Addresses are public info

In a written statement, Bram Freedman, legal counsel of Concordia University, has affirmed the absolute legality of the publication of CSU councillors’ and executives’ addresses under the Companies Act.
The CSU is a corporate body therefore, this information would be deemed of the public domain.
“That would be fine,” said interim CSU President Patrice Blais, “if [the
information] had been taken from either the CSU itself or the Inspector General of Institutions at the provincial government. Instead, the information came from the university registrars, which are confidential.”
The debate over the legality of obtaining these addresses originated a few weeks ago, when CSU presidential candidate Chris Schulz sent bailiff letters to CSU councillors and executives demanding they attend a CSU council meeting.
Schulz stands by his actions. “Normal addresses are private. But the CSU is a corporated body. It didn’t have to necessarily be a corporated body. They sought to become corporated. They paid money to be corporated. The University is allowed to release public information.”
That is besides the point for Blais. “If the addresses had come from the
provincial government, then it would be a public matter.”
Freedman disagreed. “The Access and Protection Agreement (which defines the confidentiality of university registrars) protects and prohibits the release of nominative information, or private information. However, this information was made public by virtue of another law.” This would be the Companies Act.
It would appear that this new wrinkle in the ongoing saga has not moved the key players. If anything, it has strengthened their opposing beliefs.
“The CSU is required to keep a register [of its councillors] during office
hours, where you can access all of this information. They don’t. The controversy isn’t that the university released public information. It’s that the CSU doesn’t have it available,” said Schulz
Meanwhile, Blais believes certain things need to happen to atone for the problem at hand. “The CSU is waiting for public excuses from Bram Freedman and Concordia University. If it doesn’t receive any, it is ready to lodge a formal legal complaint.”
“That’s fine,” said Freedman. “There will be no excuses. It’s certainly within [the CSU’s] right to take whatever legal action they choose. We stand by our actions.”
Another part of the kerfuffle dealt with how Schulz could afford legal counsel as well as the costs of the bailiff letters. “The CSU has a lawyer who controls one million dollars, so I felt I needed to seek legal counsel to prevent the CSU from subverting the democratic process. My lawyer is a former Concordia grad and he and some of his friends who also graduated from Concordia are embarrassed to have their names associated with Concordia.
“He has charged me a $500 fee for his services because he is very upset by actions taken by the [CSU] executive. As for the bailiff letters, they cost $1800. I have a year to pay it off and, if I can’t, [my lawyer] will consider it to be pro-bono.”

Related Posts