KWANTLEN UNIVERSITY COLLEGE STUDENT ASSOCIATION GENERAL ELECTION January 31 February 6, 2011 DECISIONS ON COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY CHIEF RETURNING

NG OFFICER FRED P. SCHIFFNER February 15, 2011 INTRODUCTION I was retained as the Chief Returning Officer (CRO) for the General Election (the Election) of the Kwantlen University Student Association (KSA) and Kwantlen Multi-Pass Referendum (the Referendum) held from January 31 to February 6, 2011. Kwantlen elections and referendums, including the role of the CRO, are governed by the KSA Bylaws (filed with the Registrar of Companies, March 23, 2000, http://kusa.ca/index.php?pid=147) and the KSA Regulations (May 7, 2010, http://kusa.ca/files/File/ Regulations%202010%20May%2017%20corrected.pdf), particularly Section XI: KSA Regulations Electoral Procedures (the Electoral Regulations). The official results of the Election and Referendum are attached to this decision as Appendix A. In the course of my role as CRO for the Election and the Referendum I received two complaints regarding the activities of specific candidates, complaints regarding defamatory campaign materials, a series of complaints regarding general campaign activities, and one complaint regarding the Referendum question. These complaints will be reviewed in turn and decisions provided in respect of them, as follows: Complaint #1 Provision of Food and Slate Activity Complaint #2 Slate Activity Complaint #3 Defamatory Campaign Materials Complaint #4 Campaign Activities Complaint #5 Referendum Question

In accordance with Articles 2(2)(xiii), 2(2)(xxix), 5(1) and 10 of the Electoral Regulations, the following lays out the complaints that I received, the investigations that I undertook, and my decisions/rulings on the violations alleged in the complaints. Also addressed below is my consideration of allegations that certain candidates attempted to interfere with my investigation of complaints.

OVERVIEW All Complaints are dismissed. I am not satisfied that any of the matters alleged in Complaints #1 - #4 had a material effect on the results of the Election. Complaint #5 regarding the Referendum question falls beyond my jurisdiction as CRO. COMPLAINT #1 - PROVISION OF FOOD AND SLATE ACTIVITY Summary of Complaint: This complaint was received on February 6, 2011 and alleges that on February 4, 2011 Justine Franson and an unnamed woman, provided food to voters in exchange for voting for particular candidates, namely Justine Franson, Nina Sandhu, Money Dhaliwal, Bobby Padda, Gaven Pangly and Taranpreet Singh Takar. Complaint #1 alleges that: 1. Candidate Justine Franson violated the prohibition of campaigning involving the distribution of food and drink [Electoral Regulations, Article 4(4)(x)(c)]; and 2. Candidates Justine Franson, Nina Sandhu, Money Dhaliwal, Bobby Padda, Gaven Pangly and Taranpreet Singh Takar violated the prohibition of running in slates, real or apparent [Electoral Regulations, Articles 4(2)(v) and 4(4)(x)(d)]. Note that Article 4(2)(v) defines slate as: A slate shall mean a group of candidates who run for elected office on a similar platform for mutual advantage. Investigations: In the course of my investigation of Complaint #1, I took the following steps: I reviewed the two sworn statements provided to me in support of this complaint and spoke directly with the complainants in order to understand the details of the matter. I provided all candidates who were mentioned by the complainant a copy of the complaint, information in respect of the complaint and the opportunity to respond. All of the mentioned candidates responded, and I reviewed the statements submitted by them, namely: Justine Franson, Nina Sandhu, Money Dhaliwal, Bobby Padda, Gaven Pangly and Taranpreet Singh Takar. I made inquiries of and attempted to gather information from other potential witnesses to the incident in question, but received no additional formal statements. Decision: Complaint #1 is dismissed. I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in Complaint #1 had a material effect on the results of the Election. Reasons for Decision: It appears likely that one or more people provided food to students on February 4, 2011 and requested that the students vote for particular

candidates. The evidence does not, however, permit me to conclude that candidate Justine Franson was one of the people who carried out this activity. I have no doubt that the complainant honestly believes that he witnessed Justine Franson carry out these activities. However, Justine Franson advises that she was elsewhere at the time of the incident, and I am not satisfied that the evidence establishes that it was Ms. Franson that the complainant witnessed. The allegation that Justine Franson, Nina Sandhu, Money Dhaliwal, Bobby Padda, Gaven Pangly and Taranpreet Singh Takar acted as a slate is not borne out. Requesting that a student vote for this list of candidates, even if established, is not on its own a basis on which to find that these candidates, or any of them, met the definition of slate under Article 4(2)(v) of the Electoral Regulations. This is particularly true when there is no evidence to suggest that these candidates were aware of the conduct alleged in the complaint.

COMPLAINT #2 SLATE ACTIVITY Summary of Complaint: Complaint #2 was received on February 5, 2011 and alleges three separate incidents between January 31, 2011 to February 2, 2011 of candidates running as a slate and behaving as a slate in contravention of Electoral Regulations, Articles 4(2)(v) and 4(4)(x)(d). Complaint #2 is directed at candidates Reena Bali, Harjit Dhesi, Nicole Joe, Puja Bali, and Jamil Nasrawi. I note that of these candidates, only Harjit Dhesi was elected to a position in the Election. Investigations: In the course of my investigation of Complaint #2 I took the following steps: I reviewed the sworn statement provided to me in support of this complaint, which included the witnessed statements of seven other individuals. I provided all candidates at whom Complaint #2 was directed with information in respect of the complaint and the opportunity to respond. All of the mentioned candidates responded, and I reviewed the statements submitted by them, namely: Reena Bali, Harjit Dhesi, Nicole Joe, Puja Bali and Jamil Nasrawi. I reviewed the additional four statements provided in support of the candidates at whom Complaint #2 was directed. Decision: Complaint #2 is dismissed. I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in Complaint #2 had a material effect on the results of the Election.

Reasons for Decision: The evidence submitted in support of Complaint #2 is contradicted by the evidence in response to the complaint and there is no sufficient basis on which to prefer certain evidence over the other. I was unable to shed more light on these contradictions through my investigations, and as a result I am not satisfied that the allegations in Complaint #2 have been proven. In any event, I am also not satisfied that the activities alleged in the complaint if established would constitute running as a slate as defined by Article 4(2)(v) of the Electoral Regulations, because there is no evidence of candidates running together on a similar platform for mutual advantage. COMPLAINT #3 DEFAMATORY CAMPAIGN MATERIALS Summary of Complaints: Candidates Reena Basi, Sean Bassi and Harjit Dhesi submitted complaints regarding potentially defamatory statements, posters and internet postings used in the campaign and directed against them. Investigations: I reviewed the statements and materials submitted in relation to the complaints and attempted to gather more information regarding the sources of the materials. Decision: There is insufficient evidence to determine who was responsible for the potentially defamatory posters and statements, so I am ultimately unable to take any action in respect of these complaints. In any event, based on the evidence available to me in respect of these complaints, I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in Complaint #3 had a material effect on the results of the Election. Reasons for Decision: The materials and statements at the root of these complaints were very troubling. Activities and statements of this nature taking place during a student election, or at any time, tarnish the image of the student body as a whole and should not be taken lightly. Although allegations were made with respect to the sources of the potentially defamatory materials and statements, there was insufficient evidence to determine who was responsible for the materials and statements. In any event, I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in Complaint #3 had a material effect on the results of the Election. COMPLAINT #4 CAMPAIGN ACTIVITIES Summary of Complaints: A number of complaints were received, primarily from candidates, but also from other individuals, alleging unfair and inappropriate campaign activities including:

Postering in contravention of numerical limits and restrictions on references to celebrities Campaigning by providing food and drink Candidates running as slates

Investigations: These complaints did not comply strictly with the requirements of Article 10 of the Electoral Regulations, but were reviewed as potential election irregularities [Article 2(xiii)] in the course of my obligation to conduct the Election in a fair and impartial manner [Article 2(i)]. I followed up on all complaints received and attempted to gather information from additional sources in respect of the complaints. Where the complaints were directed at particular candidates or individuals, I provided a copy of the complaint to the individual, gave those persons information in respect of the complaint, provided them with the opportunity to respond, and reviewed the responses provided. Decision: All of the complaints grouped under Complaint #4 are dismissed. The complaints were either adequately dealt with during the course of the Election, or there was insufficient evidence in respect of the complaints. I am not satisfied that the matters alleged in Complaint #4 had a material effect on the results of the Election. Reasons for Decision: These complaints fall into two categories: 1. Complaints that I responded to and am satisfied were adequately rectified during the course of the Election. These complaints included excessive postering and use of celebrity images. I caused prohibited postings to be promptly removed during the course of the Election. As a result of being addressed in the course of the Election, I am satisfied that the matters complained did not have a material effect on the results of the Election. 2. Complaints directed at specific candidates, but with an insufficient basis to establish a material effect on the results of the Election. These complaints included candidates running as a slate and campaigning by providing food and drink. I am satisfied that these complaints did not have a material effect on the results of the Election.

COMPLAINT #5 - REFERENDUM QUESTION Summary of Complaint: This complaint was received on February 4th and alleges that the Referendum regarding the Kwantlen Multi-Pass did not conform with the Electoral Regulations, particular Articles 6(5), 6(6) and 6(7) which require that a fee referendum, does not seek to increase or decrease the Societys fees by more than fifteen percent (15%) in any given fiscal year [Electoral Regulations, Article 6(5)(v)]. Investigations: I reviewed the materials submitted, as well as the Bylaws and Regulations in relevant to complaint #5.

Decision: This complaint falls beyond my jurisdiction as CRO. As to Referendum matters within my jurisdiction, I find no breach of the Electoral Regulations in respect of the Referendum once it was called. Reasons for Decision: My role as CRO with respect to the Referendum was to ensure that the Referendum, once officially called [Electoral Regulations, Article 6(12)], was carried out in accordance with Article 4 of the KSA Bylaws and the Electoral Regulations. I find no breach of the Electoral Regulations in respect of the Referendum once it was called. The question of whether the Referendum was properly called, or whether there was a breach of Articles 6(5), 6(6), 6(7) or any of them, with respect to the Referendum question, is beyond the scope of my jurisdiction as CRO. Under the Electoral Regulations, it is Council and the Director of Operations that has the authority put the referendum question on the ballot. I do not have the jurisdiction to decide whether that decision of the Council and the Director of Operations was in conformity with the Electoral Regulations. A challenge to a decision of Council or the Director or Operations may be permissible under s.85 of the Society Act or by other means, but falls outside the jurisdiction of the CRO under the Electoral Regulations, particularly Articles 2, 5 and 10. ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE WITH COMPLAINT INVESTIGATION In the course of my investigations related to the above complaints, I received a letter from the KSA General Manager alleging attempts by two candidates to interfere with my investigation of the complaints. The allegations are very serious. I forwarded information in respect of these allegations to the candidates in question and received and reviewed their responses to these allegations. My investigation has not been impacted by the alleged activities of the candidates. I have, in any event, determined that the allegations of interference and the responses of the candidates had no direct bearing on the substance of the complaints reviewed above, or on the results of the Election. I have not made any determination as to whether the allegations are true. As a result, the allegations of interference and responses to the same do not form part of my decisions in respect of the Election and Referendum complaints. While I have no comment on the truth or substance of the allegations, I do note that the allegations are extremely serious and merit review by the appropriate authorities. Respectfully submitted this 15th day February, 2011

F.P. Schiffner Chief Returning Officer KSA