Sixteen Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) councillors are seeking a second court order after their votes were not counted at an Aug. 11 council meeting, according to a notice of motion from their legal counsel at the Heenan Blaikie law firm.
CUSA chair Brent Farrington did not recognize the votes of the 16 plaintiffs when council voted on a motion to adjourn the Aug. 11 meeting.
The meeting followed an Aug. 10 court order from Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Beaudoin instructing Farrington and the remainder of council to comply with the association’s constitution, bylaws and policies, and to recognize those 16 people as duly elected and sitting council members for a 10-day period.
The second court order would require Farrington and the rest of council to recognize the 16 plaintiffs as duly elected, sitting and voting members until further order of the court, according to the document. The motion is scheduled to be heard Aug. 18 at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
At the start of the Aug. 11 meeting, Farrington said he sought legal council after learning he was named as a defendant on the initial court order and said he felt it would be best to adjourn the meeting until the dispute over the councillors’ seats is permanently resolved.
A majority of those at the table voted against CUSA vice-president (internal) Ariel Norman’s motion to adjourn the meeting. Farrington carried the motion with 14 votes for and two against, not recognizing the votes of the 16 plaintiffs.
After carrying the motion to adjourn the meeting, Farrington said he was upholding the CUSA constitution, bylaws and policies — as instructed by the court order — by not recognizing the votes.
Farrington could not be reached for further comment.
Farrington’s actions were an attempt to prevent further legal action, said engineering and design councillor Nahim Nasser via e-mail.
“It’s apparent that his actions were made to protect both sides of this dispute from a legal nightmare. If any motion was to be passed, with or without recognition of said councillors, there would be the possibility of either side suing for damages, as [Farrington] had stated,” Nasser said.
“It's unfortunate that some people do not see [Farrington’s] decision as a legal safeguard for both sides, and may be pursuing legal action against him.
Nasser said he considered himself a “fairly neutral councillor,” before he found his name on the court order “restraining and restricting” his capacity in CUSA.
The 16 plaintiffs sought the first court order after Norman sent each of them an email July 28 stating their seats had become vacant because they failed to attend or send a proxy to two council meetings this summer.
In Norman’s July 28 email, she cited CUSA bylaw 1, section 2.5, which states a seat will be considered vacant if the councillor misses or fails to send a proxy to two meetings during the summer session. She wrote that the seats were vacant because the councillors were absent from council meetings on July 18 and July 26 without proxy.
Public affairs councillor Michael De Luca said he and the other councillors who received the email do not believe their seats are legitimately vacant because the two meetings cited by Norman were invalid. The councillors who requested the July 26 emergency meeting, for example, emailed Norman and withdrew their consent for the meeting before it was called to order, De Luca said.
In a Aug. 9 letter, CUSA’s lawyer, on the other hand, argued that the councillors’ seats should be vacated because they “made the deliberate choice not to attend” two meetings, which were called and convened according to CUSA bylaws.
At the Aug. 11 meeting, the 16 plaintiffs, CUSA president Obed Okyere, and Rideau River Residence Association president Kaisha Thompson remained in the room after Farrington and the rest of council left.
De Luca said he and the other council members continued the meeting because they still had a quorum and felt Farrington’s adjournment was invalid because he did not follow the instructions on the court order.
The remaining council members consulted lawyers and Robert’s Rules of Order — the book of rules and procedures for deliberation CUSA council abides by — to determine how they could legitimately resume the meeting.
After electing a chair and a clerk, the remaining council members voted to change the agenda to reflect that the Aug. 11 meeting was only the second valid meeting rather than the fifth, De Luca said. He said they then voted to approve the minutes from a May 4 council meeting, and then voted to adjourn the meeting “without prejudice.”