A McGill student has won a landmark case against the Canadian Federation of Students (CFS). Although Ge Sa, a PhD student and plaintiff in the case, launched the suit as an independent individual, his victory will allow the McGill Post-Graduate Students’ Society (PGSS) to hold a referendum on whether or not to remain a member of the CFS. The landmark case, launched earlier in the spring, began when Sa sent a petition for a referendum to the CFS in two packages, one of which was allegedly lost in transit.
The case could have wide-ranging consequences for CFS battles in other jurisdictions, including Ontario, where student societies such as the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU) at the University of Toronto have attempted to hold referenda on their CFS membership. Various U of T divisions, including the Engineering Society, the Trinity College Meeting, and Victoria University Students’ Administrative Council (VUSAC), passed referenda in favour of fee diversion from the University of Toronto Students’ Union in March 2013.
A PGSS referendum held in April 2010 resulted in 86 per cent of the electorate voting in favour of defederation, a majority large enough to leave. The PGSS does not consider itself a member of the CFS any longer and as such, has not paid its membership fees since 2010. The results of the 2010 referendum have yet to be recognized by the CFS, which maintains that the PGSS is still a member society. In response to the CFS’ refusal to acknowledge the 2010 referendum results, the PGSS filed a case requesting permission to schedule a referendum on their membership.
The trial for Sa’s case took place at the end of August, ending with the judge ruling in favour of Sa on September 9, 2014. The date of the PGSS referendum will be scheduled following a meeting of the national CFS executive. Sa has requested that the vote take place sometime in late October, although the date has yet to be confirmed.
Membership Dispute
It is the official stance of the PGSS that it is no longer part of the CFS. “Whether the last referendum is valid or not, it’s a case in court right now,” said Sa, acknowledging that the membership status of the PGSS is up to the court to decide.
“They keep claiming that the PGSS is part of the CFS on their website, in their materials, and in their publications. I personally think it’s just not [right]. I do not want to be associated with them, and I don’t want them to keep claiming fees from us,” he added.
“This is such a unique case because the PGSS actually put the brakes on us a number of years ago,” said Brent Farrington, CFS internal coordinator. “Their case was that they weren’t members of our organization; our case was that they are members of our organization.” He added, “[T]he students at McGill are in fact members and have the right to exercise that vote.”
However, when Sa filed his original petition requesting a referendum on the McGill campus, the CFS said they would not work to recognize the petition, on the grounds that the PGSS does not consider itself a member of the CFS. “We made him aware that, as per the bylaws, their member local association would not be cooperating with us to validate the petition because they did not believe they were members of our organization,” Farrington said.
“They’re switching back and forth on their position,” Sa said. “You can’t claim that we’re members in a previous case and then claim that we’re not members in this case,” he added.
Previous referenda attempts
According to Farrington, for a number of years the CFS has tried to set up a vote on membership at the McGill campus. “The student association shut down the process,” Farrington said of the 2010 referendum. However, the PGSS used an online voting system for the referendum, which is not permitted under CFS bylaws. “That was a violation of the bylaws — we flagged that for them and they decided to proceed anyway,” Farrington added.
“The CFS has been backwards. We’re in 2014 now and they still want to use paper ballots,” said Sa.
“The PGSS is not involved with the CFS at all and I find it funny that the CFS uses bylaws that they amend themselves to retroactively bind the PGSS,” Sa added.
Farrington claims that no one has filed a motion to amend the CFS bylaws to allow online voting; however, it is a topic that the CFS has discussed.
Additionally, there were issues with the receipt of the petition that Sa sent to the CFS wherein he requested that a referendum be scheduled. Sa’s petition was sent in two envelopes, one of which the CFS claims it never received. “[T]hat’s a lot of half-truths,” Farrington said in response to the allegation that the petition was misplaced.
Sa said that he sent the petition in two separate parts in order to comply with Canada Post regulations. “It was sent in two envelopes because Canada Post doesn’t allow super heavy packages,” he said.
Sa believes that the CFS did receive both the envelopes, and said that he has tracking information to support his claim. Farrington, on the other hand, claims that both envelopes were sent by registered post to the CFS office in Ottawa, but when they received notice to collect them, there was only one envelope waiting. “It was a clerical error — we contacted Ge Sa to advise him that his petition didn’t add up to nearly enough and asked what was going on, and he then accused us of not picking up his second envelope,” Farrington said.
The CFS eventually recognized the petition on August 26, two days before the start of Sa’s trial.
Implications for Ontario
Other student societies in Ontario have also attempted to hold referenda on their CFS membership. Among these is the GSU at U of T, which is in the process of litigation with the CFS. In September 2013, the GSU circulated a petition for a referendum which gathered 3,000 signatures. The CFS has not acknowledged the validity of the petition, so the GSU undertook legal action to initiate a referendum.
Walter Callaghan, chair of the litigation committee of the GSU, hopes that the court judgment will be favourable and that the CFS will be required to acknowledge the validity of the petition. If the CFS acknowledges the petition, Callaghan anticipates holding the referendum during this academic year. The GSU has no official position on the petition and encourages discussion of the issue from all of its members.
“The Ge Sa victory means that the CFS cannot arbitrarily interpret its bylaws, and recognizes the rights the bylaws provide to students to decide their own future and the nature of their relationship with CFS,” Callaghan said.
Although the GSU was one of the founding members of the CFS, their internal relationship with them has soured over the years. A statement on the GSU website states that the GSU and the CFS often have different goals and that the petition should open a healthy debate on their 32-year-old CFS membership. Further statements report a lack of need for the CFS as one of the reasons behind the petition. The GSU has sought out alternative, allegedly superior replacements for CFS services, such health and dental plans, a more sustainable handbook, and ethical merchandise.
“This case sets the precedent that any student within a student group — no matter what their execs may think — if they have the 20 per cent needed to call a referendum, they can have a referendum,” Sa said.
