|
|
| Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User
|
|
| Support uws |
 |
|
|
|
|
| Feds seeks own liquor licence; UW disappointed (Ryan Chen-Wing) |
Contributed by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 12:04 PM CST
|
This is an archived story posted by Ryan Chen-Wing. You can view the original
here. 
Federation of Students says that the purpose behind its $11 million lawsuit against UW is to get a joint liquor licence with the university or its own licence.
Feds announced a lawsuit against the university yesterday in relation to the the university's closure of the two Feds bars, the Bombshelter and Federation Hall.
Feds VP Adminstration and Finance Chris Di Lullo revealed at the press conference that an issue of the liquor licence act regulations may be the main issue in the closure. "We believe, as outlined in our statement of claim, that the core issue that led to the closure was the fact that the university -- which holds the liquor licence -- has been in non-compliance witht the Liquor Licence Act for many years by contracting out the sale and service of liquor."
Section 15 of regulation 719 under the Liquor Licence Act states, "The holder of a licence to sell liquor shall not contract out the sale and service of liquor."
Feds President Brenda Koprowski said, "Overall, the federation and the administration have a very positive working relationship and I trust that will continue to be the case. However, their actions and the stance they've taken on this particular issue left us with little choice."
"I can only add that we are deeply disappointed with the lack of respect the university has shown for us and our rights in this single instance," Koprowski said.
The Feds' suit includes a number of claims. Feds lawyer Jerry Levitan explained, "If the university decides to take over these establishments or if the unviersity establishes competitve establishments while these businesses are shut down they will be profiting from it I would argue it's an unjust enrichment. Now I don't know if they're going to do that, I don't know if it's part of their plans or what will happen, but if it happens they will benefit to the detriment of the federation."
In addition to unjust enrichment, Feds is claiming negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation, trespass, conversion, and intentional interference by the University in their economic relations.
On the issue of contracting out university spokesman Martin Van Nierop said, "I don't know what they are talking about at all there." He suggested that Bud Walker may have an understanding of the issue.
"Overall it's unfortunate that they chose to go this route because we always felt we could sit down and talk to them and work it out. Unfortunately there was a proposal given to them which they rejected," he said.
|
| |
|
|
|
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 12:25 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Roberto. You can view the original
here. On the issue of contracting out university spokesman Martin Van Nierop said, "I don't know what they are talkign about at all there." He suggested that Bud Walker may have an understanding of the issue.
"Overall it's unfortunate that they chose to go this route because we always felt we could sit down and talk to them and work it out. Unfortunately there was a proposal given to them which they rejected," he said.
Hmm, sounds like Mr. Marty can't understand a basic clause that clearly outlines that contracting out sales is illegal. Bad news for him: his quote makes him look pretty foolish, and perception is everything.
Also, it's pretty telling that all that he can say now is that he finds it "unfortunate" that the Feds rejected a proposal given to them. Could it POSSIBLY be that the proposal was inadequate? Na! And that doesn't mean that the Feds aren't sitting down and talking about it!
Good job, Feds. You've got 'em on the run.
-Roberto[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 12:26 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by A student. You can view the original
here. I have heard enough about this issue to realize that both sides are at fault and I'm going to pay for both sides mistakes.
I'm pointing the finger at:
1. The people who decided to drink too much and beat some other people are at fault. Thanks guys for starting this.
2. The University is at fault for walking in and forcing the interim agreement.
3. The University is at fault for closing the bomber and fed hall. They have rights to suspend alcohol serving, but not shut down either establishment.
4. The FEDs is at fault for not working under an interim agreement to keep the bars going while the whole mess gets worked out.
5. The FEDs is at fault for the lawsuit, which is incredibly huge.
I am affected by:
a. No place to drink on campus
b. No place to go to concerts and events (believe it or not, not everybody who goes to Bomber or Fed Hall drink)
c. I have to pay the FEDs legal costs
d. I have to pay the University's legal costs
e. If FEDs wins the lawsuit, I'm sure I'll be paying for that too
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 12:35 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Political Analyst. You can view the original
here. In addition to unjust enrichment, Feds is claiming negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation, trespass, conversion, and intentional interference by the University in their economic relations.
[Bolding is mine]
It's their building and their land, and in the agreement that is being claimed to have been broken it gives the license holder express permission to come into the bars at any time....
Trespass? Or is there some other meaning of that word that I'm missing (other then the 'trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again' sense)[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 12:46 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Franchise. You can view the original
here. Feds President Brenda Koprowski "Overall, the federation and the administration have a very positive working relationship and I trust thaqt will continue to be the case. However, their actions and the stance they've taken on this particular issue left us with little choice."
Is there a term for a spoken typo? Maybe "speako". It's funny that Brenda's speako happened to involve letters that are close to each other on a keyboard. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 01:03 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by paul. You can view the original
here. . Feds lawyer Jerry Levitan eaxplained, "If the university decides to take over these establishments or if the unviersity establishes competitve establishments whuile these businesses are shut down they will be profiting form it I would argue it's an unjust enrichment. Now I don't know if they're going to do that, I don;t knwo if it's part of their plans or what will happen, but if it hapopens they wiokll benefit to the detriment of the federation."
Yowza!
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 03:20 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Matthew Campbell. You can view the original
here. To correct an earlier post, FEDS owns the building that the Bombshelter is in (I also think it's the same for Fed Hall!). If FEDS gets control of it's own liquor licence, this whole affair of who did what (in reference to which party was responsible for what) just goes out the window. We can all move on, the staff gets their jobs back. It seems that everyone is happy except Admin (who, if trends continue, would just be "disappointed")!
Another note:if FEDS gets their licence, only IT is responsible for fights, management issues etc. We won't have to deal with a power struggle or a blame game.
Now, I wait for the usual types to disagree...
Matthew J. Campbell[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 03:56 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Niki. You can view the original
here. How much is this lawsuit going to cost students? If anyone has an idea, I would like ot hear it.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 04:40 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Justin. You can view the original
here. Great job guys. So now we're suing the University. I wonder how they'll ever cough up 11 million dollars if they lose the lawsuit? Let me think...
Maybe they'll cut some administration staff? Cut salaries to the UW admin? Nah, that'll never happen either. Oh, gee, I know! They'll pass it along as yet another "tuition hike" to the students! Or maybe collect a legal trust fund fee from every student.
Doesn't this lawsuit seem kind of circuitous to anybody else?
Look people, I'm in 4B now and all I want is for THE SERVICES THAT I PAID FOR. That means, give me back Fed Hall, give me back the Bomber and let me have my alcohol in peace. I don't care what you have to do, just do it and do it fast.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 05:12 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Joe Nethery. You can view the original
here. Wednesday the 5th's Daily Bulletin
* * *
Feds file lawsuit over pubs
The Federation of Students filed suit against UW yesterday, demanding that its Bombshelter and Federation Hall pubs be reopened and claiming $11 million in damages.
University leaders expressed "disappointment" about the move, the most recent development in the dispute that has been ongoing since the university suspended the service of alcohol in the two pubs on January 20.
A news release from the Federation said it is seeking damages "on a number of grounds, including negligence, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, breach of trust, negligent misstatement and misrepresentation, trespass, conversion, unjust enrichment and intentional interference by the University in their economic relations.
"The Federation is also asking the court to issue injunctions compelling the University to reinstate the student run operations at Federation Hall and The Bombshelter Pub, and to cease unreasonable interference in their operations. Additionally, the Federation is requesting that the University consent to an application by the Federation to obtain a liquor licence."
An official response came from UW's director of communications and public affairs, Martin Van Nierop: "From the outset, we have been eager to keep the pubs open under a management arrangement consistent with the requirements of the Alcohol and Gaming Commission of Ontario. We want to ensure that we provide good, safe service to our students, and that they have access to these recreational facilities."
During a press conference at Federation Hall yesterday, Feds president Brenda Koprowski said the students launched the statement of claim over what she called the "arbitrary closure" of the two pubs. Vice-president (administration and finance) Chris DiLullo added that the Feds believe the university shut down the campus pubs "because of its non-compliance with the Liquor Licence Act" through the contracting out of the sale and service of alcohol -- to the Federation itself. DiLullo said the compliance issue could be addressed by having the Federation hold its own liquor licence, or by having the licence jointly held by the university and the Feds.
About compliance, Van Nierop said, "This is exactly why UW took the steps it did," adding that longstanding agreements between the university and the Federation are being reviewed by the AGCO. He also said that UW needs to act to bring about arrangements that ensure compliance and safe operations.
Van Nierop added that the university would not be in favour of the Feds holding their own liquor licence, in view of what he cited as past failures to follow procedures -- most notably last New Year's Eve, when a man was beaten after attending the party at Federation Hall.
University administrators and the Federation agreed to an interim management arrangement during the first week of January, one that would have seen the pubs continuing to operate while a more permanent arrangement was developed. The agreement dissolved the week of January 20, and administrators suspended the service of alcohol in the pubs altogether.
Koprowski yesterday referred to "the lack of respect the university has shown with regard to this issue," adding that "the real issue for students is one of autonomy. It is important that we have and maintain control of our establishments, and over the revenue they generate."
She said the suit concerns the adherence to "longstanding legal agreements" between the university and the Federation over the management of the pubs. In the Federation news release, Koprowski said she regretted having to take legal action. "Overall, the administration and students have a very positive working relationship," she said, "but the University's actions and stance on this particular issue left us with little choice."
Van Nierop said, "The overriding issue is one of compliance with the [Liquor Licence] Act as mandated by the AGCO, which takes precedence over any agreements. . . . Since the beginning of January, we've been more than willing to meet with our student leaders to discuss this issue and work toward a resolution. We're still willing to do that, but it's unfortunate that they've now caused the whole process to take a step backward."
The case is scheduled to be heard in court on April 9.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 05:28 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by mr t. You can view the original
here. ...or is this Kerrigan/O'Conner legacy?
The reason I ask is I wonder if they fully appreciate the long term impact of Feds suing the University and Feds having their own licence.
Those bars will have to be better run or they get fined not UW (which is great from an admin point of view one would think). They also have a higher degree of liability and really don't have the experience the liquior board probably likes to see.
Of course.. how do they know they could get a licence AND what happens if as a result of this lawsuit they have ensured the University will fight to make sure they don't get it?
Not their problem though.. they are 'lame duck' VP's... wish they would stop their quacking.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 07:36 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Matt. You can view the original
here. OK. I just read the Toronto Star article and I'm confused about what the FEDS are saying. Perhaps they can either exaplain or let me know how the Star twisted their comments...
Chris is quoted:
"We believe . . . that the core issue that led to this closure was the fact that the university which holds the liquor licence has been in non-compliance with the Liquor Licence Act for many years by contracting out the sale and service of liquor" to the federation, he said.
So, he is saying that by simply allowing the Federation to manage the Bombshelter and Fed Hall for the past several years, the university has not been in compliance with the liquor act. So, even if the Bomber and Fed Hall reopened today under management of the FEDS (as it has been for the past several years), then this would be illegal. Am I right?
Then another paragraph:
The federation intends to ask the court on April 9 to issue injunctions compelling the university to reinstate the student-run operations at Federation hall and the Bombshelter pub "and to cease unreasonable interference in their operations."
How can a court reinstate something that is illegal? The only thing the court could do in this regard is to force UW Admin to share or hand over their liquor license for those two establishments to the FEDS. Am I right here as well?
Thirdly, on what grounds can the FEDS force UW to do this? The only agreement they had with UW talks about UW holding the liquor license while the FEDS manage the bars. But, since this is illegal (according to the FEDS), then such an agreement is invalid and not legally binding.
So, again, what grounds do the FEDS have to force UW to either share or hand over their liquor license for Fed Hall and the Bomber?
Based on what I've just read, it doesn't seem like the FEDS have any chance in court and I'm assuming UW can see this as clearly as I can (or maybe moreso) and they're simply laughing off this lawsuit as a PR stunt.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Wednesday, March 05 2003 @ 08:45 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Soupy. You can view the original
here. Hey check this out.
http://www.canoe.ca/TorontoNews/ts.ts-03-05-0006.html
Apparently it was on page three... hey not bad eh?
Go FEDS Go!!!
Open our bars.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Stephen Forrest on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 12:41 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Stephen Forrest. You can view the original
here. Scanning for press info about this stuff, I came across the new Record website (therecord.com).
What the hell is up with this? Have you ever heard of a community newspaper an online subscription service with premium content before? This is the Record for God's sake, not Salon or the New Republic or something.
If ever one needed evidence of the Record's cluelessness about technology, this provides it. Not to mention the lame overscriptedness of the site and the many nonfunctional links which lead to hideously long URLs.[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 01:29 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by a student. You can view the original
here. 11 million!!?? wtf..how about 10000000 billion? so if the Fed wins UW will go bankrupt, and the Fed can take over the campus and make UW the largest bar in the world. What the hell is the Fed doing to my school??? Are we here to drink beers or study?? What's the point of this?? [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 12:20 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Feds Executive. You can view the original
here. Lawsuit Explanation[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 03:55 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Ryan Bayne. You can view the original
here. So I was looking on Pollstar yesterday for info on summer concerts and decided to see what was coming to Waterloo. Anyways, if you check out the listing for The Bombshelter, you'll see Andy Stochansky is booked for April 4, 2003. Considering his show was one of the first events cancelled, someone must have rebooked it for this date on the premise the bomber will have re-opened. So there you have it everyone, the Bomber will be open again by April 4th! Hooray!
Wait, I've probably jumped to conclusions. But somebody must have believed it would be open by this date... [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 06 2003 @ 06:51 PM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Joseph. You can view the original
here. In a number of comments, people say the Admin won't let FedS pursue their own liquor license - I'm wondering a) why FedS has to ask for permission, and b) how could the university stop them?[ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Friday, March 07 2003 @ 10:37 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by The Record Editorial Page, March 7, 2003. You can view the original
here. The legal battle between the University of Waterloo and the school's Federation of Students has just begun, but it's already clear who will win. The lawyers.
Sure, the student union could eventually use a lawsuit --- in which it's claiming $11 million in damages from UW --- to pressure the administration into reopening two campus pubs that were closed in January. And yes, the administration might finally force the students to accept its terms for running the watering holes. But if the two sides wind up flailing away at each other in some courtroom, they'll both end up bleeding money no matter who comes out on top. And the lawyers for both sides will smile all the way to the bank.
Don't mistake this as a shot at lawyers. Any society with laws needs them. It's just that the dispute between UW and the student's union hardly seems the cause célèbre for an epic courtroom drama. The students aren't struggling for academic freedom. They have not hired a Toronto lawyer to push for lower tuition fees. No, this is basically about beer and the rules for selling it.
The university owns and holds the liquor licences for the two campus pubs. The student federation operates the pubs, or at least it did. After a young man was badly beaten outside one of the establishments, Federation Hall, on New Year's Day, the administration and federation had a falling out over how the pubs should be managed. When the two sides couldn't agree on what to do, the administration ordered the pubs shut.
Considering that the federation earned $130,000 a month from the pubs, it's obvious why the student leaders are upset about the closures. They've already spent $50,000 on legal bills and will certainly spend more if this drags out in court. But couldn't that money go to better student causes on campus? And even if the federation wins a settlement from the university, won't that be a tainted
victory? At least some of the money that the university pours into this lawsuit will be money it won't be able to spend on uses that benefit the students on campus and help them get an education.
Before this goes any farther, the two sides should find a good mediator who can help them reach a new agreement --- without going to court and paying lawyers big bucks for the privilege. This isn't rocket science --- or computer science for that matter. It's about restoring a basic, contractual relationship that exists in every university in Canada where a glass of beer is sold. [ Parent ]
|
| |
| Authored by: uws archive on Thursday, March 13 2003 @ 12:04 AM CST |
This is an archived comment posted by Ryan Chen-Wing. You can view the original
here. I got the statement of claim on Tuesday. I don;t have a digital copy so you have to read off photographs.
[ Parent ]
|
| |
|
|
|
)
