U of T community radio sued for defamation by former labour union president

Unifor organizer Lisabeth Pimentel suing over allegations of racism, harassment

U of T community radio sued for defamation by former labour union president

U of T’s community radio station, CIUT 89.5 FM, has been caught in the crosshairs of a dispute involving organizers from two major labour unions in Toronto: Unifor and Unite Here. Lisabeth Pimentel, former President of Unite Here Local 75 and current organizer at Unifor Local 7575, is suing CIUT for allegedly allowing defamatory content about her to be aired on its radio shows.

CIUT is one of many defendants in a case that started as an internal conflict within Unite Here Local 75, which has now escalated into a multi-party defamation lawsuit with $500,000 in damages on the line.

Unite Here and Unifor both represent workers in a variety of industries, including hospitality, airport industries, and manufacturing.

The lawsuit

The case stems from Pimentel’s claims that a number of her former colleagues at Unite Here made comments on air alleging that her leadership was plagued with “racism, discrimination, harassment and bullying.”

According to the court filings, the majority of the alleged defamatory comments were made on social media, including Facebook and Twitter. However, a few of the statements identified in the statement of claim, which commenced the lawsuit, were made as a part of interviews broadcasted by CIUT and posted on the internet as podcasts.

The lawsuit claims that on January 30, 2018, a U of T graduate and member of Unite Here was a guest on CIUT radio show WeAreUofT, during which she spoke about how she was assaulted by another staff member. The claim also alleges that this guest claimed on the air that Pimentel informed the assailant that the guest was accusing him of assault, putting her “into an even more vulnerable position.”

The claim further states that the guest further remarked on air that Pimentel “was going to such lows to dismiss the voices… of racialized people who had built the union. To not have to listen to them, to not have to listen to them question her leadership. That is how far she was willing to go.”

Rik Hockley, former member of the executive board of Unite Here Local 75, was also a guest on The Taylor Report, a CIUT radio show. The lawsuit claims that on February 21, 2018, Hockley alleged that there was a racial divide between white people and people of colour within the office and that some of the rank-and-file organizers were “being treated like criminals.”

Because these allegedly defamatory comments were broadcasted by CIUT on its radio programs, Pimentel is also seeking damages from the station.

“I filed this lawsuit because facts matter,” wrote Pimentel in an email to The Varsity. “The allegations that CIUT published are false.”

“There is a dispute about the takeover of a Canadian local union of hospitality workers by its US-based parent union. Instead of addressing the merits of this dispute, the supporters of the US parent union turned this into an unwarranted personal attack on me, and CIUT allowed itself to be used as their pawn,” wrote Pimentel.

She added that the case can end much more quickly if CIUT would “apologize and admit that… it failed in the most elementary of journalistic ethics by failing to contact me before it participated in an attack on my integrity.”

Pimentel also added that her lawyers have been in contact with CIUT’s lawyers since the lawsuit was filed.

The defendants’ responses

In the months following Pimentel’s lawsuit, the defendants hired lawyers themselves and announced their intentions to defend.

All of the defendants except for CIUT were represented by the same law firm, Cavalluzzo LLP, and filed a joint statement of defence in which they asked that the “action be dismissed with costs.”

The statement of defence included background allegations of what the defendants called the “chaos, dysfunction and bitter internal conflict” within Unite Here during Pimentel’s tenure.

The defendants claim that no defamation had occured on the grounds that some of what Pimentel claimed never happened. In addition, the statement of defence claims that Pimentel had harmed her own reputation through her actions, and that they were allowed to say what they did because of qualified privilege.

Qualified privilege is one of the defences for defamation in the Canadian judicial system and can be used in cases where a person has a legal or moral duty to give a defamatory statement because it is in the public interest. A statement protected by qualified privilege cannot be made with malicious intent.

The defendants claim that “they had a duty and an interest in communicating their respective views on the internal conflict.”

CIUT has likewise engaged lawyers and announced their intention to defend.

Legal background

According to Brett Caraway, a UTM Assistant Professor teaching internet law, Pimentel may have a good chance of winning her case against CIUT. “In Canada, and in Ontario specifically, the need to protect the reputation of individuals actually gets more weight than freedom of expression,” Caraway told The Varsity.

Inferences aligned with this can be found in both the Ontario Libel and Slander Act as well as in case law. In the 1995 case of Hill v Church of Scientology of Toronto, the Supreme Court of Canada decided to reject the American “actual malice” standard from precedence that gives more protection to broadcasters from being sued for defamation. Actual malice establishes whether broadcasters knowingly or with negligent disregard publish something that was untrue and defamatory; it also places the burden of providing this proof on the plaintiff.

Caraway also pointed to the fact that radio programs are treated as traditional broadcasters with a publishing role in the eyes of the law. According to Caraway, radio programs have the ability to edit their content in some capacities, and by way of actively engaging and interviewing people, radio shows have a degree of control over what they disseminate.

This set of conditions — Ontario’s tough defamation laws and the classification of radio shows as broadcasters — is why Caraway believes that Pimentel could have a strong case.

Defamation lawsuits have been on the rise since the advent of the internet. Some attribute this to a lack of public understanding that social media users are legally liable for their posts and comments.

Even though Caraway said that he does not “want to live in a world where people are scared to call racism out.” He warned that “if you’re going to [call out racism or prejudicial behaviour], I wouldn’t be flippant about it. And I would definitely take into consideration that you may end up in a courtroom.”

The Varsity has reached out to the guest who appeared on the January 30 show and Hockley for comment, but has been unable to secure a response. CIUT declined to comment.

Disclosure: The Varsity has previously engaged the services of Cavaluzzo LLP.

Editor’s Note (September 10): The online version of this article has been updated to protect the identity of the guest who appeared on WeAreUofT’s January 30 show. The guest appeared on the show anonymously — a recognized practice for sources discussing their personal experiences with assault. While the guest’s name is included in the court filings and is a matter of public record, The Varsity respects the importance of protecting the identity of those who come forward with allegations of assault.

CIUT radio: the voice for everyone who doesn’t complain

U of T radio station’s treatment of host Jamaias DaCosta reveals faulty policies and anti-Indigenous sentiment

CIUT radio: the voice for everyone who doesn’t complain

Earlier in March, The Varsity reported on allegations made by Jamaias DaCosta, an Indigenous CIUT radio host who was suspended in February. DaCosta claimed that CIUT had mishandled her sexual harassment complaint and suspended her for criticizing the radio station on the air.

According to DaCosta, an unnamed CIUT host, “behaved inappropriately toward her, including touching her, coming into the studio drunk, and calling her names like ‘sugar.’”

DaCosta also claims that CIUT repeatedly violated her confidentiality, first by sharing her name in an email with the accused to thank them for their patience during the investigation, and again when she was named as the complainant in the case during the CIUT Board of Directors meeting in January.

The accused in DaCosta’s sexual harassment case has since been suspended. DaCosta herself was suspended after criticizing the station and media coverage of Colten Boushie’s death and the trial of his killer, and the media coverage of Tina Fontaine’s death.

CIUT’s behavior in this situation is unacceptable, and the station’s staff have offered no apology to DaCosta or even any kind of satisfactory explanation for their actions.

First, they violated DaCosta’s privacy by sharing her name with the Board of Directors and with the person she is accusing of sexual harassment in the first place. Then, they offered half-hearted excuses as to why this happened.

Finally, they gave contradictory explanations about the reasons for DaCosta’s suspension from the station — all of which ironically seem to centre on the fact that DaCosta was criticizing how the media, CIUT included, treats Indigenous people.

When CIUT President Steve Fruitman was asked about DaCosta’s complaints, he stated, “There’s been no breach from our side. No members have seen our agendas. No members have seen our minutes.”

Essentially, Fruitman seems to be admitting that he showed DaCosta’s complaint to the Board with her name revealed as the accuser, but with the excuse that the members haven’t seen the agendas or minutes.

Either Fruitman is saying the Board’s minutes and agendas are not accessible to members, showing a lack of transparency on the part of the board, or he is admitting that DaCosta’s name and complaint were, in fact, made available to the members, but that they haven’t seen it. Fruitman’s dismissal of DaCosta’s concerns is also flippant, and seems to suggest he doesn’t take them very seriously.

Further criticisms can be directed at CIUT’s failure to enforce their sexual harassment policy in the case of DaCosta’s complaint. The policy states that investigations should be wrapped up in a timely manner — preferably around a month — yet DaCosta’s complaint has been ongoing since November 2017.

Fruitman stated that the station acted immediately in response to DaCosta’s complaint, but offered no explanation for the delay.

It should also be noted that CIUT’s policy itself might be in need of review due to its age — Fruitman suggested that most of CIUT’s policies, including this one, date back to 1988. While Fruitman did acknowledge that parts of the policy needed to be improved, he also stated that most of CIUT’s policies “are good for almost forever… They’re just basic rules we’ve always had, since 1988.”

Any policy dealing with a sensitive issue like sexual harassment probably will not be good for ‘almost forever,’ and clearly the policy could be improved, or at least needs to come with more teeth in terms of enforcement, as it has been months since the initial complaint and little has been resolved.

CIUT’s decision to suspend DaCosta is also unacceptable. The supposed reasoning behind DaCosta’s suspension was that she discussed the trial of Boushie’s killer on air.

In an email to DaCosta, station manager Ken Stowar stated, “The comment [that DaCosta made] was such that CIUT-FM could be held criminally responsible for interfering with the rights of an individual for a fair trial.”

Setting aside the issue of whether DaCosta could in fact be charged under the Criminal Code for her comments, which remains unclear, it is problematic in principle that she as an Indigenous person was censored, for daring to speak critically about how the criminal justice system handled the deaths of Boushie and of Fontaine, both Indigenous youths.

However, it turns out that the real reason DaCosta was suspended, according to her suspension email, was due to “disparaging comments made on air and online… about CIUT and its board of directors.”

On the same show that she made her comments about Boushie, DaCosta also noted that while CIUT presents itself as a “safe space,” it does not actually function as one, and is thus not fulfilling its role as a community radio station.

The official suspension email DaCosta received from CIUT, unlike the one sent to her by Stowar, did not mention her comments about Boushie’s killer at all.  

The lesson here, for DaCosta and for everyone watching this case, is that criticism of student media, or even commentary on current events, is unacceptable if it goes against the ideals of the media organization. As someone who expresses my opinion in student media on a regular basis, I am particularly appalled by these actions.

Student media, like all media, needs to be held accountable. There are already so few spaces for Indigenous students to express their opinions in a public forum, and CIUT is seemingly taking away one of them because DaCosta has criticized the station.

CIUT’s treatment of DaCosta’s sexual harassment complaint is one example of many. In January, a crowdsourced survey from The Professor is In revealed at least 16 instances of sexual harassment at U of T, mostly among graduate students being harassed by professors. The results of this survey arguably represent only a sample of a larger body of complaints, many of which never see the light of day.

When victims of sexual harassment see cases like DaCosta’s, still governed by a policy that hasn’t been updated since the 80s and that isn’t properly enforced, it’s no wonder that they may be reluctant to come forward.

If CIUT is so proud of its policies, including those on sexual harassment, it needs to actually enforce them. And if things go wrong, the correct response is to offer an apology to the victims — a genuine one — instead of making vague excuses and suspending them for expressing their opinions.

Adina Heisler is a third-year student at University College studying Women and Gender Studies and English. She is The Varsity’s Student Life Columnist.

Radio show host, student appointees allege mishandling of sexual harassment complaint at CIUT 89.5 FM

Breach of privacy, outdated policy, lengthy investigation among core criticisms

Radio show host, student appointees allege mishandling of sexual harassment complaint at CIUT 89.5 FM

Jamaias DaCosta, the host of two shows on campus radio station CIUT 89.5 FM, is alleging that the station mishandled a sexual harassment complaint she made against another host. Anne Boucher and Stuart Norton, two former University of Toronto Students’ Union student appointees on the station’s Board of Directors who resigned last week, are joining her in criticism of the station’s grievance process.

They point to an unresolved sexual harassment complaint filed by DaCosta in November 2017 as a symptom of what they see as a problematic grievance process currently in place at the station. DaCosta is the host of the CIUT shows The Vibe Collective and Indigenous Waves. She was suspended from the station on February 16 for criticizing it on air and commenting on the media coverage of the death of Colten Boushie and the trial of his killer, Gerald Stanley.

The sexual harassment complaint

DaCosta’s complaint was made against another CIUT host who has since been suspended from the station. DaCosta alleges that the accused behaved inappropriately toward her, including touching her, coming into the studio drunk, and calling her names like ‘sugar.’

According to DaCosta, CIUT President Steve Fruitman breached her confidentiality when an email he sent to her and the accused explicitly named her as the complainant. The email was sent as an update on the investigation, and it stated, “Thank you both for being patient while we wound our way through the complexity of dealing with the allegation forwarded to the management of the radio station by volunteer Jamaias DaCosta against [the accused], another volunteer with CIUT-FM.”

“I felt very compromised,” said DaCosta. “I felt very unsafe.”

Boucher said DaCosta’s confidentiality was further breached when she was named as the complainant in the agenda for the January Board of Directors meeting. “To think that confidential matters can be outlined in an agenda, an agenda that should be made accessible to the membership, shows both disregard for her privacy and shows that visibility & engagement are not things they’re used to,” wrote Boucher.

Boucher claims that sharing DaCosta’s identity with the accused and circulating her identity and that of the accused to the Board of Directors breached a clause in the CIUT sexual harassment policy titled “Confidentiality.” The clause states that CIUT “will not disclose any information about a complaint except as necessary to investigate the complaint or to take disciplinary action, or as required by law.”

When asked about this allegation, Fruitman said, “There’s been no breach from our side. No members have seen our agendas. No members have seen our minutes.”

Boucher is also dissatisfied with the amount of time it has taken to process the issue. “These are things that, when they happen, you’re dealing with them immediately,” said Boucher. “This happened in November and I can say that it’s still going on.”

Another sexual harassment clause, titled “Time Limits,” states that management “has a responsibility to make sure harassment ends as soon as they become aware of it. Complaints will be resolved as quickly as possible, ideally within one month of being made.” The complaint was lodged four months ago.

Fruitman said that the clause “doesn’t mean you have to stop all investigations after a month because it’s a month now, you can’t go on. That’s just something in the policy that you try to uphold, but it’s not a breach.” Fruitman also said that the station acted immediately to begin addressing the situation. “As soon as we got the complaint, we went to… the [Hart House] Warden and asked him what we should do, and he said to suspend [the accused] in a non-punitive suspension.”

“I think it’s still punitive because the guy can’t do the show, but [it’s] officially non-punitive pending the outcome of an investigation,” continued Fruitman. He declined to confirm whether the investigation was still ongoing, but then noted that “the fact that it’s been taking a long time” has been the “main complaint” so far. The accused confirmed that the investigation is ongoing.

Boucher also criticized the policy, which is two and a half pages long, for being “really out of date.” She said that “it’s sad, but it’s so funny at the same time that this is what their policy is.”

Fruitman acknowledged that the policy needs “improvement,” but says that most of CIUT’s policies “are good for almost forever.”

“They’re just basic rules we’ve always had, since 1988.”

DaCosta’s suspension from the station

DaCosta said that she decided to speak out about her complaint case after she was suspended from volunteer and on-air privileges on the station on February 16. She was suspended after criticizing the station on-air, following a warning from CIUT management regarding her comments on what she called ‘skewed’ media coverage of the death of Colten Boushie, a young Indigenous man in Saskatchewan, and the acquittal of his killer, Gerald Stanley.

In a warning email that station manager Ken Stowar sent to DaCosta, he said that the station took issue with a comment she made on air during a conversation addressing the deaths of Boushie and an Indigenous girl named Tina Fontaine. On air, DaCosta had said, “It’s been horrific watching the Canadian media vilify these young ones and scrutinize them while really creating these sympathetic narratives for their killers, especially for the killer of Boushie.”

Stowar’s email noted, “The comment was such that CIUT-FM could be held criminally responsible for interfering with the rights of an individual for a fair trial.” Stowar said that the station would continue to investigate the potential impact of DaCosta’s commentary, especially if a formal complaint were lodged against CIUT. Stowar warned her that her commentary could be actionable under the Criminal Code of Canada.

According to her suspension email, however, DaCosta was suspended “due to disparaging comments made on air and online… about CIUT and its board of directors.”

DaCosta said that Stowar “didn’t mention anything about [her] commentary [on CIUT] in the warning,” only the Boushie and Fontaine comments.

Though she says the specific offending comments were not made clear to her, DaCosta criticized CIUT on the same show as the one containing her comments on Boushie and Fontaine. “A lot of people think [that] CIUT is great and [that] CIUT is fantastic for so many reasons, but CIUT needs a lot of work when it comes to sharing safe space for community. And I just need to take a second to put CIUT on blast,” she had said on air. “If it’s not a safe space for those people in the community, then it’s not doing its job as a community radio station.”

DaCosta made these comments about the station in response to an unknown person putting a picture of U of T psychology professor Jordan Peterson that said “you can fix yourself,” on her desktop.

DaCosta said that she has not received any further information from CIUT regarding her situation.

“I’m being censored as an Indigenous person at the station,” she said. “There is no basis for… Ken Stowar’s suspension of me.” Stowar did not respond to The Varsity’s questions about the rationale for DaCosta’s suspension.

Norton said that it is important for DaCosta to receive due process for her suspension. “Regardless of the situations of alleged misconduct according to CIUT, I think she is entitled to a process of investigation that is accountable and transparent,” he said. “If there [are] grounds that can be found for discipline or follow-up, again you can only know that through investigation and checking all your bases.”

Fruitman declined to comment on DaCosta’s suspension, but he said that “the grievance process is probably a really important thing for us.”

“I don’t think there’s much in the way of process in the current one other than to complain to the board and see what happens,” said Fruitman. “Is our process good? Well, I think it could be a lot better.”

Letter to the Editor

Re: “Campus radio station faces criticism for ‘undemocratic’ elections process”

Letter to the Editor

To the editors of The Varsity,

Contrary to allegations in a recent story in The Varsity (“Campus radio station faces criticism for ‘undemocratic’ elections process,” March 5, 2018), CIUT meets the University of Toronto’s expectation of student societies in both our bylaws and our operations.

First of all, the election of the Executive of the board of CIUT is transparent, and follows due process as it’s stipulated in the bylaws of the University of Toronto Campus Radio, Inc.

Secondly, and also counter to what was printed, student societies are not required to appoint Chief Returning Officers for the administration of their elections. The Policy on Open, Accessible and Democratic Autonomous Student Organizations does not regulate student societies with this degree of specificity. The Policy allows that “[t]here is no single definition of what constitutes an open organization, an accessible one, or a democratic one,” and “acknowledges that unique, autonomous organizations will choose various means to act in an open, accessible and democratic way, and that differences in the application of these principles are to be expected.”

That said, when it was first suggested that the station’s bylaws might not meet the requirements of the students’ union, at our most recent board meeting on February 26, 2018, we committed to identifying areas of misalignment between UTSU’s bylaws and the station’s, and to proposing, at our next Annual General Meeting, any correcting amendments to our bylaws that are found to be necessary.

CIUT is grateful for the funding we receive from the UTSU, and we are diligent in responsibly managing it. This funding, and the interests of the UTSU, are represented on CIUT’s board by three student delegates who are selected by the executive of the students’ union. The station and its board are tenacious in holding the student’s union to fulfill this responsibility to their members, and we’re disappointed that this year’s delegates chose to resign from their duties at a point where we were making good progress in the governance and management of the station, for all our members.


Steve Fruitman

President, University of Toronto Campus Radio, Inc.

Changes in CIUT’s electoral process are long overdue

“Re: Campus radio station faces criticism for ‘undemocratic’ elections process”

Changes in CIUT’s electoral process are long overdue

According to two of its former Board of Directors members, Anne Boucher and Stuart Norton, U of T radio station CIUT 89.5 has an undemocratic executive electoral process and the most recent CIUT election was conducted hastily. CIUT President Steve Fruitman reportedly asked the room who wanted the executive positions, and candidates appear to have been chosen with little chance given for others to challenge them.

Fruitman, who has been with CIUT since 1988, has stated that the station has been electing executives this way since he began there. However, it is apparent from reading about the electoral process alone that this method lacks transparency and structure and therefore warrants reform.

Electing members as executives based on whoever sticks their hand up first is strange; winners’ ability to handle the responsibilities assigned to them must first be properly gauged. 

At present, only board members can vote for and elect other executives. But university students cannot run to be an executive — let alone receive notice of CIUT meetings, attend meetings, or vote in the elections — unless they have paid a general membership fee of $89.50. This price seems steep; comparatively, the UTSU’s insurance plan costs less. Moreover, the general membership fee is in addition to the levy fee full-time undergraduate students already pay to CIUT.

This levy — $3.75 for UTSG students and $0.50 for UTM and UTSC respectively — constituted 59 per cent of the CIUT’s revenue last year. Having to pay an additional membership fee to attend meetings and participate in the electoral process seems unfair, and it seemingly alienates the very audience that Fruitman said forms the CIUT’s “lifeline.”

CIUT’s electoral process is at least 30 years old. Perhaps it is time for its election structure to change.

Zeahaa Rehman is a third-year student at UTM studying Linguistics and Professional Writing.

Editor’s Note (March 9): A previous version of this article incorrectly referred to Boucher and Norton as board members of CIUT. They are in fact former board members. 

Campus radio station faces criticism for ‘undemocratic’ elections process

Student union appointees claim aspects of process unfair

Campus radio station faces criticism for ‘undemocratic’ elections process

U of T radio station CIUT 89.5 FM is facing criticism from two of its Board Directors, Anne Boucher and Stuart Norton, over its internal executive elections process. Boucher, who is also Vice-President External of the University of Toronto Students’ Union (UTSU), blasted the organization’s process as being “not democratic, transparent, [or] open at all.”

Executives are elected during a Board of Directors meeting that is held immediately after the station’s annual general meeting in the fall. Both Boucher and Norton argue that the nature of the election process — specifically the speed at which it’s conducted — hinder the potential for any competition for positions.

“It was all oral… So someone else may have wanted to be VP, even though they didn’t get a chance to lift their hand up. There was no chance for an actual election,” said Boucher. “[CIUT President Steve Fruitman]… went around the room asking who wanted to be… other positions, being like, ‘Oh, where’s my VP? Secretary?”

Norton backed up this statement, saying that “the President was like, ‘So, anyone want to be President? Well, I’d love to do it again, so I’ll be President.’ But…it happened in like five seconds.”

Fruitman described the structure of the meeting as “Who wants to be this? Who wants to be that? We need four officers, you’re the Treasurer… Secretary, who wants to do that?”

“We need a President and Vice-President, and in this case, as usual, it’s not people stepping forward, it’s people stepping back. So who wants to do it? I put my name for it. I said if you want me to continue doing it, I’ll do it. Nobody opposed me, so I was nominated and elected with a motion. Or I wasn’t elected, I was acclaimed,” said Fruitman.

He added that only board members can vote for executives. “Your board is comprised of who gets elected at an annual general members meeting, and they amongst themselves are going to decide who’s going to be on their executive.”

“I started there in 1988,” said Fruitman. “And we’ve always elected our executive that way.”

Cheri DiNovo, former NDP MPP for the Parkdale–High Park riding in Toronto and current CIUT board member, wrote that “anyone is welcome to run for and vote for positions on the Board and our AGM is coming up. All our terms are limited and certainly since the management is elected democratically, there’s an opportunity to change management at every AGM.”

However, according to the station’s bylaws, students who pay the levy are not entitled to receive notice of, attend, or vote at CIUT meetings unless they have paid a general membership fee of $89.50, separate from the levy. The sole guaranteed student representation at the station is through the UTSU appointees.

“Students are not considered that way because of the nature of our relationship,” said Fruitman. “They get their representation through the [UTSU].”

Students also cannot run to be on the board unless they have paid the membership fee. General member directors are limited to two-year terms, although there is no limit on the number of consecutive terms they can serve.

Boucher further criticized the station for not appointing a Chief Returning Officer (CRO) to administer the elections — a move that she suggested contradicts U of T’s Policy on Open, Accessible and Democratic Autonomous Student Organizations, which states that student organizations must have “impartial and fair elections processes that allow members to participate easily as both voters and candidates.”

Fruitman confirmed that CIUT did not have a CRO at the last election, stating he didn’t know of the CRO requirement and was unsure if the university’s policy applied to CIUT. Interim Director of Media Relations at U of T Elizabeth Church confirmed that it does.

Under CIUT’s bylaws, up to three members of its board must be students.

These students are appointed by the UTSU, unless the board finds the UTSU’s candidates unsuitable, in which case it can launch an application process to fill the seats.

CIUT received $310,575 from student fees in 2017, which made up 59 per cent of its total revenue that year. Full-time undergraduate students at UTSG pay $3.75 per session to the station, while full-time undergraduates from UTM and UTSC pay $0.50 per session.

Fruitman said that “the student fees are a lifeline” and the station wouldn’t exist without the university and its students.

Editor’s Note (March 11): A previous version of this article incorrectly stated that U of T’s Policy on Open, Accessible and Democratic Autonomous Student Organizations requires student societies to have a CRO at elections. It does not.