to her campaign team on January 24, 2008 informing them that she would be unopposed in her bid to be re-elected for VP Communications. In the e-mail she gave the option to her friends to get involved with other candidates’ campaigns, outlining some of her preferences.

RULING The SAC determined that this was a private communication to a group of friends, wherein she expressed her preference for a number of candidates over others. We do not feel this is a violation of the SFUO constitution or Electoral policy, policing the speech of candidates’ private communications to their friends would be an excessive invasion of their rights.

22

QUESTION 4: IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT JEANSORPHIA GUILLAUME, AND/OR HIS VOLUNTEERS AND OFFICIAL REPRESENTATIVES, VIOLATED ARTICLE 4.7.1 OF THE SFUO CONSTITUTION? Guillaume, current President of the ADESS (Association des étudiants(es) en Service social), presents himself as candidate for the position of Vice President Social of the SFUO in the 2009 general elections. He ran against one candidate, Alexandre Chaput. Guillaume won the election with 657 votes over the other candidate. After the election results were made public, the appellants decided to contest the election and to make an appeal to the Student Arbitration Committee (SAC). The appellant party is composed of Renaud-Philippe Garner, Maureen Hasinoff and Alexandre Chaput. Hasinoff was running for the position of VicePresident Finance and Chaput was running for the position of Vice-President Social for the 2009 general elections. The appellants’ claim was forwarded to the Student Arbitration Committee by means of a Board of Administration motion on March 31, 2009. It sets out accusations toward Mr. Wolfe, Ms. Dubois, Ms. Hasinoff, and Mr. Guillaume.

Accusation 2: Wolfe & Dubois met with Loko to discuss the existence of a slate whose membership includes Guillaume. The appellants allege that Wolfe and Dubois met with Sidney Loko, a candidate running for Vice-President University Affairs. At this meeting it is alleged that Wolfe and Dubois told Loko about the existence of a slate comprising themselves Jean Guillaume, Julie Séguin and Eve Ferrara-Aganier. Wolfe and Dubois admit to meeting with Sidney Loko and many other candidates. In the course of a campaign, it is normal for an incumbent candidate on the SFUO executive, as per their duties, to meet with other candidates to discuss the nature and the duties of the executive. Wolfe denies ever talking about a slate. Loko also admits to meeting with other candidates, including Wolfe, Garner, Dubois, and others. Dubois, Loko and Wolfe all deny that any meeting took place where a slate was discussed. Loko says he never was asked to join a team.

23

The accusation of the appellants is that four people acted as a slate. Sidney Loko is not mentioned as a member of this alleged slate.

RULING Having produced no evidence of such a meeting beyond merely asserting that a meeting took place, the appellants have failed to show that a meeting took place between Loko, Dubois and Wolfe where the formation or existence of a slate was discussed.

Accusation 3 Accusation 3 was split into two parts. The first part, accusation against Guillaume volunteer MacKay by Kishek, is addressed under accusation 11. The second part, Kishek accusation against Wolfe and Guillaume, is addressed under accusation 9.

Accusation 4: Wolfe gets help from one of Guillaume’s volunteer in the making of a survey The appellants failed to present any significant evidence on this matter. RULING The SAC finds that they failed to prove that Guillaume’s volunteer was involved in the making of the survey.

Accusation 8: Guillaume took part in Wolfe’s campaign and received his support.

24

Kishek accusation that Guillaume and Wolfe working together during class presentations

Amy Kishek, a contestant running for a BOA position at the time, claims she witnessed Wolfe and Guillaume campaigning together including doing class presentations. During the elections, all candidates were doing class presentations in groups or alone. This was asserted by witnesses of both parties. This is normal during elections and is not prohibited.

RULING No other witness gave testimony on confirming that Wolfe and Guillaume were supporting each other during class presentations. As a result, we find that the appellants failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that Guillaume was participating in Wolfe’s during class presentations.

Kishek accusation of illegal campaigning during 1 on 1 encounters with students Kishek alleged that Wolfe and Guillaume regularly endorsed each other while campaigning among small groups of students. She singled out the evening of Feb 11 as a date where this took place in the cafeteria. Both the respondents denied the allegation. The heavy involvement of both Kishek and Wolfe and Guillaume in the election, in addition to the absence of third party confirmation, make it difficult to for the SAC find a conclusive result. RULING Since the burden is on the appellants to prove their accusation, we find that the on a balance of probabilities the appellants failed to establish that Guillaume and Wolfe endorsed each other in 1 on 1 encounters with students.

Belvitt accusation regarding Guillaume Belvitt accuses Guillaume of campaigning in the cafeteria promoting himself and Wolfe. She identified a particular incident involving Guillaume and two black

25

students in the cafeteria where she maintains that he showed these students to vote for himself, Wolfe and herself on the e-vote system. He maintains that he was showing them how to use the system. She maintains that he was speaking in English. He maintains that he was speaking in Creole.

Guillaume denies her accusations involving any campaigning for any other party. He maintains that “he did not need anyone,” to win. He also maintains that Belvitt asked him for assistance in getting support from the francophone community. He said he helped her get access to a francophone class where they made a presentation together. This last statement was not contested by any of the appellants or by Belvitt. RULING In light of Belvitt’s earlier inconsistencies in her testimony involving Seguin (see Seguin decision and/or accusation 7), we find that on a balance of probabilities that Guillaume did not violate s. 4.7.1 in this instance.

Accusation 9: One of Guillaume’s volunteer actively participated in Wolfe’s campaign Kishek accuses Elizabeth Mackay, a registered volunteer for Guillaume, of making buttons for Wolfe. Kishek claims that MacKay admitted this to her. McPhee, a registered volunteer for Wolfe, also singled out MacKay as someone who made buttons for multiple candidates. Dier-McCombe, Mike Fancie and Iain Brannigan affirmed that when they witnessed MacKay making buttons that she only made buttons for Guillaume. Picard claims that he witnessed the bulk of the button making happen in the evening and testified that since it was at his residence, he was present at the bulk of the button making. He affirms that MacKay only made buttons for Guillaume. RULING Conflicting testimonies, the lack of substantiation of Kishek’s testimony and the tense emotional state between McPhee and Brannigan have resulted in the SAC finding this matter to be inconclusive. As a result, the appellants have failed to make the case on a balance of probabilities that Mackay made buttons for Wolfe.

26

Accusation 10: Guillaume campaigns for the other slate members On February 12, 2009 Adrian Harod witnessed Guillaume convincing an elector to vote for Wolfe, Dubois, Séguin and himself. Guillaume maintains that he was guiding the student through the e-voting system. RULING In light of the fact that no further evidence was submitted by any parties, we find that on a balance of probabilities, the appellants have failed to prove this accusation.

RECOMMENDATION Voting is supposed to be by secret ballot- with the advent of e-voting there is a potential for invasions of privacy with regards to voting. We believe there is a potential for problems when a candidate can oversee a person’s voting process even when it is on this voting person’s personal computer, public computer or laptop (or Blackberry, etc.). We strongly recommend that the BOA consider writing clear rules governing candidate activity with regards to e-voting. The vote is a secret ballot. If there was no e-voting, no candidate would be able to accompany a student into the voting booth – the same should apply to e-voting.

BUTTONS: ACCUSATION 11 (& PART 1 OF ACCUSATION 3)

Evaluation on the grounds of Accusation 11

Lauren McPhee is a registered volunteer for Wolfe and the official representative for Board of Governor candidate and Wolfe campaign Director, Iain Brannigan. It is uncontested that she lived at the residence of Iain Brannigan, François Picard (current SFUO Executive Coordinator) Elizabeth MacKay (registered volunteer for Guillaume) and Becky Dier-McComb (registered volunteer for Guillaume) for a period of three weeks during some or most of the election period. It is uncontested that this residence is the place where the bulk of Wolfe, Guillaume and Dubois’ buttons were made. While McPhee was living there, she was in a casual relationship with Brannigan, a relationship that ended under emotionally difficult circumstances shortly before the filing of the complaint in issue. 27

She makes a number of allegations including that she violated s. 5.3 of the Electoral regulations, and that she witnessed multiple candidates violate s. 5.3 of the Electoral Regulations.

McPhee making buttons for multiple candidates McPhee alleges that she violated s.5.3 of the Electoral regulations by making buttons for multiple candidates, including buttons for Guillaume and Dubois. McPhee explained that she did not know about the restriction on registered volunteers working on multiple campaigns. She also gave testimony that Wolfe never instructed her to make buttons for multiple candidates. Picard claims that the bulk of the button making happened in the evening. Since it was at his residence, he was present for the bulk of the button making. He states that he observed that McPhee made buttons on two occasions, always in the company of Brannigan, and that she only made buttons for Wolfe. Mackay and Dier-McCombe also gave evidence that although they were not with McPhee at all times, they only saw her making buttons for the candidate she was registered for and this was Wolfe. RULING Based on the conflicting testimony, the complicated emotional situation of some of the parties and the absence of uninvolved witnesses, the SAC finds this matter to be inconclusive.

McPhee witnessed registered volunteers making buttons for multiple campaigns (excluding MacKay) Although she did not give a complete roster of names (excluding MacKay) McPhee also stated that she witnessed numerous volunteers violate s. 5.3 of the Election Regulations with regard to the production of buttons. Oral evidence was given by Dier-McCombe, Genevieve Latour, Taiva Tegler, Brannigan, and Myriam Bérubé denying that they ever made buttons for more than one candidate. In addition, written testimony was submitted by Elizabeth Mackay, C.J. Symons and Michael Fancie in denial of this same allegation.

28

RULING For the most part it seems that the buttons were made in the same specified location by the aforementioned volunteers. Many of them used the button maker intermittently, when it was not being used by another volunteer. This is in addition to the fact that a significant number of the volunteers in question resided at the address in question and gives considerable weight to their testimony. Based on a number of testimonies provided opposing the allegations of McPhee and the circumstances surrounding the breakup of Brannigan and McPhee’s association, we find the following: the appellants have not, on a balance of probabilities, shown that volunteers made buttons for multiple campaigns.

McPhee & Kishek: Separate button maker

McPhee claimed that the button maker in question did not belong to OPIRG. Instead she maintains that Brannigan told her that this button maker came from the Carleton University Student Association (CUSA). Also, Kishek claims that Elizabeth Mackay said that the button maker did not come from OPIRG. Bérubé, Tegler, Picard, Cheevers, and Brannigan all deny this allegation. RULING Based on the conflicting testimonies, and the lack of substantiation of the Kishek testimony, the SAC rules that the appellants did not prove on a balance of probabilities that there was a second or different button maker machine.

Common resources The OPIRG button machine is a student resource, and its use was monopolized by a number of candidates. It was kept in the living room of a few registered volunteers over a number of days. Their possession of the machine resulted in other parties not being able to have access to a commonly held student resource.

29

OPIRG, or any other campus group, should not allow the use of a student resource to be monopolized by any individual or individuals, especially during an election.

RECOMMENDATION The BOA should clarify Election rules regarding commonly used student resources. Specifically, there should be rules prohibiting the monopolization of common student resources. This refers especially to scarce resources such as the button maker.

RULING

Despite the absence of a clear rule governing the use of a common resources, the SAC maintains that the volunteers monopolizing the button maker should have known that by removing the button maker from OPIRG for an extended period of time they were denying the other parties access to a common resource. The presence of the button maker at the residence of the principal volunteers of Guillaume and Wolfe gave them a particular benefit. Dubois’ volunteers, Latour and Newell, got in contact with Guillaume’s volunteer, DierMcComb, and also benefitted by arranging access to the button maker. Section 5.5 of the Electoral Regulations makes candidates responsible for the actions of their volunteers. For the above-mentioned reasons, the SAC fines Wolfe and Guillaume $30 each. For her reduced involvement in the monopolization of the button maker, Dubois is fined $20 for this infraction.

QUESTION 5: IS IT POSSIBLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WOLFE, GUILLAUME AND DUBOIS ARE GUILTY OF ELECTORAL FRAUD? For a ruling on Question five on the question of electoral fraud, refer to the rulings in the Questions one through four. A separate, more specific answer to

30

Question five is unnecessary, as all rulings of the SAC in this decision have been made in consideration of this particular question.

31