Friday, December 01, 2006

SFSS - 2nd day in court - ruling on Monday

I attended the afternoon session of the 2nd day of the SFSS court hearing today. According to those present in the morning session, Coristine (attorney for Respondent Jan Gunn and unimpeached Directors) finished her arguments, Ottho (attorney for Respondents Titus Gregory and Bryan Jones) presented his arguments, and Crane (attorney for the Petitioners - the impeached Directors) began his reply to the arguments of Ottho & Coristine. It was reported to me that Ottho pointed out to the judge that if the Petitioners lose the case (i.e., if the SGM is upheld), then the Petitioners will have incorrectly named the SFSS as a Petitioner, and so the Respondent's request that the Petitioners pay "costs" should be interpreted as the individual impeached Directors having to pay instead of the Society. In the afternoon session, Crane continued his response, ending at approximately 3:50 pm. Court adjourned at that point. The judge stated that he would present his decision with reasons on Monday Dec. 4th at 9:30 am. (Once again, everyone is welcome to attend - Vancouver Supreme Court @ 800 Smithe St., between Howe and Hornby).

There was a bit of a buzz at the end of the lunch break, when the three lawyers were informed that Wei Li had allegedly presented SFSS staff with a memo stating that they would be disciplined or discharged if they assisted with the [by-election or specifically the hiring of polling clerks for the by-election - I'm not sure which] are not to assist with the by-election. This memo had halted the hiring of polling clerks for the by-election. This by-election is to elect new Directors to the indisputably vacant positions of President and Health Sciences Rep, and also (pending the court ruling) to the positions disputedly vacated by the impeachment of 6 Directors. Advanced polling is scheduled to start next week, and hiring for polling clerks was supposed to occur today. To the best of my knowledge, none of the impeached Directors has given any prior indication that they object to the by-election. Crane apparently spoke to Wei Li on the phone during the afternoon break in order to secure his pledge to stop interfering with the By-election. The judge asked whether an injunction was required, but Ottho said that the three lawyers were satisfied with Mr. Crane's full assurance that none of the Petitioners (impeached Directors) would interfere with the By-election in any manner having been stated for the court record.

Overall, I am happy with how things went today. There have been no major surprises for me in the hearing so far - neither in terms of the arguments raised, nor in terms of the judge's reaction to any of the arguments. Barring the unexpected, things should be resolved with the judge's ruling on Monday morning.

- Clea Moray

No comments: