Dear Toronto Old Boys and members,
The LSOBA Toronto Chapter Board of Directors 2025-27 are writing to follow up with the 130+ applications received in April 2025, together with perceived governance and legal/compliance issues. This statement summarizes what we presented during the AGM 2026 on this matter, the consent we received, and the actions we are taking.
A lot of you are aware of the 130+ membership stacking applications received during April/May 2025, submitted by Jimmy Chang (66) and Michael Chow (89), and the subsequent allegations against the Board and President. Legal issues were raised, and there were unprecedented allegations toward individuals as well as the Board in general.
While some may think this matter is over after a year, it is not. Application has not been withdrawn, no apologies were given to the general members at large, and the “debates” go on. We resolved to “defer and investigate”; now is the time we tell you our holistic resolution and the way forward.
Recap
Here is a quick recap:
- April 30, 2025 notice to members, which discussed the nature of applications, Bill Chau (98)’s petition, and Alexander Cheung (82)’s email which was copied to HKOBA
- Condemn statement signed by a few Toronto chapter ex Presidents, including Alexander Cheung (82), Jimmy Chang (66), Philip Wong (67), Peter Chan (72), distributed by Peter Chan (72), recipients not disclosed. The letter contained a series of personal and groundless accusations, and also allegation of negligence on duty to notice, which has legal implications
- May 7, 2025 notice to members, which discussed requisition meeting called by Peter Chan (72) and Michael Chow (89), as well as Jevons Au (歐文傑98), one of the applicants, who threatened to nullify the AGM 2025
- Resignation letter of the 6 directors, including Charles Li (74), Michael Chow (89) and John Yeung (73), recipients not disclosed. The letter endorsed the membership stacking and suggested procedural fairness occurred which have legal implications
We hired a lawyer
We said “all reasonable channels (with those who supported/endorsed the 130+ applicants) have been exhausted”; that has not changed. While we are very grateful for K.B. Ng (76)’s assistance as an Honorary Legal Advisor through the difficult times, he stated that Ontario Not-for-Profit Corporations Act (ONCA) is not his expertise of practice, and he suggested “any legal advice or assistance should be sought from other lawyers separately and independently”.
As such, we retained JY Law Firm, an external independent lawyer who practices ONCA, to investigate membership eligibility, voting and nomination rights, proxies, and governance/legal issues. Our aim is to restore public trust and reputation, through ensuring compliance and good governance.
The following are conclusions derived from the lawyer’s advice and some direct excerpts (text in quotes) from the lawyer’s memo to the current Board:
- The lawyer confirmed that “membership admission is a privilege not a right, regardless of whether the applicant believes they have fulfilled the admission requirements. The claim that membership is a right is wrong.”
- The lawyer explained the damage of membership stacking, that it is “improper and unlawful in some circumstances; a criminal offence in the context of public politics… It is risky because it can undermine the integrity of the membership, the fairness of the election, and the legitimacy of the AGM results. Admitting members must be done carefully, consistently, in good faith, and in accordance with ONCA, the articles, the by-laws, and any membership criteria. Nobody should use membership admissions as a tactic to “stack” the electorate, entrench itself, remove opponents, or engineer a desired voting result.”
- The lawyer clarified the Board’s responsibility regarding this very unusual application: “Directors have a duty to act in the best interests of the corporation, not merely to facilitate a factional membership drive. The Board had to ensure that each applicant was a real person, eligible under the by-laws, and had personally consented to apply. Given that the names and graduation year of alumni are easily available to all alumni, it was reasonable for the Board to suspect that these applications could be filled out using the available information. Admitting the individuals immediately, without a controlled verification process, could have exposed the Board to significant risk. It may have created the perception that the directors were knowingly facilitating or legitimizing applications that may not have been authorized by the individuals named. In that scenario, the Corporation and its directors could have faced complaints or legal action alleging improper governance, failure of oversight, or involvement in conduct resembling identity misuse or identity theft”
- The lawyer commented on the legal risk of the Board of Director: “There was no comparable harm to the existing membership if the applications were declined or deferred pending verification. Old Boys who are not admitted as members have the ability to form associations on their own accord… By contrast, admitting the applicants without proper review could have exposed the Corporation and its directors to legal, reputational, and ethical risks, particularly if any applications were later found to have been unauthorized or irregular. In those circumstances, the cautious approach was reasonable, proportionate, and necessary. The refusal or deferral of membership in this particular Board did not prevent them from forming an association elsewhere”
Based on the lawyer’s independent review, the Board of Directors 2025-27 believes that the membership stacking, as well as the means to support such, by the ex presidents, ex directors including Bill Chau (98) who initiated the petition, are hardly in good faith. The lawyer’s review substantiates the reason to not admit the applications immediately, per the open letter dated April 30 and May 7 2025. The lawyer’s review also explained the damage to approve such.
The following are conclusions derived from the lawyer’s advice and some direct excerpts (text in quotes) from the lawyer’s memo to the current Board regarding public interest including goodwill and potential reputational harm as a result of sharp opinion:
- The lawyer confirmed that despite Jevons Au’s claim, he was not a member of the Corporation at the relevant time and therefore did not possess the statutory or by law rights afforded to members, including rights to participate in governance, demand responses, or otherwise direct the Board’s decision making.
- The Board’s mandate on sharp opinion: “where allegations are vague, fabricated, repeated, targeted, and disruptive, and are intended to undermine members, discourage attendance, or erode morale, such conduct may become actionable or warrant sanctions depending on its nature, persistence, and effect… the board is expected to take appropriate and proportionate action where conduct becomes oppressive, abusive, harassing, or materially interferes with the corporation’s ability to carry on its affairs or the willingness of directors, officers, or members to participate.”
- The potential damage of Jevons Au’s claim: “It is understood that Mr. Jevons Au is a recognizable public figure within segments of the Hong Kong community. Where an individual with such visibility makes allegations on publicly accessible platforms, including social media, the potential reach of those statements may extend well beyond the Corporation’s immediate membership. In those circumstances, even unverified or disputed allegations, if presented to a broader audience, may create a risk of reputational harm not only to the Toronto Chapter but also, indirectly, to the La Salle alumni network more broadly.”
- “From a governance perspective, the issue is not the expression of opinion per se, but the amplification and external dissemination of serious allegations in a manner that may affect how the Corporation is perceived by members, prospective members, counterpart alumni associations, and the public. Where statements are circulated beyond the internal alumni circle, the risk profile increases, including potential impacts on goodwill, stakeholder relationships, and institutional reputation.”
- The condemn letter against Kevin Kwok (88), distributed by Peter Chan (72) on April 30, 2025, included “serious character and conduct allegations, many of which are expressed in categorical terms and appear, on their face, to be stated as unsupported assertions of fact and if believed to be true, reputation harm to Corporation. If the former presidents are advancing serious allegations against the President or Corporation’s directors, the onus rests on them to provide a full evidentiary record in support of those allegations. Such matters should not be resolved through unsupported assertions or informal commentary. If they genuinely believe there is a legal or governance basis for their position, the appropriate course is to place the evidence before a court or other proper decision-making forum for determination. Any such determination would require a full evidentiary record and is properly within the jurisdiction of a court or tribunal, where all parties would have the opportunity to respond, and evidence could be tested.”
Hong Kong Old Boys’ Association (HKOBA) involvement
Alexander Cheung (82)’s email mentioned above copied HKOBA. Because most of the 130+ applicants are based in Hong Kong, a virtual meeting was held with HKOBA executives. Two attendees of the meeting were Overseas Convenors appointed by HKOBA at the time, one of which, Kevin Kwok (88), is also Toronto Chapter President but not a HKOBA Director. As the title suggests, the Overseas Convenors have a mandate to oversee alumni matters abroad.
It was made very clear during the meeting that the applications and subsequent allegations are calculated, orchestrated, and unprecedented, primarily by those inside who know the clauses. If matters like this do not get resolved properly, toxic dynamics could prevail elsewhere and there will be no meaningful alumni environment. Subsequent to the meeting, names and class years of the 130+ applicants were sent to HKOBA representatives, as background information for HKOBA representatives’ actions as they see fit.
Conclusions and Follow Up Actions
As of today, we have not heard from the 130+ applicants (except Jevons Au who occasionally makes claims on various platforms); it is obvious that these applications are not genuine, no matter if the applications were made by the applicants themselves or by stolen identity. The Board of Directors 2025-27 has considered this, plus the lawyer’s advice and many reasons discussed above and before, and have decided to deny the 130+ applications. In light of the allegations, we are prepared for potential legal actions against the organization.
In light of good governance, public interest and potential allegations of non compliance to applicable laws, we will implement lawyer advice (including but not limited to dealing with unauthorized use of La Salle branding) on our day to day operations. We received unanimous consent by attending members during the 2026 AGM that the bylaw be amended according to legal advice, including but not limited to changing the year end to March 31.
In light of the legal advice, we, the Toronto Chapter Board of Directors 2025-27, through this open letter, request Jevons Au (98) to stop making claims that may “cause reputational harm not only to the Toronto Chapter but also, indirectly, to the La Salle alumni network more broadly”.
This notice was posted on the Toronto chapter website on July 8, 2026, pursuant to our Bylaw. Should there be any issues, please write to admin@lscobator.org by July 31, 2026.
LSOBA – Toronto Chapter Board of Directors 2025-27
