Quote Originally Posted by Pierre Dénommée View Post
There is no Freedom of Speech issue her.
If you are requiring people to defend decisions that they fundamentally disagree with and prevent discussion between governors outside of regularly scheduled meetings then there is indeed a Freedom of Speech issue here.

The CFC is a Legal Person. A Legal Persons speaks through its organs (Assembly of Governors, Executive) and through authorized persons (President and Public Relation Coordinators) The CFC has Freedom of Speech when speaking through the proper authorized channels.

Freedom of Speech is not yelling "Fire!" in a crowded cinema. Some limits must be imposed on Freedom of Speech for th greeter good of others and of the CFC.
Who gets to decide what the greater good is?

The public image of the CFC could be adversely affected by public declaration from Governors.

In Quebec, we have our own version of apparent authority under which the CFC could be held liable for action committed by a person with the apparent authority to preform an action. In Quebec, for non-profit, the Constitution and By-Laws are NOT public. A person of good faith dealing at arms length with a non-profit may not have access to any of those documents. Because of that, this person could not easily access the real authority of the person that he is speaking with. Furthermore, the Law assumes that this person has never read those document unless there is a proof that he did.

The core purpose of Quebec Law is to protect third parties of good faith dealing at arms length with others. So, if a CFC Governor buys a 2 000$ computer for the CFC, it is very likely that the court would condemn the CFC to pay the computer. The judge will add that the CFC has the right to sue the Governor to recover its money.
I think it would be more likely that the governor of your scenario could be charged with fraud than that the CFC would be liable for his or her misrepresentations.

Word utters by a Governor could create legal obligations for the CFC. This is very simple and has nothing to do with Freedom of Speech.
How does this code of conduct in any way modify a Governor's alleged ability to create legal obligations?

We must protect ourselves from liabilities and preserve our reputation.
The document before us does that how exactly?