Massive election fraud

Michael Campbell, a lawyer with Deacon, Spears, Fedson & Montizambert, was hired by the corporation to chair the AGM. He was assisted by Sasha Kraus, a student at law.

The proxies were to be registered in the management office at YCC #42. However, when they got to the office, it was locked. Only Ataul Malick had a key but he and the other directors were no where to be found.

The door was broken into and the chair and the scrutineers got got ready to accept the proxies.

When Ataul Malick arrived, late, he was accompanied by the other directors. They arrived with piles of proxies.

Altering of proxies
During the registration of the proxies, Shah Jahan Khan, one of the directors and an official election observer, was putting a line through the name of one of the candidates written in on proxies and writing in the name of a different candidate. He was doing this at the registration desk and was observed by a candidate, Sandeep Gosal, and the scruitineers.

Sandeep immediately informed Michael Campbell who saw Khan with the proxies but, Sandeep says, he didn't do anything and he let Khan leave the room with the proxies.

Quorum
At the start of the AGM, Michael Campbell announced that the meeting met quorum with:
037 units represented in person
398 units represented by proxies

(I assume that these numbers are on top of the 75 proxies that were disqualified because they had obvious signs of tampering or the corporation records showed that the units were in arrears.)

These numbers show the importance that proxies have in determining who would win the election.

Election results
The election results for the candidates was:

Amina Gure	255
Sandeep Gosal	248
Ataul Malick	244
Rashpal Singh	234
Mohender Sharma	28
Mohammed Nizamuddin	14
Jagvir Gehlaut	9
Harold Manzke	5

Atual Malick, the incumbent president lost by four votes.

Mr. Campbell stated that due to the objections to his rejecting the 75 proxies, he would take the proxies to his law offices and review the rejected proxies and determine the final result.

The proxies
On Friday 27 September, Mr. Campbell sent the property management company an e-mail stating that 75 proxies were conditionally discounted or rejected and he would review the status of each individual proxy if he received a solemn declaration from the unit owner verifying that they made the written changes to the proxy.

An alternative
On Friday evening, Mr. Campbell offered an alternative way to certify the election result. If the three directors, Sandeep Gosal and Amina Gure would all agree, he would consider that instruction effective and unconditionally reject the 75 proxies in issue.

That evening, Shah Jahan Khan sent his first, of many replies. His basic agruments were:

1.	The board can over-rule the chair if it does like the chair's decision.
2.	The board can appoint replacement directors until there is an election.
3.	The property management company's faulty records denied owners the right to vote.

Shah Jahan Khan next e-mail was at 3:02 am Saturday morning.

“Could you provide me the answer that in this situation BOD can overruled your recommendation and result and can call reelection when:

1.	more than 400 proxies were written with different inks against more than three candidates.
2.	I and 100 unit owners are the eye witnessed of more than 400 similar proxies you accepted but luckily color of pen was same should not be the basis that proxy was written, dated, time with proxy owner hand writing.
3.	Smart Candidates always keeps seven different color ink pen for such type  of activities but the loser candidate.
4.	ATAUL HAQ MALICK my last one hr friend misused MGT office, mislead home owners to drop proxy in Ycc 42 office to Phone NO: 416-622-3422, collected 100 proxies only signed by unit owner.
5.	95 % unit owners gave verbal authority to Candidate to do what ever he want to do with the proxy.
6.	Why proxy holders are giving proxy to candidates because of relationship, neighborhood, trust. 99% candidates treated their proxies in a similar manner and in future they will continue treating the same way.
7.	In my opinion during final whole process, the method of rejection, adopted for proxy by proxy was illegal without merit.
8.	Lot of proxies were handed over to one group recalled and handed over to other group by the same owner.

In this situation Board must call reelection does not matter money.”

A change of heart?
Sent: Saturday, September 28, 2013 5:01 PM

That evening, Mr. Khan appears to have changed his mind.

"DEAR BROTHER MALICK. ALL OF YOU KNOW I EXTENDED MY FULL COOPERATION TO YOU TO WIN YOUR ELECTION BUT THE FINAL RESULTS WERE NOT IN MY HANDS BUT IT IS ALLAH HIKMAT AND I DO NOT HAVE CONTROL ON IT. LETS WORK TOGETHER AND EXTEND YOUR HANDS OF COOPERATION TOWARDS NEWLY ELECTED DIRECTORS AMINA GURE ONE FROM OUR GROUP AND SANDEEP FROM OTHER GROUP.

WE WERE ELECTED SEPT. 27/2013 AND HOW TIME PASSED LIKE A WEEK."

A call for reason
On Sunday 29 September 2013 the property manager remarked:

"One: Remember that in challenging the votes – the outcome can go either way. If it is determined that the proxies should count then for sure Ataul would be re-elected. HOWEVER; should all the changed proxies that were allowed be determined as invalid then AMINA would be out and Rashpal would be in.

Ata (Malick), you called me I think it was Sunday night at around 9pm and asked me if proxies in someone’s possession can be changed by the person in possession to be given to support someone other than what was marked off by the owners and I told you that a proxy certainly cannot be changed by someone else. That is like receiving a chq and changing what is written on it. If you had given me specifics; I could have guided you on how to deal with such a situation.

... Finally, another reason to let it be is because of the 900 owners. As long as there is a fight going on about these proxies, how can the board move forward on decisions that affect the condo – the fob system and resident data collection; the leaks and the piping problems; security; boilers need to be addressed ; interior renovations – most important we have to start looking at the budget for the 2014 fiscal year especially with the 10 % further reduction----the law suits to settle – all these things are going to be pushed aside while the “fight” takes precedence. Surely, this is not in the best interest of the owners."

So how many directors?
On Sunday, 29 September 29, Khan sent Sandeep Gosal an e-mail stating that the board consisted of only three directors:
"1. Shah Jahan Khan______________ Director
2. SAFDAR SARDAR______________ DIRECTOR
3. ANVER KARIM________________  TREASURER

YOUR RESULTS ARE IN PENDING AND CHAIRMAN APPOINTED BY YCC 42 BOARD HAS ADVISED 75 UNIT OWNERS TO SUBMIT THEIR AFFIDAVITS.

TILL FURTHER ORDER YOU ARE NOT ELECTED DIRECTOR AND PLEASE DO NOT MISLEAD UNIT OWNERS, OTHER WISE YOU WILL BE RESPONSIBLE."

The chair's decision
On 01 October 2013, Micheal Campbell released his decision. No owner showed interest in challenging any of the rejected proxies. The 75 proxies were unconditionally discounted, along with 60 others (for different reasons) for a total of 135 rejected proxies.

The report ends with:
"Accordingly, I hereby certify that AMINA GURE and SANDEEP GOSAL were elected at the 2013 AGM to the board of directors of YCC 42."


top  contents  chapter  previous  next