There has been a stir recently at Ryerson University due to the Ryerson Student Union (RSU) declining to grant campus group status to the Ryerson Men’s Issues Awareness Society (MIAS). The MIAS appealed this decision all the way through the RSU’s appeals system and then, when the appeal process did not change the RSU’s decision, the MIAS went further and sued the RSU for breaching their freedom of association and expression.
The RSU’s arguments hinged on the fact that the MIAS was working with the Canadian Association for Equality, which has also supported groups such as Voice for Men who have been linked to violence against women on various university campuses. The RSU has various campaigns focused on furthering women’s rights and pushes for the expansion of such rights across campus.
Additionally, the RSU claims that the services that the MIAS intends to provide for at-risk or disenfranchised boys and men are all currently provided by their on campus equity services centre. The RSU further argues that the decision as to whether or not group status should be granted to the MIAS was not within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The MIAS argued that they were denied group status by the RSU because the Student Groups Committee, the RSU executive, and the RSU Board of Directors all disagreed with the MIAS’s beliefs and claimed, according to public case documents, that for this reason “judicial intervention is required to protect students from ideological coercion at the hands of student politicians seeking to enforce their own views as to what is acceptable speech.” They further claimed that the RSU’s decision was contrary to the RSU’s own policies and bylaws, in addition to being contrary to the MIAS’s right to the freedom of expression and association.
Ultimately, the court found that the appeals process offered by the RSU was more than sufficient to handle the matter before it and ruled in favour of the RSU. The MIAS plans on appealing the decision.
While both sides of this argument have their merits, what it comes down to at the end of the day is the law. The court found that it was within its jurisdiction of the RSU to decide on the matter, even though groups of this sort are governed under private and not public law. This distinction is key, because our rights and freedoms that are guaranteed by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply only to matters resolved under public law.
The Charter itself is a document that regulates the highest of issues between the state and the citizen—it does not interfere with relationships between private individuals.
It’s arguable that this matter could fall under public law if it was Ryerson University itself that was preventing the association and expression of the MIAS, as universities are public institutions, but the RSU is a private corporation that exists within Ryerson University as a body of student representatives—it is not in and of itself a public institution.
Additionally, even if it were required to abide by the Charter, the RSU is not violating the MIAS’s freedom of expression and association as they are not preventing them from doing so, on or off school property. The MIAS holds events, gathers new members, and continues to exist on campus. By refraining from granting them group status, the RSU is simply not granting the MIAS the privilege of using student union funds to further their society’s goals.
Personally, I see no problem with the way the RSU has handled this situation.
If they were required to grant group status to all clubs that applied without an in-depth look at the purposes of the group and what it adds to or detracts from their campus or student body, there would be no purpose of the applications or appeals process at all.
As a private group, the RSU has the right to govern this process the way they choose, and this case decision is a reflection of that right.
