CSU council fails to reinstate judicial board

Councillors only appointed one of the three positions needed for the board to be active

NewsBriefGeneviève Sylvestre — Published January 24, 2025 0 minutes

A minimum of three members must be appointed for the board to be active.

The CSU judicial board acts as the judiciary branch of the union. It serves to render impartial judgments on complaints and cases by using and interpreting the CSU’s Bylaws and Standing Regulations. 

According to the CSU website, the last judicial board ruling was in 2022.

The meeting lasted over three hours. Councillors interviewed four applicants for the position, but only Suzana Ek received the two-thirds majority vote needed to be appointed. 

The first interview was scheduled for 7 p.m. but began late as council members debated on how to proceed with the meeting. The Link has granted this candidate anonymity due to privacy concerns. 

Councillor Drew Sylver asked the first candidate whether or not they were involved in an altercation on Concordia property, which some members of the executive team deemed inappropriate. 

Sylver disagreed, stating that it is important to know if judicial board candidates are impartial. Loyola coordinator Leen Al Hijjawi replied that a candidate can remain impartial in their position regardless of personal politics or affiliations. 

During the deliberation period, Sylver asked to “admit evidence” to the council. He alleged that he possessed one photo and one video of the first candidate at the Concordia University Hall building altercation on Nov. 8, 2023.  

Councillor Mohamad Abdallah shared concerns with Sylver sharing the image and video, as he believed it to be an attack on the candidate’s privacy. Sylver agreed and chose to instead describe the “evidence” he had acquired. 

He alleged that he obtained a photograph of the candidate present at the Hall building altercation and a video of them seemingly “yelling at a student at a thousand-person riot.”

He continued, saying, “I do not want someone adjudicating a judicial board case that has been present at a riot. I don’t care what riot, I don’t care what it was, I would much rather that person not be there.”

Al Hijjawi motioned for council to go into a closed session to view the video. 

Academic and advocacy coordinator Vanessa Massot said that they found the viewing of the video to be against procedural fairness, especially as the candidate was not present to defend themselves. 

The motion failed. 

After the first interview, council saw three more candidates: Nicola Woloz, Ek and Saraluz Barton-Gómez. 

Following the vote, council voted to adjourn the meeting before the completion of the agenda.