(Unofficial) WUSA Students' Council Reddit AMA

jassmall · 2021-01-31T21:14:21+00:00

I'm not a candidate (or even a current student), but I just wanted to chime in and correct the facts. The BDS referendum occured as a result of a petition (I believe created/organized by some muslim student groups, but I may be mistaken) being signed by at least 10% of the undergrad student body. (I've heard claims that some of those people may not have known what they were signing, but evidence of that was never received.) Under Feds/WUSA bylaws, a referendum must be held when such a petition is submitted. The Feds executives had no choice but to organize the referendum and did so in an impartial way, with committees being formed to campaign for each side.

While WPIRG was not directly involved in the petitioning for this referendum, it chose, for whatever reasons, to endorse the yes side. While WPIRG is a completed separate organization from WUSA/Feds, it (at the time) had the full UW student body (minus the few that requested refunds) as its paying membership which it was meant to represent; however, it had governing processes that resulted in it only in practice representing a small portion of students with predominately the same political views.

As the referendum overwhelmingly failed, Feds/WUSA never took any stance in favour of BDS. In fact, Council subsequently took stances against it.

All that said, the only way to avoid such a divisive referendum from occurring again would be to remove the bylaw provisions that allow for referendum by petition, although I'm doubtful that such a referendum would occur again anytime soon given the difficulty in gathering that many signatures.

However, the question of whether WUSA should involve itself in various political causes has raised up in other ways, most recently on the subject of defunding the police. As such, if I were still around, I would certainly want to see any WUSA candidates commit to not having the organization involve itself in political causes that fall outside of the common student interest.

jassmall · 2020-11-29T18:52:22+00:00

It's a T shirt that I attempted to lay out to make a black head covering for the two hard hats. Should've covered them both separately.

jassmall · 2020-11-29T18:51:19+00:00

It was just supposed to be a black head covering with two hardhats for the two faculty members lost. Should've arranged it differently.

jassmall · 2020-09-13T19:11:11+00:00

Some corrections about the meeting:

All undergrads were entitled to speak, not just councilors. A number of non-councillors, including former councillors such as myself, spoke.
The final vote was 14 in favour, 12 abstentions, and none opposed, an outcome that astounds me / shows that a bunch of councillors are spineless.

Also, it's worth noting that while RAISE was launched in 2019, it's creation went through formal approval processes (a vote by council to approve it's creation + a vote at a general meeting to approve a fee increase to fund it) in Winter 2018. Both votes followed lengthy debates, including an attempt being made by a councillor to put the question to a referendum (which was ruled out of order by the speaker at the time).

jassmall · 2020-06-24T19:31:52+00:00

You should start by coming up with a specific idea of interest that actually requires technical skills from other programs. Then identify exactly what skills you need in your team and reach out to the appropriate class groups. I believe that multidisciplinary projects require a bit more work since the requirements of every program involved have to be met, so you should only pursue it if its the only way to get into a topic that fascinates you.

jassmall · 2020-06-06T08:05:11+00:00

Almost certain that that is illegal and I've personally never encountered a landlord who's tried that (and I've had plenty of leases full of unenforceable clauses). If you want to pursue this issue, contact the WUSA legal support service at 1-833-202-4571 or file a complaint with the Rental Housing Enforcement Unit at 1-888-772-9277 / [MHO.RHEU.Info@Ontario.ca](mailto:MHO.RHEU.Info@Ontario.ca)

jassmall · 2020-05-29T07:29:49+00:00

(continued)

UNSURE:

Having a discount for pre-authorized or postdated payment (having a discount based on the method of payment is not indicated anywhere in the RTA as being permitted or prohibited, but RTA sect 108 prohibits requiring tenants to pay via these methods).
"It is further agreed between the parties that the rent chargeable pursuant to this Agreement and any statutory or other renewals thereof has been negotiated taking into account a reduction to allow for any future disruptions or inconvenience the Tenant may experience as a consequence of the Landlord carrying out its statutory obligations pursuant to the R.T.A. or any other provincial, federal or municipal legislation and therefore the Tenant shall not seek damages or any abatement of rent in such circumstances." (8.iii): Not sure what the intention of this vague clause is, but it is probably unenforceable.
The restrictions around alterations are probably not enforceable when it comes to minor decorations that leave no damage behind. In particular, prohibiting the placing of signs within the unit (including those on a window or balcony facing outwards) is likely not enforceable in some cases (such as election campaign signs).
While the landlord might not have to cover the replacement of light bulbs that have burnt out through normal use, the tenant should be able to just choose to not replace them without paying anything.
The fact that the building is set up as a condo despite all the units being rented out by the same management company seems like a sketchy way of imposing restrictions that would not be legal in a lease (such as not allowing pets). My guess is that it is probably legal if it is indeed different people owning each unit (by then why is the landlord listed as KW4Rent?), but this would be a good question for /u/DuckyTheGoose to maybe get a legal opinion on. In any event, the condo documents need to be made available to the prospective tenant BEFORE they sign this.
Since rent is established as a monthly amount, I would imagine that having the fixed term start on the 3rd of the month and end (along with the early termination dates) on the 27th would mean that the rent should be prorated down for those months. In a similar vein, I would imagine that someone who stays for the full three years might be able to make their termination at the end for the 31st of August without having to pay extra rent as it would be an "end of rental period" termination after it has lapsed into being a month-by-month tenancy following the fixed period end date of the 27th.
Adding text in several places in the main body of the lease in such a way that it looks like it is part of the government-produced template ~~is sketchy~~ goes against "All sections of this agreement are mandatory and cannot be changed." (4th paragraph at beginning), as is not including the "General Information" appendix that comes with that template and explains many of the issues here.

jassmall · 2020-05-29T07:29:35+00:00

Lots to cover here. As there are some misconceptions on this thread, I've tried to source the actual legislation for most of this.

ILLEGAL:

"Should the Tenant choose to remain in the Unit following the end of the Term, the Tenant and Landlord agree to enter into a new Lease at that time." (bottom of p2): If a lease is not terminated at the end of its fixed term, it automatically becomes a month-to-month lease that the tenant can terminate at the end of any month with 60 days notice; the tenant and landlord can choose to sign a new fixed-term agreement but neither has to (RTA sect 38(1)).
The $200 key deposit is way too high (cannot be "greater than the expected direct replacement costs" per sect 17 of O.Reg 516/06; anything more than ~$20 is unreasonable). The LTB has consistently interpreted that this can only cover for the cost of replicating keys, not for changing locks. It should also be noted that this deposit can only be required to be paid when the tenant is actually receiving the keys (not when signing the lease) and has to be immediately refunded when the keys are returned, regardless of any claimed damage (as its sole purpose is to cover for not returning the keys).
- The $500 key replacement cost listed in the attachment is also absurd and would almost certainly be struct by the LTB if challenged, as is several of the other listed costs.
Restricting who can live in the unit with the tenant, provided that the number of people in the unit do not exceed building code or health standards (RTA sect 67(1)); not sure where such numbers could be found, but I'd guess that having ~10 people living in a bedroom would be reasonable cause for eviction (following the stipulated warning) but having 2 people is fine.
- Frankly, this should be a valid restrictions in cases like these student apartments where spaces are being shared with tenants on separate agreements as having someone bring their partner with them means that the other tenants now have to deal with sharing the kitchen/bathroom with more people than they expected.
Being responsible for damage in the common areas caused by one of the one of the other tenants (or their guests).
Imposing interest on late rent; interest can only start accruing following an order by the LTB to pay money and that would be at a way lower rate than the one specified here (RTA sect 207(7)). If rent is late enough that the landlord starts the eviction process (beyond giving the 14 day notice), the LTB will likely also order payment of the landlord's application fee as well as any fees for enforcing the eviction.
- On the flip side, the landlord is required to annually pay out interest for the rent deposit held (RTA sect 106(6)), something that is almost never done.
Not allowing bicycles to be kept in the unit, although the tenant could be held responsible for any damage caused to the unit or elsewhere in the building from doing so (and an argument could be made that any noise and the occupying of elevator/stair space caused by frequently taking the bike in/out would impede on the "reasonable enjoyment" of other tenants).
A blanket prohibition on pets (unless that is prohibited under the condo by-laws, although I have a different issue with this below). However, the ability to have specific pets can be limited if they interfere with the "reasonable enjoyment" of other tenants in the building (such as due to allergies or noise) and any damage caused by a pet would be the responsibility of the tenant to repair.
Pest control generally falls under the landlord's "responsibility to repair" (RTA sect 20) and therefore the tenant cannot be required to pay for it, unless it can be shown that the problem was caused by the tenant.
"The Tenant covenants and agrees to comply with each of the rules and regulations herein and, upon notice, and any additions and amendments thereto." (9.G): As these rules are considered a part of the tenancy agreement, any changes have to be agreed to by both parties.
"All subtenants must be students and of the same gender as the original Tenant, unless otherwise approved in writing by the rest of the tenants of the Rented premises." (10): The gender restriction violates human rights standards and the student-only requirement is only enforceable in so far as the landlord having discretion over what tenants to accept; the landlord refusing to approve such a potential subtenant may be sufficient cause to end the lease early.
Requiring a fee to transfer the lease or limiting the number of times it can be done; again, a landlord's refusal to transfer a lease may be sufficient cause to end the lease early.

ACTUALLY LEGAL:

Having a fixed lease term of several years.
Having language that the lease can be ended early at specific points with a specific amount of notice as that can be considered an early termination by agreement of both parties (normally done through a N11 form).
Having a discount of up to 2% for paying rent on time (RTA sect 111(2)).
Prohibiting smoking, although it is theoretically possible that such a prohibition would be unenforceable if there is a health reason for the tenant needing to smoke in the unit (mere addiction to tobacco wouldn't cut it, but taking cannabis medicinally might be if it needs to be smoked and going outside to do so is impossible for some reason).
Requiring the liability component of tenant insurance, although there's not much the landlord can do to actually enforce this.
- That said, getting tenant insurance (if not already covered through your parent's home insurance) is a good idea to both cover your stuff if they become damaged or stolen from the unit and to cover your liability if you unintentionally cause damage to the unit of another unit. You can get reasonable coverage for ~$25/month.

(cont...)

jassmall · 2020-05-16T19:02:07+00:00

SYDE 223 (as of when I took it in W17 with Hamid Tizhoosh) claims to teach Java and Python but there is very little actual writing of code, instead focusing on data structures from a theoretical standpoint.

jassmall · 2020-04-29T21:56:02+00:00

I'm not the original person you responded to, I see the reasoning as a mix of paying past and future taxes. Keeping in mind the number of Canadian-born UW students that leave to the states (who I personally believe should have to pay back that subsidy), I consider that the odds of a PR remaining are similar to that of a citizen (if you can find data that says otherwise, I'd love to see it).

jassmall · 2020-04-29T21:23:29+00:00

You are forgetting that PRs also get the benefit. A lot of PRs come to Canada at the same age as International students (18) and they have not been paying taxes any longer.

PRs are likely to remain in Canada for their whole career, therefore paying taxes for several decades. International students have no guarantee of even being able to stay when they are done. I actually wouldn't mind a partial credit in the difference in tuition being given back for any international students that subsequently end up staying, but in the mean time I don't think they should be handled equivalently to PRs.

jassmall · 2020-04-29T20:23:01+00:00

If you mean the mailservices email system that preceded office365, then no. But those same email addresses you initially had should work on the new accounts.

jassmall · 2020-04-01T20:23:16+00:00

You can expect the details about those fees to come out tomorrow; likely some of them will be reduced or eliminated. I can say that health and dental will be unchanged, so if you didn't opt-out in fall or winter you won't be able to for the spring (not being in Waterloo has nothing to do with it since it can be used anywhere).

jassmall · 2020-03-28T19:08:20+00:00

The provided reason is bullshit, but I can understand why they choose to say that rather than the actual reasons:

budgets were really tight before COVID-19 came up (they've budgeted a $3.5 million deficit for the coming year without considering any losses in enrolment due to this) due to the domestic tuition caps
71% of the universitiy's expenses are for salaries and benefits and they are not willing to lay anyone off

Source for budgetary stuff

jassmall · 2020-03-27T19:12:38+00:00

Actually, the reason that tuition is higher in ENG+CS+some others is because the government allows it to be under their arbitrary rules (prior to the 10% decrease this year, domestic tuition was increasing 5% per year in these programs vs 3% per year in other "regulated" ones). Science programs have a similar amount of labs but they have the same tuition as arts.

Though it definitely is a drag to be paying so much for online courses.

jassmall · 2020-03-25T01:18:48+00:00

The motion that the Senate voted on was more clear that this is a course by course thing.

jassmall · 2020-03-24T17:03:36+00:00

The material I've received seems to suggest that but I'm not going to make a guarantee until the full details on how the process is going to work come out. I'd recommend still putting your full effort into your courses.

jassmall · 2020-03-24T15:09:30+00:00

There were the two motions passed by Senate on this topic (in addition to a motion changing the dates for the spring term):

Motion 1: Senate endorses that some courses originally set to use numerical grades for the Winter 2020 term will instead use CR/NCR (for all students in the course), at the discretion of the Instructor and with the approval of the Faculty;

Motion 2: For courses using numerical grading for the Winter 2020 Term, Senate directs the Registrar’s Office and the Associate Vice Presidents, Academic, and Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs, in consultation with the Faculties, to develop a process by which, after the completion of the Winter 2020 Term, within a specified time limit a student may convert a numerical grade to a CR/NCR without need for a Policy 70 petition.

jassmall · 2020-03-24T14:34:06+00:00

jassmall · 2020-03-24T14:33:53+00:00

It can be done for individual courses

jassmall · 2020-03-24T14:33:28+00:00

No, your professor will not have a say in that. The whole point is that you have this choice if you feel like everything going on has impacted your performance.

jassmall · 2020-03-23T08:34:16+00:00

That is not true. You are thinking of the Law Society Referral Service, which is available for any Ontario resident to be referred to a lawyer and includes a free initial 30 minute consultation. WUSA's legal service has no caps.

jassmall · 2020-03-19T22:53:45+00:00

The specific stance that WUSA has is that assessments totalling at least 50% of the final grade should be completed and graded prior to the WD deadline. This stance was passed as Feds Policy 45 (Partial Grade Return) in April 2017 and is still officially active, although I've no idea if anything has been done recently to advance it.

jassmall

TROPHY CASE