Shape Your University Experience: Get Involved in WUSA Elections

At WUSA, the heart of our mission lies in student representation and advocacy. Every year, a new team of dedicated student leaders, elected by you – the undergraduates of the University of Waterloo – takes the helm to voice your concerns and steer our collective journey.

The WUSA Elections, held annually during the Winter term, are not just a process – they’re a celebration of student democracy and empowerment. Here, aspiring leaders from our student body step forward, eager to make a difference. From key executive officer roles to pivotal governance positions on our Board of Directors, each role is crucial in shaping the policies, activities, and overall direction of WUSA.

Why Participate?

  • Voice Your Opinions: Your vote determines who represents your interests and concerns.
  • Drive Change: Elected leaders play a vital role in influencing university policies and student life.
  • Build Community: Engaging in elections fosters a connected and proactive student body.

Considering a Leadership Role?

Are you passionate about student life, governance, and making a positive impact? Explore the various roles within WUSA’s governance structure. Visit our Board of Directors page to delve into the specifics of each position and understand how you can contribute to shaping a vibrant student community, and nominate yourself.

Got Questions?

We’re here to help. If you’re considering running for a position or just curious about the election process, don’t hesitate to reach out. Your Chief Returning Officer (CRO) is available to answer any questions and guide you through the process. We haven’t covered everything on this page, so feel free to connect with us for more insights.

Be the Change You Wish to See

Your involvement in the WUSA Elections is a step towards a more dynamic and responsive student community. Whether as a candidate or a voter, your participation is vital. Join us in this journey of student leadership and governance – where your voice truly matters.

Not sure if running in WUSA Elections is for you?

Take our leadership quiz to discover your strengths and see where you shine in student governance.

Quick Links

CRO
Chief Returning Officer (CRO)

Violation Complaint Form

Violation Appeal Form

Elections and Referenda Procedures (PDF)

Ask a question or connect with a board member!

Important Dates

All times displayed local Waterloo, EST (GMT -5)

  • Nominations: December 22nd – January 22nd
  • All Candidates Meeting: January 23rd, 5:30pm
  • Campaign Period: January 25th – February 2nd
  • Voting Period: February 3rd – 5th

2025-2026 Board of Directors – Elections Results

Thank you for voting!

For privacy reasons YouTube needs your permission to be loaded. For more details, please see our Privacy Policy.

Election Event

Visit vote.wusa.ca

Voting is easier than ever

We’ve compiled everything you need to know about upcoming elections, all in one place! Check out vote.wusa.ca for any active elections, candidate profiles, and virtual ballots.

Simply login using your WATIAM to get involved and make your voice heard!

Nomination Resources

Know a social advocate who would make an awesome leader? Or do YOU want to drive change that affects the lives of students at uWaterloo and across Canada?

We’ve compiled everything you need to know about nominations, all in one place! Have a look or share it with someone you think would be a great fit for the role! View the WUSA Nominations page for full details on how to make your mark.

Campaign Support

WUSA is here to offer you information, resources, and support to ensure you have the tools you need.

First things first, make sure you review the Elections & Referenda Procedures to learn about your budget*, rules for campaigning, allegations and appeals, and more.

*WUSA will cover the cost of running a campaign for WUSA Executive and Students’ Council candidates. Senate candidates can find budget information in Senate Bylaw 3 (see section 2.02c) opens an external site.

Below you can find all the Campaign marketing resources you can use to get the word out to grow your base of voters:
https://sway.office.com/UCmJ0brGcl1J7n3s?ref=Link

Candidate Elections Logo:

Logo featuring a stylized checkmark with text reading "vote.wusa.ca" to the right.

Download Full Colour | Download White Version

Make sure this logo is used on your campaign posters, we also encourage you to use it on any other printed campaign materials.

Don’t forget to submit your candidate profile on vote.wusa.ca to ensure you’re featured on our site and included in any print materials.

While there is no deadline to submit this information, remember that these pages are being promoted from the start of campaign period right until the end. It can take up to three business days for your information to be uploaded to the site. In order to guarantee your information is included in any WUSA print materials be sure to submit before the date stated at the All Candidates Meeting.

Allegations & Appeals

An Allegation is an accusation made that a candidate or referendum campaign committee has done something wrong during the Election period, and is the main mechanism in place to ensure the adherence of procedure and subsequently, the fairness of the election. Allegations remain assertions until they can be proved. Allegation forms exist to streamline the volume of allegations that come in and to help prevent duplicate reports of the same incident. The subject of the allegation can be a candidate, a team, or a referendum campaign committee.

Candidates are disqualified if they reach 11 points – check out point values in Elections & Referenda Procedures in the WUSA library.

Appeals are requests from the alleged to change to the Elections and Referenda Officer’s (ERO) official decision on an allegation. The Chief Returning Officer (CRO) hears all appeals and should include any new information that has come forward. Further appeals beyond this point against the CRO’s decision would go to the Elections and Referenda Committee (ERC).

The CRO or ERC (depending on the appeal) may do any of the following:

  1. Uphold the original decision
  2. Alter the penalty of the original decision, within the limits of this procedure
  3. Refer the ERO or CRO, as the case may be, to review a decision in light of new information or with consideration to a specific section of this procedure
  4. Overturn the decision and present an alternate ruling, thereby eliminating the decision’s penalties so received

All rulings rendered by the ERC with respect to a further appeal of a decision made by a CRO shall be final.

If you’re unsure whether or not a violation has occurred, you’re encouraged to report it to the ERO and who will then figure out if it is a violation of procedure or not.

Allegations and Appeals Decisions

Appellant: Samir Sharma, Rory Norris, Jordan Bauman, Patrik Buhring, Noor Blaggan, Steven Singh, Andrew Chang, Katherine Wang, Arya Razmjoo, Mujtaba Haider, Iman Khan, Majdalen Azouz, Remington Zhi, Jacob Lewis, Omar Gaballa, Misha Khan, Alex Lavallee, Becky Chen, Veertej Sehdave

Respondent: CRO Mike Cimetta; ERO Onella Kulatunga

Candidates in the appellant group appealed the Clubs Endorsements Directive issued to all candidates, citing the following claims:

a)     Claim 1: The Directive was not enforceable and was created and applied mid-election, and such a Directive could have been passed through the [WUSA] Board; and

b)     Claim 2: The Directive violated Electoral Policy and was applied within 30 days of the electoral event occurring; and

c)     Claim 3: The Directive was sent only 2 days before campaigning was set to open; and

d)     Claim 4: The Directive does not create a feasible way for clubs to use their voice during the election, due in part to the requirement of a simple majority; and

e)     Claim 5: Executives of a club should be able to decide on a club endorsement, because these executives are elected by club membership; and

f)      Claim 6: The Directive will allow for bad-faith, and the onus is put on the candidate rather than the party that violated the rule; and

g)     Claim 7: The Directive was rushed and not done through proper governance processes, and limits WUSA clubs’ ability to determine their own positions on election topics.

Respondent argument summary:

  • The Elections Procedures were properly passed in October 2025 with the mutual agreement of ERC that there would be some operational best practices and guidelines set for candidates and clubs to follow.

  • The Elections Procedures passed in October 2025 also allowed the CRO to make directives on interpretations and share with all candidates.

  • The Directive aims to outline the process by which clubs can endorse candidates in a fair way, minimizing conflict. The Directive was sent out to all candidates who passed the nomination threshold at the same time to create an even playing field.

  • A recent communication with a club indicated no issue with holding a vote of 10 members.

  • The Clubs are a common-interest group mostly of undergraduate students, must have at least 15 acting members, and are expected to meet and fulfill the club’s mandate/purpose, which does not include endorsing candidates in WUSA elections

  • There have been cases where club executives have used club social media accounts without consulting their broader club membership, and other leaders and club members cited this as a concern and an inappropriate use of club resources

  • If a club partners with a candidate, then they become arms-length members of the candidate’s campaign team

  • Bad-faith actors can be held accountable through WUSA’s club policies if endorsements are used inappropriately

  • Clubs are within their rights to have positions and be able to shape the future of the student association and involving club members beyond the 3 top executives is important.

Decision of Elections and Referenda Committee:

The Elections Referendum Committee (ERC) Substantially Dismisses the Appeal (4-0).

The committee agreed that the appeal highlighted areas for improvement in the endorsement directive and timeline, but did not provide sufficient grounds to invalidate or retract club endorsements for this election.

Further work is needed to make the directive better in the future, but this first year of implementation serves as a trial run and the feedback and asks for better timelines and better communication will affect future adaptions.

The committee emphasized that endorsements remain an important mechanism for club participation, enabling them to help shape the association and engage meaningfully in elections.

The committee interpreted the appeal as an attempt to seek improvements to the endorsement process rather than to eliminate it. They concluded that retracting endorsements would undermine, rather than protect, the integrity of the election.

Overall, the ERC felt that the appeal lacked clear procedural grounds and did not provide actionable remedies. Most concerns raised by the Appellant Groups related to timeline, clarity, and implementation issues, not valid procedural breaches. However, the ERC did resolve to clarify the Directive where applicable, including areas highlighted by the appellants.

The Committee Reaffirmed That:

a)     The WUSA Club Endorsement Directive remains valuable to the WUSA and clubs willingly participating in the election.

b)     The directive was newly implemented and will function as a trial, with the understanding that it may be refined.

c)     Some issues arose due to later-than-desirable communication, affecting both clubs and candidates.

d)     Within specific cases, the Directive has already proven to be effective at validating fairness in endorsing candidates in this election.

Complainant: Majdalen Azouz

Respondent: ERO, Onella Kulatunga

Allegation Overview:
Candidate in the appellant group appealed the use of a sign-up sheet at the Taco ‘Bout’ Your Candidate event held on Wednesday January 28th from 5:00 – 8:00 p.m. citing that the intent was to “pledge” votes.

The sign-up sheet asks for a student’s name, email and faculty. The language directly on the sheet in question can be found exactly as stated below.

“We approve of Team Horizon contacting us solely during campaign periods for the purposes of providing us with campaign materials and providing info on how to vote in the WUSA election.”

The appellant candidate believed team Horizon to be utilizing this sign-up sheet inappropriately during the event to solicit votes in a manner that violated the ERP for the following reasons:

a) The sign-up sheet was used as a means to get students to “pledge” their vote, which could lead to a sense of obligation.

b) The use of this sheet by team Horizon does not create fair and equal access for all candidates.

c) Concerns that Horizon may share this sign-up sheet into the voting period.

Respondent Argument:
Claim A:
  • Based off the language provided directly on the sheet, there is no indication to reasonably believe that Team Horizon is utilizing this as anything other than a means to share campaign information and information on how to vote
  • As stated in section 10.1(b) of the ERP, “the distribution and/or posting of any and all forms of advertising or communication likely to influence voters towards a particular candidate or Referendum option;” is acceptable procedure in an attempt to solicit votes.
  • Claim A has been dismissed.
Claim B:
  • All candidates are given equal opportunities to freely choose between running independently or as part of a slate/team. That said, the implementation of creating an email list to share communication does not inherently create a situation of unfairness or unequal access for other candidates. Nor does it violate any existing ERP procedures.
  • Claim B is dismissed

Claim C:

  • As it stands, the sheet explicitly states that it’s to be used “solely during campaign periods” and given that this allegation was filed before the voting period began, I cannot issue a penalty for what has not yet occurred.
  • Claim C is dismissed. No demerit points were issued in penalty.

Appellant: Majdalen Azouz

Decision by: CRO, Mike Cimetta

Appeal Overview:

M. Azouz appealed the decision to dismiss the earlier ruling from the ERO. This was done in line with Section 6.3(d)(ii) and (vi) of the Elections and Referenda Procedures, on the grounds that portions of the Procedures were improperly applied in letter or spirit, and that inadequate consideration was given to relevant evidence and contextual factors raised in the original allegation.

  • Appellant argues that broader context, reasonable perceptions or indirect effects of the practice are questionable and not to be permitted.

  • Appellant argues that structural difference between a slate and an independent candidate resulted in an unequal advantage in a WUSA-run and ostensibly neutral setting was not substantively analyzed.

  • Appellant argues that the decision did not address the worry about student voters providing their email addresses and the confusion of that also being the method WUSA will use centrally to inform members to vote.

  • Appellant asks for preventative guidance from the Elections officers so all candidates can be informed about what is reasonable conduct with regards to a collected list of emails.

Consideration:

  1. This collection of emails occurred by candidates who were clearly identified as candidates (hats and nametags) and not agents of WUSA so it is unlikely voters were confused what they were signing up for. The sign up sheet was also campaign-team branded. Indirect effects will be discussed below.

  2. Structural difference: While Horizon is a much larger team than had been assembled in the past few elections, it is still within the rules. The appellant is likely more concerned that the rate of campaigning that can be done by multiple candidates with clipboards outweighs the might of an independent candidate. While it may seem overwhelming, it is not procedurally unfair – since there are positives and negatives to having many people on a team which conversely relate to the positives and negatives of being an independent candidate. Further details will not be provided here. All candidates are welcome to campaign and try to influence

  3. Student voters were not explicitly asked to provide their @uwaterloo.ca email address so this is not a worry.

  4. Preventative guidance will be drafted and sent to all candidates before voting begins.

Decision:

The CRO has decided to slightly alter the ERO’s ruling. There will still be no demerit points allocated since there were no proven violations. The CRO will release some guidance to all candidates in line with the ask from the appellant.

The CRO aims to clarify from ERO’s first decision, since campaigning is allowed during the voting period, and campaign period is defined as the “period in which campaign activities are permitted, as approved by the Board;” Team Horizon outlining in the disclaimer that they will send communications during “campaign periods” means they may send notifications Feb 3-5.

CRO cautions that these notifications should be clearly marked as Team Horizon and not include any perception they are from WUSA’s central communication channels. The latter would be unfair, as it would be seen as WUSA instructing students to vote for a specific team. To reduce this risk, the emails can have no WUSA logos.