Sac Decision Garner v. Wolfe 2009

Embed Doc
Copy Link
Readcast
Collections

CommentGo Back

Download

April 6, 2009

STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE

PARTIES:

R

ENAUD

-P

HILLIPPE

G

ARNER

M

AUREEN

H

ASINOFF

A

LEXANDRE

C

HAPUT

Appellant

-AND-S

EAMUS

W

OLFE

R

OXANNE DUBOIS

J

ULIE

S

EGUIN

J

EAN

-S.

G

UILLAUME

Respondent

2

APRIL 6, 2009STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEE, STUDENT FEDERATIONOF THE UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWAGARNER V. WOLFEPRESENT: ARBITRATOR DAVID DAVIS, ARBITRATOR CHRISSHULZ, ARBITRATOR MICHELLE NADEAUTHE DECISION OF THE STUDENT ARBITRATION COMMITTEEWAS WRITTEN BY ARBITRATORS D. DAVIS, C. SCHULZ AND M.NADEAU, WRITING FOR THE PANEL.

3

ESTABLISHMENT OF PROCEDURE

All parties collectively established and agreed to a binding procedure with theStudent Arbitration Committee(SAC) for this case of Garner v. Wolfe on March30, 2009. The hearing was scheduled for April 4, 2009 and went ahead asplanned. It began shortly after 1 p.m. in Fauteux Hall, Room 147, and concludedover 7 hours later. All parties understood and acknowledged through the meeting on procedure thatthe SAC had the powers to decide this case instilled directly from a bindingmotion of the Board of Administration (BOA) of the Student Federation of theUniversity of Ottawa. All participants were reminded of this point at the hearing.The Board of Administration exercised its broad powers under section 3.1.4 of the SFUO Constitution. From that point on, the SAC had jurisdiction over theaffair and the mandate to fulfill its role under By-Law 8 of the SFUO Constitutionand this Constitution in general.On the basis of nonconformity with the procedure, the written testimony of witness Cameron Montgomery for the appellants and that of witness LéoniePerron for the respondents were deemed inadmissible. Two respondentwitnesses’ signatures were authenticated in the predetermined manner accordingto the established procedural agreement at the time of the hearing. Thetestimonies of these two witnesses were deemed admissible as the submissionson the one hand and the authentication as a separate condition both met theprocedural requirements. These testimonies were those of Becky Dier-McComband Geneviève Latour.Witness Sidney Loko’s email was deemed admissible. The reasons were providedto Mr. Loko at the hearing. His evidence was deemed pertinent enough toinclude under the circumstances. Furthermore, there was no issue as to theauthenticity of the email.The standard of proof for this decision is the civil standard in Ontario, asunderstood by both sides, namely, the balance of probabilities.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE SFUO AND THE APPLICATIONOF S. 4.7.1: SLATES

Regarding the Constitution of the SFUO:

of 00

Leave a Comment