Alberta Soccer Dispute Continues ON

[kj52]

The judge's order is as reported in the journal, to be in effect until August 13, 4:30 pm. Court will be adjourned until that date at 2pm when the application will be heard. Anyone can propose changes in writing to the interim order to the court in the meantime. CSA will not have a full Board meeting to deal with any "provisional suspensions" until September.

[oc64]

The judge's order is as reported in the journal, to be in effect until August 13, 4:30 pm. Court will be adjourned until that date at 2pm when the application will be heard. Anyone can propose changes in writing to the interim order to the court in the meantime. CSA will not have a full Board meeting to deal with any "provisional suspensions" until September.

What? CSA is standing down too? Probably a good decision on their part.

Oh, wait. Maybe I misunderstood. The executive may/may not suspend people now, but any suspensions will need to be ratified at a complete board meeting in Sept? Is that correct?

[xtreme]

I would like to wish the best to NG and AKA in running the day to day operations.

Fingers crossed that they can get the support they need without interference/influence over the next month+.

[oc64]

I would like to wish the best to NG and AKA in running the day to day operations.

Fingers crossed that they can get the support they need without interference/influence over the next month+.

+1.

In reading the journal, it says Mario's group neither agreed to, nor opposed the order. What does that mean in reality? What happens if they go against the judges order and contact the office or change the locks again? Would they then be in contempt?

[Guest Ed]

I don't have the days of free time needed to find an original post on this, but can anyone dare to summarize how the April SGM vote was not considered valid by the incumbent ASA board and CSA???

Were all the nebulous by-laws followed regarding numbers to make up quorum and the vote count itself?

[oc64]

I don't have the days of free time needed to find an original post on this, but can anyone dare to summarize how the April SGM vote was not considered valid by the incumbent ASA board and CSA???

Were all the nebulous by-laws followed regarding numbers to make up quorum and the vote count itself?

My understanding (please correct any inaccuracies) is that it is opposed on the following grounds:

1. Quorum was not achieved. (depends which bylaws you are looking at and whose lawyer you are listening to)

2. Not all districts were notified. (one district president in Calgary signed an affidavit stating he never received the email calling the meeting.)

3. Some of the documentation from the districts relating to who was going to attend and who was going to vote was sent directly to Chris and not to the ASA office.

4. Only the ASA Board (Mario, Colin etc) can organize an SGM. Chris was suspended and therefore unable to schedule a meeting. Of course, we know about the problems with the SGM called by Mario (security, confidentiality agreements, agenda changes etc)

Mario and Colin have conveniently ignored the bylaw that states if you don't achieve quorum at an SGM another must be convened within 7 days. So, we know their meeting didn't achieve quorum and they didn't call another SGM. If they successfuly argue that the other meeting did not achieve quorum then the only other alternative is to immediately call another SGM.

Does that sound about right to everyone? I'm working from memory here.

[1867]

OC-you are bang on. Part of their argument relies on the bylaws not having been updated or filed since 1998. Based on that argument every AGM we have had since is illegal. Part of that also means that Marios group in EMSA-his home base-should not be able to vote seperately since they were only afforded this right based on a change in the bylaws that occurred in 2004?. It would almost be worth it to follow his logic if it means he would be a junior partner in Edmonton and lose his ability to wield his own votes at AGMS. i am sure Eiysa and Edsa would listen to his wishes...

[a_coach_in_ab]

4. Only the ASA Board (Mario, Colin etc) can organize an SGM. Chris was suspended and therefore unable to schedule a meeting. Of course, we know about the problems with the SGM called by Mario (security, confidentiality agreements, agenda changes etc)

Does that sound about right to everyone? I'm working from memory here.

I do not believe that #4 was mentioned as a reason to invalidate the SGM.

Legal opinion on validity of SGM

Note: these are opinions only they might be full of crap or not. For example the Article 13 3) they quote is for general meetings not SGM.

- failing to give proper notice to all members (1998 requirement not in posted bylaws) - Angus Smith (Calgary Soccer Federation) was missed

- failing to comply with the process for the filing of delegate forms (1998 requirement not in posted bylaws)

- failing to achieve quorum (different criteria in 1998 version)

[yeg51]

The originating notice and accompanying affidavit, filed by Gowlings and Innes in Calgary for the original courtcase, contain the core elements of their position:

Improperly constituted SGM

- Authority to call an SGM by way of Article 8

- Failure to notify all members

- Failure to achieve a quorum per bylaws.

Interesting enough they rely on the 2009 bylaws in the affidavit, but the accompanying printout from the Registries Office show no bylaws being filed after February 1998. In his affidavit, Innes asserts it was CSF that was not notified.

[oc64]

The originating notice and accompanying affidavit, filed by Gowlings and Innes in Calgary for the original courtcase, contain the core elements of their position:

Improperly constituted SGM

- Authority to call an SGM by way of Article 8

- Failure to notify all members

- Failure to achieve a quorum per bylaws.

Interesting enough they rely on the 2009 bylaws in the affidavit, but the accompanying printout from the Registries Office show no bylaws being filed after February 1998. In his affidavit, Innes assserts it was CSF that was not notified.

So Mario and his group are essentially arguing that EMSA now shares a vote with 2 other districts? How would that have changed Mario's election as vice president? Will his same argument nullify the election that gave him power? He can't have it both ways.

[yeg51]

OC - this is really complex and I don't have the legal or constitutional background to unravel it. It seems the cabal is attacking the reformers on three fronts (credibility/behaviour, procedural, and CSA rules). The arguments coming as they do, seem illogical, and more of a shotgun approach. The reformers on the other hand are sticking to their "will of the people" and we applied the procedure rigorously. The other aspect is their contention that the original suspension just can't happen, and that CB had every right to call an SGM.

My head hurts just reading the original notice of motion and affidavit.

[oc64]

OC - this is really complex and I don't have the legal or constitutional background to unravel it. It seems the cabal is attacking the reformers on three fronts (credibility/behaviour, procedural, and CSA rules). The arguments coming as they do, seem illogical, and more of a shotgun approach. The reformers on the other hand are sticking to their "will of the people" and we applied the procedure rigorously. The other aspect is their contention that the original suspension just can't happen, and that CB had every right to call an SGM.

My head hurts just reading the original notice of motion and affidavit.

I am no expert either but I would reason that if a judge agrees with their position that the 1998 bylaws rule the day, then the judge would also have to mandate a new election and general meeting as none of the board members would have been elected legally.

[1867]

They have a habit of applying rules arbitraily-one rule for them and their friends and another rule for others-sometimes they will apply two sets of rules in one argument and at the end of the day they show that they think they are above rules. What is most clear is that the suspension prior to a hearing and the very nature of the supposed hearing were done illegally no matter which way you look at it. Because of that everything they have done and every board meeting they have had since then is illegal. To suspend billings prior to a hearing and not allow him to be heard-or danny bowie for that matter -offends any set of discipline rules you can find in any rule book-other than perhaps Albania in 1970-with apologies to all Albanians-this is what offended the membership and this is why people kicked them out. A board that cant apply a simple process to replace their leader by themselves is not worthy to govern. This process that they applied has been used too many times by these guys and they finally went too far and someone stuck up for himself. They are done.

[1867]

ps

if someone has the BJ legal opinion regarding the suspension it would be good to post that-the facts are chilling but the legal argument is clear. This was sent out to the membership so it should be fine to send it out. lynch mob. Mario or gowlings have never responded to it-all you hear from them is 9 of 10 and CSA-but you dont get to csa before you jump this hurdle.

[yeg51]

That one is a little tricky. The originating notice and affidavit were filed in Calgary and are a court record, served etc in other words a public record. The BJ opinion has not been made a public record, unless the document was filed in support of the latest round of challenges (and I haven't checked). As such, IMHO, it should remain privileged until the addressee consents to its public release (even that may be pushing it) , or it becomes a factor in the upcoming hearings

[1867]

I believe it was sent to all the district heads as part of public relations and had nothing to do with filings in calgary-you dont file legal opinions.

[oc64]

Article in Edmonton Journal

Mostly the same information from yesterday. A couple of new paragraphs at the bottom.

http://www.edmontonjournal.com/sports/Court+appoints+caretakers/3307261/story.html

[oc64]

wow, quiet place today.

I guess with the stand down order there isn't really any new gossip until CSA comes down with the heavy hand of discipline

[Footscray]

Wow just noticed the 67 page thread and lots of people who don't seem to be regular Vs chiming in. I have been following this in the Journal I am hoping for an independent judge or arbitrator settling this.

The CSA getting involved in supporting a group that withheld trophies and medals from a bunch of kids is effing nauseating. Makes me embarrassed to be a Canadian Soccer Supporter.

[tmcmurph]

wow, quiet place today.

I guess with the stand down order there isn't really any new gossip until CSA comes down with the heavy hand of discipline

Yea just waiting to see what the 2 guys running the ASA for the next 3 weeks do (may the force be with them) and what, if anything the CSA does. Lets hope the CSA executive get some legal advice before they shoot their mouths off, again, and look like fools. Right now no news is good news on the CSA front.

[oc64]

Wow just noticed the 67 page thread and lots of people who don't seem to be regular Vs chiming in. I have been following this in the Journal I am hoping for an independent judge or arbitrator settling this.

The CSA getting involved in supporting a group that withheld trophies and medals from a bunch of kids is effing nauseating. Makes me embarrassed to be a Canadian Soccer Supporter.

When people outside of soccer read the story they are absolutely incredulous that this can even happen. People who have been involved in Alberta Soccer for a long time don't seem surprised at all by the twists and turns that have taken place.

I'm relatively new to soccer myself. I have tried to do my homework and find out as much of the history as I can. I stunned by the antics of the "volunteer" board members at the provincial level. How did it ever get to this point?

[Footscray]

When people outside of soccer read the story they are absolutely incredulous that this can even happen. People who have been involved in Alberta Soccer for a long time don't seem surprised at all by the twists and turns that have taken place.

Man, I am a long time national team supporter, I follow the players abroad and the game at a high level and I am just absolutely sickened reading it. I dislike the Charpentier guy and I've never even met him.

Politics I understand, although in youth soccer I always find it, frankly, petty and kinda sad. What really bugged me is the CSA sticking it's nose in to support the trophy withholders. Everyone knows how political the CSA is. Let an outsider adjudicate if you want the outcome to have any credibility. Supporting them before an outcome is even resolved, coupled with that trophy withholding group of jagoffs voting against the reformation to the CSA it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If I was someone like Hoillett and I even caught wind of something like this I would play for Jamaica. Seriously embarrassed to have spoken up for the CSA in the past.

[oc64]

Man, I am a long time national team supporter, I follow the players abroad and the game at a high level and I am just absolutely sickened reading it. I want to slap the Charpentier guy in the face and I've never met him.

Politics I understand, although in youth soccer I always find it, frankly, petty and kinda sad. What really bugged me is the CSA sticking it's nose in to support the trophy withholders. Everyone knows how political the CSA is. Let an outsider adjudicate if you want the outcome to have any credibility. Supporting them before an outcome is even resolved, coupled with that trophy withholding group of jagoffs voted against the reformation to the CSA it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

If I was someone like Hoillett and I even caught wind of something like this I would play for Jamaica. Seriously embarassed to have spoken up for the CSA in the past.

I also find it very curious that CSA supports the antics of the Charpentier group. How do they justify supporting cancelling tournaments, withholding trophies and medals, firing staff, changing locks, hiring security, wasting money??? Part of the problem is that the executive at CSA is quietly making decisions and supporting the Charpentier group, but they aren't even bothering to keep the rest of the CSA board in the loop.

I wonder how the other board members (CSA) feel when the hear about what the CSA board is doing from secondary sources and not their own President?

[Richard]

I expect the CSA will take disciplinary action against all parties to this lawsuit as the CSA - an association of provincial soccer bodies - requires all disputes be taken to the Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada not the courts.

[kj52]

I expect the CSA will take disciplinary action against all parties to this lawsuit as the CSA - an association of provincial soccer bodies - requires all disputes be taken to the Dispute Resolution Centre of Canada not the courts.

CSA bylaws require disputes between CSA members not be taken to the courts. These actions are decidedly not between CSA members, it is between 2 Boards purporting to be the rightful Board of the ASA, a legally incorporated not-for-profit society registered in the province of Alberta governed by Alberta laws. CSA has involved itself in something that it has no business being in. I guess that should be clarified because it really is only 4 members of the CSA executive committee that are doing this and it is only for political reasons. As is the case in Alberta with the board led by Mr. Charpentier, the CSA executive are very clearly ignoring their own bylaws, not really a surprise when you consider what's at stake.