The 14 student activists facing criminal charges stemming from a March 20 sit-in at Simcoe Hall received only partial disclosure at the hearing on June 3 where they were to receive information about the specific charges and the evidence the prosecution intends to pursue.
At a public information meeting held last month by the Committee for Just Education, accused student Ryan Hayes asserted his belief that some of the accusations against him and the others amount to slander.
“Charges [are] being laid through the public eye, which don’t show up in the criminal proceedings,” he said. “Which makes you wonder if there’s any basis for them whatsoever.”
The University of Toronto and Toronto police have accused the students of preventing senior administrators and staff from leaving their offices in Simcoe Hall during a student occupation of the building to demand an immediate meeting with U of T president David Naylor. The 14 and their supporters say the charges are trumped-up and should be dropped.
In a statement released shortly after the sit-in, Naylor said that “Police were shoved, hit, and otherwise assaulted,” that staff members were “pushed and shoved,” and that any of the protestors “who are not U of T students will be subject to trespass orders.”
Yet Michael Leitold, one of the lawyers for the defence, confirmed this week that no one has been charged with assault or the other alleged offenses. Instead, the 14 have been charged with forcible confinement, an offense in the Criminal Code which falls under the heading of “Kidnapping, Trafficking in Persons, Hostage Taking and Abduction.” It carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison. Other charges include that of “forcible detainer” (wrongfully holding property not one’s own), and mischief in relation to property, carrying maximum sentences of two and five years, respectively.
U of T administrators have refused to comment on the investigation and court proceedings, maintaining that the matter is in police hands. The list of complainants in the case includes individual administrators, though neither the police nor the defendants’ legal counsel are willing to disclose the administrators’ names. Police were unwilling to comment on details of their investigation. The 14 accused have claimed the university played an active role in the investigation, citing the fact that police initially contacted them through their official university email addresses.
The accused are Farrah Miranda and Liisa Schofield, campus organizers for the Ontario Public Interest Research Group; Michal Hay, former VP university affairs at UTSU; Hayes, who is president of ASSU; Edward Wong, an ASSU executive; APUS staffers Oriel Varga and Chris Ramsaroop; recent U of T graduate Noaman Ali; Farshad Azadian and Semra Eylul Sevi, members of the activist group Always Question; and students Luis Granados, Golta Shahidi, and Gabi Rodriguez. The accused also include one minor who cannot be named, and who has been additionally charged with uttering a death threat. The minor is undergoing a separate legal process at youth court.
Leitold has complained that prosecutors are taking longer than normal to disclose information about the cases being processed. “There’s an intake process and that can usually take between 30 to 60 days. We’re well past that now. In our view, disclosure should be promptly made available to the defence,” he said.
Thirteen students have been accused of breaking U of T’s Code of Student Conduct. The group, which includes most of the students facing criminal charges, all received letters informing them they were being investigated under the CSC.
The investigation process is kept confidential and could result in serious academic penalties.
“It’s my understanding that a letter that you’re being investigated [under the CSC] is a threat of expulsion,” said Sevi, acting as a spokesperson for herself and her co-accused. Sevi is among the students facing both criminal charges and a CSC inquiry.
A university-appointed investigator from the law firm Heenan Blaikie contacted each of the co-accused, asking to interview them individually. The students have not agreed to meet with the investigator. Sevi said she and the others were concerned that the CSC investigation would be questionably linked to court proceedings.
“We won’t deal with [the CSC investigation] because anything we say could be used in court,” she said. She also insisted that the CSC investigation be stopped, as the matter is currently in court.
The Code of Student Conduct states that if an alleged offense is already the subject of a criminal or civil proceedings, the university will not redundantly use the CSC process. According to the policy, the university can launch the secondary investigation if criminal proceedings “have not been taken or would not adequately protect the University’s interests and responsibilities.”
“It is a clear example of an attempt at the intimidation of student activists and the silencing of dissent,” said Wong, who is also the focus of ongoing court and CSC investigations.
“Since criminal charges, however unjustifiable, have already been laid against those facing CSC investigations, the CSC investigations should be dropped,” he said.
