On February 25, The Varsity held the 2025 University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU) candidates’ debate from 9:00 am to 1:30 pm. The debate was moderated by Managing Editor, Internal Ajeetha Vithiyananthan and Graduate Bureau Chief Matthew Molinaro. 

Voting for the union’s 2025-2026 executive team is open from February 25 at 9:00 am to February 28 at 5:00 pm. Students can cast their vote online at utoronto.simplyvoting.com by signing in with their UTORid. 

Of the 18 candidates running for executive positions, only six attended the debate.

Prior to the debate, only nine confirmed their attendance, including one candidate who attended without confirming. Three of those who confirmed their attendance did not show up. 

In case you missed it, here are some of the key moments and questions from the debate. 

Vice-president, Public and University Affairs

Of the four Vice-president (VP) Public and University Affairs candidates, only Leli Gardapkhadze attended. 

When asked how she would advocate for better transit services and what specific transit initiatives she would implement for students, Gardapkhadze said she would approach government officials to work together and negotiate with TTC representatives. However, she did not mention any specific initiatives she would put forward for students. 

To another question on what issues she would focus lobbying efforts on, Gardapkhadze said she would lobby for mandatory academic advising, more study spaces on campus, and ease students expenses through cheaper textbooks. She also wants to advocate for internship opportunities for students.

When asked about balancing her lobbying efforts between international crises, such as the violence in Gaza and Israel and climate change, and local concerns, Gardapkhadze added she would do both, but address local issues first. She shared her plans to consult with experts on their opinions to approach global political and economic problems.

Sonak Saha confirmed with The Varsity that he would attend, but never showed up. In an email to The Varsity, Saha explained that he accidentally missed the debate due to a midterm. 

“This was not my intention at all, and I fully take responsibility for not being there to engage with students and share my platform in that setting,” wrote Saha. 

Damola Dina did not respond to The Varsity’s request to participate, while Saffiya Ramhendar-Armogan confirmed that she would not participate. 

Vice-President, Professional Faculties 

The two VP Professional Faculties (PF) candidates did not attend the debate. 

Erica Nguyen, the current VP PF, did not respond to The Varsity’s request to participate and Vivian Nguyen confirmed she would not participate. 

Vice-President, Finance & Operations

Of the three VP Finance & Operations candidates, only current VP Elizabeth Shechtman confirmed with The Varsity that she would attend. However, Shechtman never showed up and The Varsity was unable to confirm the reason for her absence. 

Yağmur Yenilmez and Winston Zhao did not respond to The Varsity’s request to participate.

Vice-President, Equity 

Of the three VP Equity candidates, Hala Marouf and Hunar Miglani attended the debate. 

When asked how they would consistently communicate with equity-seeking groups on campus and be aware of the unique issues they face, Marouf said she would speak with member groups, associations, and unions to learn from their lived experiences.

“There are as many ways of addressing the problem as there are different students with different circumstances of socioeconomic and cultural factors,” she said. 

Miglani believes there hasn’t been enough proactive communication with representatives from different community groups to prevent forms of discrimination. To fix this, she would hold office hours, drop-in sessions, and informal chats so students can voice their concerns.

She emphasized that the UTSU’s lack of student data collection hinders the union from identifying students’ specific concerns. Miglani added that she would create a Public Safety Advisory Committee with representatives across different communities to better understand their concerns. 

“People will feel more comfortable talking about their issues because they might see a representative that looks like them or faces an issue that is similar to what they’re facing,” she said.

When asked how to manage conflicts between equity-seeking groups, Marouf said she would take a position on the issue and choose what she feels is more “just” to navigate their needs after consulting with the students, while Miglani reiterated her plan to rely on the Public Safety Advisory Committee to understand the issue better and offer resources more effectively.

The candidates then spoke about how their lived experiences as members of equity-seeking groups plays a role in their equity work, and proposed questions to each other on their platforms. 

One student in the audience raised a question about how they will ensure to meet campaign promises under UTSU’s limited resources. 

Marouf assured that she’s an expert in the inner workings of the union and will use this knowledge to achieve her goals, and Miglani said all of her campaign promises are informed by the UTSU’s bylaws and resources available

While Sammy Onikoyi confirmed with The Varsity that she would attend the debate, she never showed up. 

In an email to The Varsity, Onikoyi wrote she didn’t attend because of health concerns. 

Vice-President, Student Life

Of the four VP Student Life (SL) candidates, only Juan Diego Areiza attended the debate. 

When asked about whether and how the club funding model should change, Areiza said he would ensure more transparency in the funding application process and ensure clear communication in whether a club receives funding or not and why. 

He also believes there are equity concerns within the funding selection process and proposes to focus on an initiative-based funding system for clubs.

When considering events to keep and ones to cut, Areiza supported the union’s Rideshare Program, which he mentioned was previously under the SL portfolio. Areiza said he would adjust or remove the Unity Ball in favour of a “culture fest” to showcase cultural identity and grant awards to students. 

When asked about ensuring first- and second-year students are connected to clubs and communities on campus, Areiza mentioned he would make a portal on the MyUTSU.ca website, where clubs can share their events and initiatives. 

One student in the audience asked Areiza what his first agenda item would be, if elected. Areiza said he would want to extend orientation, increase the events, bring more cultural identity to orientation, and use funds to ensure it’s more accessible and safe. 

Nehir Arpat and Aliyah Kashkari confirmed that they would not participate in the debate.

Sneha Bansal noted in an email to The Varsity that they would not be able to attend the debate due to a work schedule conflict.

President

Presidential candidates Paul Gweon and Melani Vevecka faced off to conclude the debate. 

When asked about the union’s role in responding to contentious social issues, Gweon began by quoting the UTSU’s bylaws and stating “I am here to represent all 41,000 U of T undergrad students.” 

He mentioned that he will focus on student well-being and mental health, adding that, “My job as the UTSU president, the sole spokesperson of the organization, is to make sure that all the UTSU members feel safe. All the UTSU members feel like they belong here.”

Vevecka responded by saying because the UTSU is a student organization, “we need to respect and we need to represent the students.”

She emphasized the importance of fostering respectful conversations over different social issues. “However, I do think that it is also our responsibility to remain neutral as well in order to be inclusive for everybody,” she added.

The next question asked how much they plan to enter conflict with the university — specifically, if they plan to work more within the university structure or confront it from the outside. 

Vevecka began by saying that there needs to be a healthy mix of both holding those in higher academic governance roles to account, but also “keep our students involved and always listen to what they want to say.” 

Gweon spoke about his experience attending meetings with a university provost as the president of the Woodsworth College Students’ Association (WCSA), and added that while he respects university officials, “students at U of T are always my priority.” 

The candidates were then asked to critique one aspect of the other presidential candidate’s campaign. 

Gweon began by saying Vevecka’s campaign has a great vision, but that she lacks student government presidential experience in leading a team.  

In response, Vevecka emphasized her research background for the government of Kosovo, stating that a good leader is not measured by the number of experiences they have, and that leadership is about “knowing how to listen and how to create space for others.” 

Vevecka then noted that while Gweon’s campaign focuses on engagement and mental health, he doesn’t have any policies. In response to her asking what his tangible policies are, Gweon said he wants to plan more events and mental health initiatives — such as pet therapy and exam de-stressor events. 

The candidates were then asked personalized questions about their campaigns. 

Based on Vevecka’s plan to improve the union’s communication and establish bi-weekly office hours to listen to students’ concerns, she was asked how she would deliver what students are asking for. 

In response, Vevecka emphasized the importance of increasing UTSU’s transparency in finances and directing students to the services that it offers. “U of T does not lack engagement, but rather lacks a sense of direction within the student body, “she added. 

Gweon was asked about how he would carry out his promise to ensure all the elected UTSU executives would keep their campaign promises, especially if he disagrees or finds it impractical. 

In response, he first noted that his role isn’t to force his beliefs onto the executive team, but to unify it and collectively work to advocate for students. He also shared an initiative to establish an executive timeline of initiatives. 

Vevecka was then asked about the feasibility of her plans — such as introducing a retroactive Credit/No Credit (CR/NCR) option, offering a TTC subsidy program for commuter students with financial need with the TTC, and creating a system for students to get involved in clubs,

She emphasized the importance of collecting data on petition surveys and student testimonials to establish retroactive CR/NCR. She broke down a percentage-based model that would holistically identify which students with financial or accessibility needs require a TTC subsidy program, and explained how the club match-making system can be created through ML (Meta Language) programming. 

Gweon was asked about his critiques on the current union’s transparency and lack of engaging student events, but his lack of mention as to what campus issues he plans to address. 

In response, Gweon emphasized his focus on inclusivity and accessibility on campus through ensuring there are “no broken student facilities.” He added that the “UTSU has millions of dollars that it can spend [on] events and initiatives” that he believes would increase student engagement. 

The candidates were given another opportunity to ask each other two questions. This was followed by a number of questions from the audience including how to balance hard decisions that may make some students unhappy, what ‘servant leadership’ looks like to the candidates, what they will do differently from UTSU’s “historically over promised and under delivered” events, and a specific question to Gweon about the WCSA’s lack of publicly accessible budgets, audits, and meeting minutes. 

The candidates then delivered closing remarks and the debate concluded. 

For the full-length debate check out part one and part two on The Varsity’s YouTube account.

Editor’s Note (February 27, 10:08 am): This article has been updated to reflect that Saffiya Ramhendar-Armogan confirmed her absence to The Varsity prior to the debate.