Mehtab Singh Brar, who ran for president in NAITSA’s 2026/27 Executive Council election, was disqualified after NAITSA’s Chief Returning Officer (CRO) ruled he violated NAITSA’s voter privacy and election interference bylaw. He denies the allegations. 

Brar, who lost by 396 votes to Lilly Houcher, was also barred from participating in any future NAITSA elections for two years. 

The complaint stemmed from a violation of Bylaw 7.17, which protects NAITSA members’ right to vote “privately, free from influence, coercion, or interference.” Candidates and their campaign members are not allowed to observe someone while they vote, help or pressure someone to cast their ballot or vote on behalf of someone. 

“It’s very clear that you cannot observe a voter while they’re in the process of voting,” said NAITSA’s CRO, Jerilyn Kotelniski. “The minute that opens, the campaign team or the candidate is supposed to walk away.”

Candidates are informed of the bylaw in two mandatory meetings — one for those interested in running, and one for confirmed candidates. The information is also explained in NAITSA’s election package, along with a timeline of the election period and dates for a potential election hearing, if necessary. Brar attended these meetings.

A further look into the investigation

Kotelniski told the Nugget she received concerns about Brar “asking students to scan the QR code and vote, with votes being cast while the candidate was standing directly in front of the voters.” 

“What I had reports of is that people were feeling pressured, that the candidate and their campaign team were standing while people were voting and opening their phone, which they’re not allowed to do,” she told the Nugget. 

Kotelniski spoke to the complainant and reached out to NAIT Protective Services to verify footage, which she says confirmed what had been reported. Her next step was to speak to Brar directly to get more information.

Kotelniski said Brar’s response the following morning didn’t contain answers to all the questions, which she said “impeded [her] investigation.”

But Brar feels his answer addressed what was asked of him. “All the replies I made in the starting, it applied to each and every question she had,” he said in an interview.

The email thread between Brar and Kotelniski shows that Brar explained details about his campaign strategy and tactics as asked, saying they had prep sessions each morning: “we focused on dos and dont. So they were all prepared and for had good practice for first few days, so I don’t see them doing this [sic].”

Brar also confirmed the location of him and his campaign team members, but he expressed concerns about the wording of that question, saying there was “no clear detail and no specific time.” Kotelniski’s request asked if Brar or his team was present “in the W building and/or CAT on or around February 9-10, including approximately 1:00 pm on February 10?” 

Brar did not provide the information of his team members as requested. He later told the Nugget it was a privacy concern. “It’s not in the [NAITSA] bylaws and nothing had information that I could provide the information of anyone who was on my team. And it’s their privacy too. I have to ask them if I can share it … I can’t take the responsibility of all of them.” 

The voter privacy and election interference bylaw does give the CRO the authority to investigate complaints like these, “including reviewing digital logs and interviewing relevant parties.” 

• Related: 2026/26 NAITSA Executive Council election results

Brar also said that the quick deadline to respond made it difficult to get everyone’s information. “They have their own commitments, their job, their studies … the period they gave me, for almost 24 hours and they [the CRO] asked for everyone’s information, that didn’t make sense. If they could have shown me the video first, or like anything by photo, I could have given the exact information.”

Kotelniski responded at 1:48 p.m. on Feb. 12, informing Brar of the potential for an Elections Appeals Committee meeting on Feb. 13. The email was a hold to inform Brar and give him time to prepare if the meeting went ahead. The CRO also asked Brar to provide contact information for a specific team member so she could inform them of the hearing, along with details of what to expect and next steps.

Brar did not respond again until Feb. 19. He apologized, saying he had gotten sick and asked to see the video evidence against him and his campaign team member. “Hey, sorry for not bring [sic] reachable for a week, I got flue [sic] and infection in my nose pipe and was just recovering from that,” the email reads. 

“Now can I see the video that you claim that someone from my team did violate the bylaws, I would be glad to see that along with the girl you named will be there too,” it finishes. 

Kotelniski responded the next day, denying his request. She told Brar that if he had an extenuating circumstance, he “needed to communicate that with [her].” 

“Based on the video evidence received, and given the lack of response and cooperation within the required timeframe, I was authorized to make a ruling without convening the Election Committee. The video evidence demonstrated voter interference,” Kotelniski’s email concludes.

Investigation and punishment ‘one sided,’ says Brar 

Before learning of the complaint against him, Brar had filed one of his own. He alleged that a Feb. 6 video post on NAITSA’s Instagram gave Lilly Houcher an unfair advantage. The video featured her, along with the other current executives, thanking NAIT and NASA for signing a new collective agreement. Brar felt like posting the video during the voting period gave Houcher more publicity. 

“The timing didn’t make sense to me,” he said. “They could have waited for two more days, because they posted the video just at the end of Friday, so all the votes that could have been manipulated just by seeing the video, I think that happened.”  

His complaint was dismissed for lack of evidence demonstrating manipulation. The video also did not break any bylaws, said Kotelniski. The video was not considered campaign material, and that Bylaw 7.1.8 allows for incumbents to “perform limited responsibilities or urgent or significant matters due to ongoing fiduciary obligations.” 

But Brar said the response made him doubt the integrity of the investigation process. 

“They didn’t even try to address it or acknowledge it,” Brar explained. “If they expect me to answer all the things, they should be doing the same.”

He also felt the punishment — including the two year ban on participating in future elections — was on purpose.

“I feel it was already one-sided. They knew I’ll be on campus for one and a half years. It was like pre-planned. That’s what I think,” he said.

“That’s keeping me away from Board of Governors, Senate, anything that I potentially could go for.” 

Ultimately, Brar wants students to know he tried his best, and he still believes he never broke any bylaws. “I never even tried to disrespect all the bylaws we have … we didn’t even force anyone.” 

Strong punishment to set precedent, says CRO

While the voter interference and election privacy bylaw is relatively new to NAITSA — the Senate passed it in April 2025 — it’s a “really important” one, says Kotelniski. 

“Students deserve the ability to cast their vote freely and without coercion or any interference … it’s fundamental to maintaining the integrity of NAITSA elections and that’s my job.” 

The bylaws give the CRO power to determine punishments, including fines, restrictions, disqualification, and in Brar’s case, “limits, restrictions, and prohibitions on any type of campaign activities for any period.”

Kotelniski said the punishment was chosen on purpose to send a message to future election candidates. 

“Part of the severity of the disqualification and the ban is so that this does not happen again,” Kotelniski said. “It was clear that the candidate did not show remorse or was fully understanding the bylaws. And as the candidate, you need to understand and be held accountable for the bylaws.”