Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: A Vote of No Confidence for the CFC President

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    Vlad, you are very clearly in the wrong here. You have admitted that you are in receipt of an email with 5 voting members requesting a special meeting, and including a motion to be voted on at that meeting.

    Of course nobody can *force* you and the board to call the meeting, but any of those 5 members would be perfectly within their rights to call the meeting at the conclusion of the waiting period. So it seems the meeting will happen, whether you like it or not.
    Read the CFC bylaw and relevant laws for removing a board member. This does not take place only at the level of the CFC. It also takes place at the level of the director of corporations for Canada. You can't wing this. You cannot fast track this. You cannot file incorrect paperwork and add to it later. There will be legal consequences.

    One thing that has become clear to me is that while I have full confidence in Lyle Craver, to run a fair election, I do not have confidence in you Christopher Mallon. You are clearly running interference for those attempting this coup.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Itkin View Post
    I have an important question to the CFC Directors that indirectly is related to the topic in this thread.

    In the CFC archive, I accidentally came across Les Bunning’s post, in which his status is indicated as a CFC Voting Member. I understand that Les is a respected member of the Canadian chess community, and that he was previously even CFC President (1979 – 1981 and 1990 – 1992). Les is currently practicing law in Ottawa at the law firm Bunning & Farnand LLP.

    At the same time, as the current CFC President Vladimir Drkulec has repeatedly informed us, Les Bunning is the official lawyer of the CFC. His legal advice has been used many times by Vlad in critical situations in making important fundamental decisions. In particular, for instance, on the basis of Les Bunning’s legal advice (at least, Vlad claims so), Vlad Drkulec single-handedly cancelled the unanimous decision of the CFC Board of Directors to dismiss the CFC Officer for inappropriate behaviour.

    My question to the CFC Directors is: how can a CFC Voting Member be an official lawyer of the CFC?
    In my view, there is an obvious conflict of interest that is not tolerated by the Law Society of Ontario.
    Les Bunning is not the official lawyer of the CFC. He is a lawyer who gives very good advice to the CFC from time to time when required on a purely voluntary basis without charge.

    You guys are really starting to be too much. You are going after Les Bunning now for the sin of giving free advice to the CFC? At the Meeting you were going after the CMA, FIDE and the FQE.

    Will anyone be stupid enough to want to involve themselves in the CFC by the time you are done?

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Les Bunning is not the official lawyer of the CFC. He is a lawyer who gives very good advice to the CFC from time to time when required on a purely voluntary basis without charge.

    You guys are really starting to be too much. You are going after Les Bunning now for the sin of giving free advice to the CFC? At the Meeting you were going after the CMA, FIDE and the FQE.

    Will anyone be stupid enough to want to involve themselves in the CFC by the time you are done?
    Vlad, govern yourself accordingly. The question about Les Bunning's status with the CFC was asked by me personally. I never ever went against CMA, or FQE, or Les Bunning whom I respect a lot. Maybe I was lightly criticizing FIDE in one of my posts, which is what many do. If Les Bunning is not the official lawyer of the CFC, then he obviously could give you free friendly advice. So, one more time: this is not about CMA or FIDE or FQE or Les Bunning. This is about you, and we are going against you.

    With the episode related to Les Bunning's advice, you have misled (and not for the first time) the CFC Voting Members. It was you who informed us that based on the long term CFC lawyer advice, you single-handedly cancelled the unanimous decision of the CFC Board of Directors to dismiss the CFC Officer for inappropriate behaviour. Perhaps, you had the right to do this, if you received the legal advice from the official CFC lawyer. That's exactly how your statement sounded. And now it appears, that you did this just because one of the CFC Voting Members, who is a lawyer, gave you such informal friendly advice. Based on such an informal advise, you did not have any right to overturn the unanimous decision of the Board of Directors. This is violation of your fiduciary duty to the CFC.

    Les Bunning could give any friendly advise. He hasn't done anything wrong. You've done it.
    Last edited by Victor Itkin; 03-23-2021 at 02:43 PM.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Itkin View Post
    Vlad, govern yourself accordingly. The question about Les Bunning's status with the CFC was asked by me personally. I never ever went against CMA, or FQE, or Les Bunning whom I respect a lot. Maybe I was lightly criticizing FIDE in one of my posts, which is what many do. If Les Bunning is not the official lawyer of the CFC, then he obviously could give you free friendly advice. So, one more time: this is not about CMA or FIDE or FQE or Les Bunning. This is about you, and we are going against you.

    With the episode related to Les Bunning's advice, you have misled (and not for the first time) the CFC Voting Members. It was you who informed us that based on the long term CFC lawyer advice, you single-handedly cancelled the unanimous decision of the CFC Board of Directors to dismiss the CFC Officer for inappropriate behaviour. Perhaps, you had the right to do this, if you received the legal advice from the official CFC lawyer. That's exactly how your statement sounded. And now it appears, that you did this just because one of the CFC Voting Members, who is a lawyer, gave you such informal friendly advice. Based on such an informal advise, you did not have any right to overturn the unanimous decision of the Board of Directors. This is violation of your fiduciary duty to the CFC.

    Les Bunning could give any friendly advise. He hasn't done anything wrong. You've done it.
    It was not a unanimous decision of the board since I voted against it. The decision was that I do something which I and the board could be sued for. There was nothing that prevented someone else from making the same request. I am an unpaid volunteer, and am not required to do things that put the CFC or myself at financial risk and in fact it is my duty to refuse such demands. The will to take this action collapsed after it was established that it was against Les's advice.

    For better or worse you are going to be lumped in with the company you keep.

    Good luck defending your position.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    280

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    You cannot file incorrect paperwork and add to it later.
    You tell me!

    From my recent personal experience:

    One of the corporation’s shareholders sued the corporation itself and its other five shareholders (I was one of them) for a large sum. There was no settlement, and four years later the case went to court for 14-day trial. The guy (the plaintiff) was dissatisfied with the court judgment and, within the prescribed time, filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeal for Ontario. A week later, his lawyer filed an Amended Notice of Appeal. Three months later, he filed an Amended Amended Notice of Appeal. After another three months, he filed Amended Amended Amended Notice of Appeal. And, finally, after another 8 months, he filed Supplementary Notice of Appeal, which stated that this one amends and replaces all previous Notices.

    Vlad, you are misleading Voting Members again. When you make such categorical and unsubstantiated statements about what one can do by law and what one can’t do, you are wishful thinking. If you continue to make such statements, please, in each case, clarify in which exactly law or bylaw is it said, and in what particular article or section.

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Tecumseh, ON
    Posts
    2,886
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor Itkin View Post
    you are wishful thinking.
    Yes, I am wishful thinking that we don't want to go back to what the CFC was before where the kids were just considered a cash cow, where someone who bought books could browbeat the CFC into issuing charitable receipts for that purchase, where someone who paid for his child's trip to the World Youth Chess Championship could demand a charitable receipt and then the president of the CFC had to resign as they had finally given the CRA the excuse they needed to cancel the CFC's charitable designation. I am wishful thinking that no one wants to go back to that.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Yes, I am wishful thinking that we don't want to go back to what the CFC was before where the kids were just considered a cash cow, where someone who bought books could browbeat the CFC into issuing charitable receipts for that purchase, where someone who paid for his child's trip to the World Youth Chess Championship could demand a charitable receipt and then the president of the CFC had to resign as they had finally given the CRA the excuse they needed to cancel the CFC's charitable designation. I am wishful thinking that no one wants to go back to that.
    Whether or not Vladimir Drkulec is the most important puzzle piece that holds CFC together is not a discussion anyone wants to take part in with you.

    "When you make such categorical and unsubstantiated statements about what one can do by law and what one can’t do, you are wishful thinking. If you continue to make such statements, please, in each case, clarify in which exactly law or bylaw is it said, and in what particular article or section."

    I second that, and I hope other voting members do as well.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Kitchener, ON
    Posts
    2,221
    Blog Entries
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Read the CFC bylaw and relevant laws for removing a board member. This does not take place only at the level of the CFC. It also takes place at the level of the director of corporations for Canada. You can't wing this. You cannot fast track this. You cannot file incorrect paperwork and add to it later. There will be legal consequences.

    One thing that has become clear to me is that while I have full confidence in Lyle Craver, to run a fair election, I do not have confidence in you Christopher Mallon. You are clearly running interference for those attempting this coup.
    I wasn't aware that stating my opinion - as a CFC Life Member and as a Voting Member - counted as running interference? You'll have to point out the relevant section of the CFC handbook and/or NFP law.

    You are being rather sensational, as usual. A coup is defined as "as sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government." Using bylaws and/or the NFP law to legally remove you as President is NOT a coup. And I've had zero coordination with anyone involved, I've merely come to my own conclusions.

    Do you have plans to be CFC President for life? You have accomplished so much. Had you retired at the AGM last year you might have gone down as one of the best presidents ever, and certainly the best that anyone 40 and under can remember. But your presidency has clearly jumped the shark. Perhaps you can hold on, perhaps not, but why would you want to? A fairly large number of people will never be able to trust you again, so you will remain forever a divisive candidate. Do the right thing and step aside and spare the CFC the trouble of however long this fight will be.
    Christopher Mallon
    FIDE Arbiter

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,120
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir Drkulec View Post
    Yes, I am wishful thinking that we don't want to go back to what the CFC was before where the kids were just considered a cash cow, where someone who bought books could browbeat the CFC into issuing charitable receipts for that purchase, where someone who paid for his child's trip to the World Youth Chess Championship could demand a charitable receipt and then the president of the CFC had to resign as they had finally given the CRA the excuse they needed to cancel the CFC's charitable designation. I am wishful thinking that no one wants to go back to that.
    For a number of years the CFC Business Office (perhaps with the permission of the Executive) apparently "bent" the rules for issuing of taxable receipts. However, it should be noted that by 2010, we had modified our previous practices and were fully compliant, by the time that CRA decided to annul the charitable designation of a number of Canadian organizations, as it was ruled they never should have been given the designation in the first place. In our case, the government ruled that we could be eligible under the Education category, however they defined education as being under 21, which obviously was only a subset of our operations. We spent most of the fall of 2010 (this was my first year back on the Executive after a considerable length of time being away) attempting to have this overturned, but eventually the executive of the day decided not to appeal the ruling. It should be noted that Les Bunning did the majority of the work on this file, and was prepared to carry on with the appeal. At that time we were hoping that joining the RCAAA would be imminent.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Charlottetown, PE
    Posts
    2,120
    Blog Entries
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Christopher Mallon View Post
    I wasn't aware that stating my opinion - as a CFC Life Member and as a Voting Member - counted as running interference? You'll have to point out the relevant section of the CFC handbook and/or NFP law.
    I don't think it's your opinion Vlad is referring to, but perhaps your ability to do and not do things behind the scenes on this Forum. [Not my own opinion]

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •