The trial period began before a referendum question could be held on the program during November’s byelections.
The Concordia Student Union (CSU) recently entered a trial period in a new Studentcare service that would cost up to $350,000 per semester if the service is maintained.
Even if the service is cancelled at the end of the trial period, the CSU would owe Studentcare approximately $175,000.
In September, the CSU entered the trial for Studentcare’s Legal Essentials Program without consulting the student body, which has since been criticized by many student actors.
“The student has no choice and no voice in the matter of how they are represented and who represents them,” said Dave Plant, former CSU council representative.
During a CSU council meeting on Sept. 18, Plant challenged the contract with a motion against the CSU council’s implementation of Studentcare’s Legal Essentials Program.
The CSU council had unanimously passed the proposal to enter the trial period on July 17, and it officially began on Sept. 1 until Dec. 31.
Plant claims that the CSU council was misinformed when buying the sales pitch presented during a special council meeting on July 17.
Studentcare’s Legal Essentials Program will cost $30 per undergraduate student per year if it is accepted by referendum during the CSU’s byelections this November. This is in addition to the pre-existing Studentcare health and dental fees of $225, according to the Studentcare website.
The Legal Essentials Program
In a July 17 CSU special council meeting, CSU General Coordinator Kareem Rahaman presented the Legal Essentials Program as an insurance plan to the student councillors. This, according to a legal review of the contract, was incorrect.
“[The] Legal protection plan is a service offered by [Studentcare] which gives students access to lawyers,” Rahaman said during that meeting. “It’s an insurance product, where if you need help filling in immigration forms, and instead of paying lawyer fees, it is covered. You pay $30 in advance, and you have access to a lawyer for housing and immigration law, and on top of that, you have the CSU services like [the Advocacy Centre] and [the Legal Information Clinic (LIC)], and this service is meant to work in tandem with [those].”
Rahaman’s presentation to the student councillors contained many inconsistencies.
The legal review of the contract, which was commissioned by Plant, shows that the contract is not an insurance product, contrary to Rahaman’s claims. Studentcare instead acts as a middleman between the students and an unspecified law firm of its choosing.
This is also how Studentcare offers its other plans, such as health coverage.
Rahaman alleged that the contract would cover housing and immigration law. Studentcare’s plan does not include coverage regarding immigration law and issues concerning non-lease housing. However, these services are covered by CSU services such as the LIC and the Housing and Job Resource Centre (HOJO).
In cases of accusations of sexual misconduct or criminal offences, the Advocacy Centre can represent students facing suspension or expulsion from the university. A lawyer obtained through the Legal Essentials Program will not be able to represent students in these cases.
Rahaman also said during the special council meeting that this plan was “meant to work in tandem with” other CSU services, such as the LIC. While that seems to indeed be the current situation, the CSU executives had previously met with the LIC on Jan. 26 to inform them of their intention to discontinue the clinic and replace it with Studentcare’s Legal Essentials Program. Rahaman was a CSU executive at the time, acting as the CSU’s finance coordinator.
Rahaman did not respond to requests to comment.
The signing of the contract
“When I brought this up with the council, there were a lot of council members asking more questions and interested in what I had to say because they weren’t fully aware of what the contract entails,” Plant said after the meeting on Sept. 18.
The program is currently on a semester-long trial period, with the CSU covering the costs.
Should the plan be accepted by referendum, the agreement between Studentcare and the CSU would be extended and locked in for four consecutive years, and the CSU would have to pay Studentcare $10 per student for the trial period.
Although Concordia University has not yet announced its official numbers for the 2024-25 school year, nearly 35,000 undergraduate students are currently enrolled. Therefore, the CSU would have to pay Studentcare around $350,000 for this semester alone.
If the student body rejects the agreement during the November byelections, the CSU would still have to pay $5 per undergraduate student for up to $175,000.
“The consequence is that if the fee levy doesn’t pass, which chances are it won’t, it’s going to be $175,000 down the drain when this is a deal that isn’t even necessary in the first place and was not handled appropriately,” Plant said.
At the Sept. 18 council meeting, Rahaman explained that the CSU would use leftover funds paid by students for previous years’ insurance premiums to pay for the fall 2024 term of the contract, no matter the outcome of the referendum.
The CSU would also have to notify Studentcare of the cancellation of the agreement by Nov. 30. The CSU has not yet announced the dates of the byelections, and last year’s byelections ended on Nov. 9.
On Sept. 18, a standing committee was formed by the CSU council in response to Plant’s motion against the Studentcare agreement for further review of the contract.
CSU General Manager Robert Henri signed Studentcare’s Legal Essentials Service Agreement on June 27, three weeks prior to the council’s vote on July 17.
Miranda Bohns, a McGill law student who volunteered at the LIC for a year, said that Henri’s signature may have pressured the council members to sign without being adequately informed about the contract.
“Having the general manager pre-sign this document brings into question whether the students really felt like they had the power to disagree with any points,” Bohns said. “They also might have had the impression that this first signature was legally binding, which puts them in a bind, quite literally. It brings into question whether their signatures were given free of will.”
According to Bohns, for a contract to be valid, all parties signing cannot be misled before signing. The contract cannot have abrasive points as it is legally required for all parties to have a complete, comprehensive understanding of the document they are signing.
The councillors had access to the contract for two days before the meeting, but the presentation during the meeting itself contained factual errors and misinformation.
“It [the contract] is putting a lot of [CSU] services that students already have at risk, and I think that is covertly happening,” Bohns said. “I worry that Studentcare is going to be not only hindering but abolishing [for CSU services].”
