Hey folks. I am nearing the completion of my next blog post in which I will consider the importance of courage, but, unfortunately, I was defamed by a body of the University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union again in a response letter from the corporation's current Internal Commissioner. A full text version of this letter can be accessed via the following link to my Google Drive. The document—as distributed to the 200+ people on the Board of Directors listserv in the second mailout via an official UTGSU Gmail account—is 34 pages long, mostly "annexures", so read at your discretion.
In preparation for the UTGSU Board of Directors meeting tonight at which we will discuss the contents of this letter, I have prepared annotations that I will try to circulate among the Board of Directors during the meeting. I am annotating only the body text of the letter prior to its appendices. Again, like last time, I'll try to be as objective as possible.
Original text in red
Annotations in black
Mr. Adam Hill on Dec. 6, submitted a motion for the January council meeting (refer to Annexure 01, separate document "Impeachment Motion") to impeach the current internal commissioner elect. Unfortunately, the reasons presented in the motion for impeachment misrepresent the facts and do not provide complete information to the honorable members of the council.
Therefore, before I give the background to the council members about the targeted harassment based on gender, race, and creed that I have been facing by Mr. Hill since stepping in the role of internal commissioner, I must first enlighten the council with the correct facts against the claims made in the impeachment motion without taking much time.
Allegation -1: Whereas motions submitted by Members of the UTGSU were deliberately
excluded from the University of Toronto Graduate Students' Union's 2021 Annual General
Meeting's agenda and materials as well as the September 2021 Board of Director's meeting
agenda, Whereas some of these motions submitted for the consideration of the membership
alleged non-compliance with the Ontario Corporations Act and the Canada Not-for-profit
Corporations Act.
Response: Mr. Hill indicated twice that his motions were excluded.
To summarize the “Exclusion of AGM Motions” document—an unredacted record of all correspondence between the Internal Commissioner and I from the submission of the first 2021 AGM motion to the request from the Internal Commissioner to cease all contact—I sent two separate emails requesting two different motions to be considered at the 2021 AGM before the motion submission deadline. On November 29th, I noted in a separate email that the materials prepared for the AGM on the website excluded my motions. I sent an inquiry CC’d widely to the press regarding the continued exclusion of my motions from the second mailout on November 30th. The emails to note that my motions were excluded from the AGM materials were subsequent to those first four emails.
First, in September 2021, Mr. Hill submitted a minority report along with a motion that was circulated and voted on in the September council meeting and was voted down by council (Refer to Annexure 2, minority report attached as a separate document). The minority report was also full of preposterous, unfounded allegations that I feel compromised my safety and integrity as well as defamed the former UTGSU council chair. However, I shared the report and the motion to all council members for reference; the Sept. 21, 2021 (mailout e-mail text is copied below as Annexure 2).
The motions submitted for the AGM by Mr. Hill (refer to Annexure 04 and 06) were detrimental
to the union's interest as they raised concerns of libel and legality, which was raised to us by
Primary Counsel, as they falsely accused the Executive Director and the legal counsel; the
motion was deemed a targeted attack towards staff as they included names (His motion
attached).
This was never communicated to me prior to this letter, nor do I have any record of any attempts to communicate this to me.
I submitted those motions specifically in the Union’s interest, particularly the Members’ interests. As documented in my first motion, under the Ontario Corporations Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, we could be fined per Director for not consulting our Members or seeking their consent to reincorporate before signing our Certificate of Continuance. Moreover, we could be fined separately per Director for any attempt to alter the composition of the Board of Directors without the Membership’s consultation and consent.
The executive team discussed it internally and due to the continued targeted harassment I experienced by Mr. Hill, I asked the executive team members to convey to Mr. Hill that his motion was out of order and that he should direct his correspondence towards the Finance Commissioner (FC email Annexure 03).
Legal definition of harassment in Canada:
“264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.”
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html
The only way my actions could be construed as harassment would be my repeated communication of my concerns to the Internal Commissioner as an elected Director and Member of the Union.
The Finance Commissioner had volunteered to share this correspondence, but in the end, chose not to correspond with Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill proceeded to share his motions along with my notice of the AGM sent to the board, which included my credentials to nearly 44 news outlets, organizations, institutions, and the office of the premier of Ontario (see Adam Hill email attached as Annexure 04). In doing so, not only did Mr. Hill compromise my safety and identity but my reputation as well.
What other recourse would one of our Members have if their motions were going to be deliberately excluded from an Annual General Meeting? Especially when said motions could have existential consequences for their Union?
In another attempt, Mr. Hill sent a notice of escalation followed by the impeachment motion ( Annexure 05 e-mail sent by Mr. Hill on Dec. 1, and Impeachment motion sent on Dec. 6 a day before the AGM).
This motion was submitted for wording as I fully intended to communicate this motion at the beginning of the AGM. Due to a ruling by the Chair, and to the Membership’s upholding of that ruling, this impeachment motion was, and remains, out of order. It has not been bylawfully moved and seconded at either a General Council meeting or a General Members’ meeting.
Despite his repeated attempts to bully and belittle me, I have continued to maintain my silence to prevent disrupting the organization's functioning during these times of uncertainty.
I do not know what the Internal Commissioner is referring to. If anything, the opposite is the case.
Screenshot for reference:
Response: Mr. Hill indicated twice that his motions were excluded.
To summarize the “Exclusion of AGM Motions” document—an unredacted record of all correspondence between the Internal Commissioner and I from the submission of the first 2021 AGM motion to the request from the Internal Commissioner to cease all contact—I sent two separate emails requesting two different motions to be considered at the 2021 AGM before the motion submission deadline. On November 29th, I noted in a separate email that the materials prepared for the AGM on the website excluded my motions. I sent an inquiry CC’d widely to the press regarding the continued exclusion of my motions from the second mailout on November 30th. The emails to note that my motions were excluded from the AGM materials were subsequent to those first four emails.
First, in September 2021, Mr. Hill submitted a minority report along with a motion that was circulated and voted on in the September council meeting and was voted down by council (Refer to Annexure 2, minority report attached as a separate document). The minority report was also full of preposterous, unfounded allegations that I feel compromised my safety and integrity as well as defamed the former UTGSU council chair. However, I shared the report and the motion to all council members for reference; the Sept. 21, 2021 (mailout e-mail text is copied below as Annexure 2).
The motions submitted for the AGM by Mr. Hill (refer to Annexure 04 and 06) were detrimental
to the union's interest as they raised concerns of libel and legality, which was raised to us by
Primary Counsel, as they falsely accused the Executive Director and the legal counsel; the
motion was deemed a targeted attack towards staff as they included names (His motion
attached).
This was never communicated to me prior to this letter, nor do I have any record of any attempts to communicate this to me.
I submitted those motions specifically in the Union’s interest, particularly the Members’ interests. As documented in my first motion, under the Ontario Corporations Act and the Canada Not-for-profit Corporations Act, we could be fined per Director for not consulting our Members or seeking their consent to reincorporate before signing our Certificate of Continuance. Moreover, we could be fined separately per Director for any attempt to alter the composition of the Board of Directors without the Membership’s consultation and consent.
The executive team discussed it internally and due to the continued targeted harassment I experienced by Mr. Hill, I asked the executive team members to convey to Mr. Hill that his motion was out of order and that he should direct his correspondence towards the Finance Commissioner (FC email Annexure 03).
Legal definition of harassment in Canada:
“264 (1) No person shall, without lawful authority and knowing that another person is harassed or recklessly as to whether the other person is harassed, engage in conduct referred to in subsection (2) that causes that other person reasonably, in all the circumstances, to fear for their safety or the safety of anyone known to them.
Prohibited conduct
(2) The conduct mentioned in subsection (1) consists of
(a) repeatedly following from place to place the other person or anyone known to them;
(b) repeatedly communicating with, either directly or indirectly, the other person or anyone known to them;
(c) besetting or watching the dwelling-house, or place where the other person, or anyone known to them, resides, works, carries on business or happens to be; or
(d) engaging in threatening conduct directed at the other person or any member of their family.”
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-264.html
The only way my actions could be construed as harassment would be my repeated communication of my concerns to the Internal Commissioner as an elected Director and Member of the Union.
The Finance Commissioner had volunteered to share this correspondence, but in the end, chose not to correspond with Mr. Hill.
Mr. Hill proceeded to share his motions along with my notice of the AGM sent to the board, which included my credentials to nearly 44 news outlets, organizations, institutions, and the office of the premier of Ontario (see Adam Hill email attached as Annexure 04). In doing so, not only did Mr. Hill compromise my safety and identity but my reputation as well.
What other recourse would one of our Members have if their motions were going to be deliberately excluded from an Annual General Meeting? Especially when said motions could have existential consequences for their Union?
In another attempt, Mr. Hill sent a notice of escalation followed by the impeachment motion ( Annexure 05 e-mail sent by Mr. Hill on Dec. 1, and Impeachment motion sent on Dec. 6 a day before the AGM).
This motion was submitted for wording as I fully intended to communicate this motion at the beginning of the AGM. Due to a ruling by the Chair, and to the Membership’s upholding of that ruling, this impeachment motion was, and remains, out of order. It has not been bylawfully moved and seconded at either a General Council meeting or a General Members’ meeting.
Despite his repeated attempts to bully and belittle me, I have continued to maintain my silence to prevent disrupting the organization's functioning during these times of uncertainty.
I do not know what the Internal Commissioner is referring to. If anything, the opposite is the case.
Screenshot for reference:
For context, the Internal Commissioner attempted to insult my intelligence in writing via the Internal Commissioner’s Gmail account after I inquired as to how information or knowledge of an active, confidential appeal currently being processed by the Board of Appeal (a sacred, arms-length body of the Union) may have been leaked to the Executive Committee.
Mr. Hill had the option of presenting his motions on the floor at the December 2021 AGM, but
he chose not to.
This would violate long-standing precedent and enable anyone attending the AGM to attempt to move motions from the floor; this is why we haven’t done this in the past and also why the UTGSU maintains a motion submission deadline for AGMs.
Instead, he sought cause to perpetuate further confrontation with me.
Please see the attached record of all correspondence, unredacted, between the Internal Commissioner and I, from the submission of my first AGM motion to the request to cease all contact. I requested a ruling for the exclusion of the motions because the Board of Appeal wrote to me that they cannot adjudicate an appeal without a ruling.
See screenshot for reference:
Fearing for my safety and having endured months of back-to-back attacks and aggression from Mr. Hill, I chose not to respond. In no part of our role descriptions is tolerating harassment expected. At the beginning of our meetings, we usually read and follow an equity statement that I would implore Mr. Hill to respect. In no way are the actions coupled with his behaviour acceptable in the University of Toronto Graduate Students' space.
I have never disrespected the Equity Statement. I am a high school English teacher. I can’t do my job in good faith without respecting the contents of our Equity Statement.
Furthermore, during the start of our December 2021 AGM, while I was delivering welcoming
remarks, Mr. Hill openly labeled me a "fascist" after several attempts to interrupt the meeting
were thwarted.
My exact words were “Is this just fascism?” which was asked when the Internal Commissioner, serving as Chair at the time, refused to entertain any discussion before seating Hamish Russell as Chair. Given that Russell was not the current General Council Chair since the duly appointed Council Chair resigned just prior to the AGM, the jumping straight to vote to resolve the seating of Russell as Chair for an Annual General Meeting of a multi-million dollar corporation, especially without even the opportunity for questions, would be considered extremely exceptional and unprecedented. We were less than five minutes into the meeting at the time.
Over 95 students were in attendance to witness this. To further demonstrate the
callousness of Mr. Hill's repeated behaviour I present to you this relatable scenario as a
comparative example. A member whose motion was not included was informed that the motion
was out of order (and thus could not be included). The same member's other motions were
presented to the members of the AGM.
Allegation – 2: Whereas the audited financial statements did not receive the required two weeks'
notice and advanced distribution required under UTGSU standing bylaw or the three weeks'
notice required under the Ontario Corporations Act,
Response: The executive team conveyed in the AGM that the financial statements shared met
the advance notice time under the standing UTGSU bylaw. Financial Audit and Draft budget
was presented on Nov. 23 2021 to Council, and the AGM package was uploaded on Nov. 22 at
the UTGSU website, and shared both to the Council listserv and through the Digest to general
membership. The AGM took place on Dec. 7, which meant there was at least 15 days notice and distribution of the said documents.
The AGM package was uploaded to the website prior to the two week requirement for notice, but it was not distributed to the Membership via email at least a full two weeks in advance of the meeting bylawfully and as has been long-standing precedent (and this can be confirmed by merely cross-referencing the dates when the original AGM email was sent to our Members versus when the AGM took place). Under 109(1), the Ontario Corporations Act has provisions for physically mailing shareholders (Members in our case) if electronic notice requirements cannot be achieved. The executives who attested to adequate notice and distribution lied on record during the AGM.
Allegation -3: Whereas no attempt was made to reschedule the 2021 Annual General meeting
despite numerous inquiries and requests by Members
Response: There were no requests received other than from Mr. Hill and Ms. Alexandrova to
reschedule the Annual General meeting. Given the history of disruption from both actors, there
was no reason to reschedule the Annual General Meeting. It should also be noted that we are
currently navigating an ongoing global pandemic. We owe our membership service, advocacy,
representation, leadership– to mention but a few. It is extremely challenging, not to mention
psychologically draining, to keep getting manipulated into dealing with Mr. Hill's behavior
towards me.
Allegation – 4: Whereas under "G4.1.3 Meetings of [standing] committees must occur at least
once per calendar month, and committees should attempt to meet at least twice per month
(including meetings that fail to reach quorum)," Whereas the Policy and Operations Committee
has not met since Apr. 7, 2021, despite multiple unanswered questions and requests from
appointed members of the Committee to meet or to discuss issues germane to the Policy and
Operations of the UTGSU, particularly its application for continuance.
Response:
The Executive Committee sought to refill the Policy and Operations Committee beginning in
September 2021. Mr.Hill was the sole member until October 2021. Due to the continued
harassment from Mr. Hill, it was difficult to determine if holding a Policy and Operations
Committee meeting would be wise due to ongoing concerns. I feel that Mr. Hill is using this as
cause to cry foul– however, realistically, I question the rationale one would have to call a
meeting solely with the individual who has been hostile to me since the beginning. Mr. Hill's
behaviour has been reported over a period of three years, with nothing done about it.
At the last meeting of the Policy and Operations Committee in April 2021, Ben Hjorth alleged that Jesse Velay-Vitow and I were "neo-fascists" when Jesse moved a motion to recommend to the Board of Directors that we address old business first at each subsequent Board of Directors meeting. I filed a formal complaint regarding Ben Hjorth’s conduct, but it was never addressed by either the Internal Commissioner chairing the Committee nor by the appointed Equity Officer.
Screenshot for reference:
There are a multitude of complaints lodged against Mr. Hill with specific regard to his direct role
in creating an unsafe environment for members, documented since February 2020 (Annexure
10).
It’s a representative democracy.
During his tenure on the Policy and Operations Committee, there has been nothing
produced by the committee other than an environment where members continuously argue with
one another about personal issues rather than produce substantive work. It is impossible to work alongside these individuals.
In addition to devaluing the work of everyone on the Committee, I can promise that it wasn’t the appointed members of the Committee who were responsible for this, prior to January 2020.
The policy and operations committee did not meet quorum to operate until October 2021.
We can meet, but we cannot conduct business as I wrote in multiple emails to the Internal Commissioner while the Committee remained defunct. We still could have accomplished a lot of work.
The continued targeted harassment by Mr. Hill towards members has made the Policy and Operations committee a danger zone not only for the Chair, but other members as well.
I strongly believe that it is the exact reason that the committee suffers to maintain members.
Furthermore, General Council knows that the UTGSU has been having trouble securing a Chair.
The Chair Nomination Committee had to extend their deadline three times due to lack of
applications, and while there has been a Chair for every meeting, including the meeting in July
2021, we have been unable to find a suitable replacement as former Chairs have refused to take part and due to the nature of General Council, it is near impossible to bring someone with little to no experience with the UTGSU's Rules of Order.
Allegation – 5: Whereas the UTGSU Bylaws public document hasn't been updated with
amendments since Feb. 27, 2020,
Response:
Since my re-election, I have been working on a bylaw review and organizational restructure.
Quoted directly from the bylaws:
“7.7 Duties of the Internal Commissioner
The duties of the Internal Commissioner shall be:
7.7.1 To be responsible for ensuring meetings of the Executive Committee and
Council are scheduled, that agendas are created for these meetings, that
proper and adequate minutes are prepared, and to sign one (1) copy of
the approved minutes;
7.7.2 To be responsible for the duties of the General Council Chair in her or his
absence;
7.7.3 To facilitate and monitor the Union’s Bylaw and Policy updates;”
During this time, the bylaws were not updated in order to maintain consistency for members
while we updated the UTGSU bylaws to be in compliance with the Canada Not-for-profit
corporations act.
Every current and potential body of the Union relies on this document in order to function lawfully.
However, we did communicate and share relevant bylaws to General Council
and the membership. An example would be changes to the CRO nomination committee, it was
shared directly to the General Council as was the case in October and November 2021.
I spent nearly ten months reviewing the bylaws, which the two former internal commissioners
did not update during their respective tenures. There has not been a transition report from former Internal Commissioners since 2019, which is a standard practice for outgoing Executives.
The document our Internal Commissioner was reviewing was based on a complete, painstaking rework of the formatting and structure of the old bylaws that I conducted while serving as Internal Commissioner. Check the versions before and after my tenure.
During the time in which I was first elected, I was not fully informed of my duties and have
made every effort to improve.
I spent countless hours working with the UTGSU lawyer and the Executive Director in
reviewing each and every bylaw. The three of us presented the updates and changes to the
General Council and general membership in a special town hall meeting and the AGM. The
proposed restructure and the bylaw updates were approved in the 2021 AGM.
A townhall is not a General Membership meeting. Moreover, the townhall took place after the Executive Director signed the Certificate of Continuance on June 21st.
Allegation -6: Whereas the Executive Committee ceased ratification of minutes and consent
agenda in the summer of 2021,
Response: As in previous years practices, the meeting highlights are available online with the
decisions rendered by the Executive Committee being recorded. The Bylaws do not mandate a
weekly Executive meeting, but a weekly executive report. As the Executive opted to meet biweekly, reports were folded into two reports to avoid duplication or confusion.
The consent agendas of Executive meetings include all motions passed online. Any gap in this record would constitute a breach of the Ontario Corporations Act and of precedent.
The UTGSU has been upfront with delays in updating the UTGSU, which was communicated
back in the July Council meeting. In September, a new full time staff member was hired but we
also lost the Communications and Engagement Specialist.
The Union Affairs Coordinator worked to organize and archive the Executive minutes, as well as get any missing minutes signed for the UTGSU's annual audit.
Therefore, I consider all the allegations made by Mr. Hill as continued targeted attempts to
harass me, given this is not the first time he has attempted to tarnish and defame me.
Why would I defame someone after being constantly defamed myself? I know what it feels like.
Since winning my first election in November 2020, my safety and wellbeing have been compromised, causing me extreme mental stress, especially during the pandemic where everyone is struggling to cope with life (have also attached previous e-mails from him as a separate document as Annexure11). I am also a mother, with two young children and Mr. Hill's ongoing harassment is impacting my private, social and family life as well.
The "Minority Report" has been one of several attempts of Mr. Hill towards me and other postbearers of the UTGSU. General Council has first hand witnessed during numerous council
meetings during and before my tenure, Mr. Hill's stellar record of repeatedly slandering
executives and former Chairs of UTGSU.
Legal definition of slander:
“Definition
298 (1) A defamatory libel is matter published, without lawful justification or excuse, that is likely to injure the reputation of any person by exposing him to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or that is designed to insult the person of or concerning whom it is published.”
https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/c-46/section-298.html
The toxic environment Mr. Hill creates continues to make the UTGSU an unsafe space for myself who identifies as a new migrant racialized Muslim woman of color. Frustrated and lost of what to do, in December 2021, I issued a No-Contact Request and redirected Mr. Hill to speak with the External Commissioner. I have also attached a series of emails directed at me.
Prior to joining the University of Toronto as a doctoral student, I worked at a very senior level
position for the U.S. Department of State and had lucrative pay. As a result, I have nothing but
exceptional evaluation reports throughout my eight years of service and have received several
honor awards for the work I delivered. However, since joining the UTGSU as a twice-elected
representative, I have experienced repeated marginalization, harassment and bullying. I am a
Brown Muslim woman, and the first racialized Women to be the Internal Commissioner since
2017, it is not a coincidence that two former Internals are causing such disruption due to their
own perceptions of my identity and competence.
During the Summer of 2021, I fell severely ill and was repeatedly rushed to the ER. Despite my
poor health at the time, I continued to perform my duties as the UTGSU Internal Commissioner.
No council meeting or executive meeting was delayed or postponed, nor did I take any time off
due to my health. During this time, given the extent to how personal my situation was, only the
Executive Director and one other member of the Executive Committee were aware of how ill I
was. As I've already mentioned,I am a full-time doctoral student and a mother of two young
children, who have been badly affected by the pandemic.
The harassment I have faced in these last two years is not the kind of treatment any student,
executive, or staff should experience. The UTGSU has and should maintain a zero tolerance
policy with regards to harassment. Despite several attempts, General Council has failed to
provide a safe space to its members, and I have beared the brunt of working in a toxic
Organization.
General Council should protect the interest and integrity of its members. I am afraid that I have
come to a point where unless there is a cease to this harmful and damaging behaviour, I am left
with no option but to explore other avenues outside the union space to defend my rights, and
hold those people accountable who have impacted my well being and continuously violate my
human rights.
Some of the content of this letter arguably contravenes the directions of a cease and desist letter communicated to the UTGSU Executive and Board of Directors by my lawyer after I was defamed in a separate instance by a UTGSU body during the April 2020 Executive Elections. Given the track record of this government, I'm not exactly expecting a retraction and apology tonight.
