Board of Governors - APPENDIX IV - May 3, 2001
FOR APPROVAL
Recommended: That the Board of Governors approve The University of °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â Ontario Code of Student Conduct as set out in Annex 1.
Background Documents:
| Report of the Vice-Provost's Advisory Committee on a Code of Student Conduct, issued April 25, 2000. The draft code that followed that consultation process (dated November 24, 2000) can be seen at | Annex 2 |
| Report of the ad hoc Senate Committee to Review the Draft Code of Student Conduct, presented to Senate on March 23, 2001. The recommendations included in that report are proposed changes to the above-noted November 24, 2000, draft Code. | Annex 3 |
| A summary of the actions taken by Senate on March 23, 2001. | Annex 4 |
Review by the Campus & Community Affairs Committee:
The CCAC received a briefing on the Draft Code of Student Conduct, as prepared by the Provost's Advisory Committee, on January 11, 2001 (i.e., the November 24, 2000, version). Dr. Brian Timney (Chair of the Advisory Committee) and Dr. Peter Mercer informed CCAC that the Code addresses the current ad hoc approach to student discipline, provides an explicit process and gives students rights they do not have now. The Code applies to all students registered on Main Campus. Sanctions do not apply to students registered at the Affiliated Colleges and in limited circumstances may apply to behavior off campus. The structure of the Code attempts to deal with most offences informally at the lowest level. Procedures at the decanal/vice-provost level are based on current Scholastic Offences policy. The University Disciplinary Appeals Committee (UDAC) described in the draft Code is modelled on the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA), the academic appeal body that has been in operation for 30 years. The rationale for the proposed Code includes the need to define the University's jurisdiction with respect to student conduct, the need to define the classes of misconduct that may be subject to discipline, the need to define potential sanctions for misconduct, the need to establish transparent, fair and consistent procedures for dealing with complaints and the need to provide a well-defined appeal mechanism.
The CCAC postponed its deliberation on the draft Code of Student Conduct pending the review and recommendations of the ad hoc Senate Committee to Review the Draft Code of Student Conduct which was established by the Senate in November 2000. That Committee's report (Annex 3) was presented to Senate on March 23, 2001, and most of the Committee's recommendations were approved by Senate. A summary of Senate's advice to the Board (via CCAC) appears in Annex 4.
On April 5, 2001, the CCAC held a public meeting at which time it considered the following:
Summary of Changes Made to the Draft Code by the Campus & Community Affairs Committee:
Working from the November 24, 2000, Code drafted by the Vice-Provost's Advisory Committee, annotated with Senate's suggested changes, the Committee considered all submissions to it, both oral and written, before deliberating on their merits.
The major areas of change from the November 24, 2000, draft Code are noted below; these are incorporated in the Code of Student Conduct which is proposed for adoption by the Board of Governors.
| I. Scope of Code |
| Add paragraph to Section 3, based on a recommendation from Senate and additional words (shaded)
from members of the University's neighboring communities:
The University encourages students to set for themselves the highest standards of behavior off-campus, including behavior conducive to the peaceful and safe enjoyment of housing by both students and neighbors. The University does not condone behavior that infringes upon the rights of the University's neighbors or that brings the University's good name into disrepute. |
| II. Definitions |
| Redefine "student" in II.1., recommended by the University's General Counsel and the Vice-Provost &
Registrar, such that the Code does not apply to students at the Affiliated Colleges or registered in
Continuing Studies courses:
1. "Student" refers to an individual registered at the constituent University in a credit course or program of studies. |
| III. Students of Affiliated Colleges |
| To better acknowledge the terms of the Affiliation Agreement, change the paragraph to read
Subject to the provisions of the Affiliation Agreement between the University and its affiliated colleges, students registered in the affiliated colleges are expected to conform to the standards of this Code while on University property. Only the Principal of the affiliated college may impose discipline for conduct by such a student which would constitute a violation of this Code; however, where extraordinary circumstances warrant, the University may also take measures to restrict such a student's entry onto University property or use of University facilities. |
| IV. Relationship To Other University Policies and Codes |
| Based on a recommendation from Senate, a sentence has been added to the end of Section IV, article
3:
Where other such disciplinary action is proposed to be taken, discussions must be held between the University and the unit head before other such disciplinary proceedings are initiated. |
| V. Student Conduct - Rules |
| Regarding the second paragraph under this heading, CCAC did not act on Senate's advice to change
the list of examples of prohibited conduct to "areas of prohibited conduct", believing that the list must
not be regarded to be exhaustive. CCAC added wording (shaded) that was proposed during the public
meeting on April 5:
Any conduct on the part of a student that has, or might reasonably be seen to have, an adverse effect on the reputation or the proper functioning of the University, or the health, safety, rights or property of the University, its members or visitors, is subject to discipline under this Code. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, The following list sets out specific examples of prohibited conduct. This list is illustrative only and is not intended to define misconduct in exhaustive or exclusive terms. Examples |
| Based on a Senate recommendation, Section 9 was revised to read:
9. Other (a) Aiding or encouraging others in the commission of an act prohibited under this Code or attempting to commit an act prohibited under this Code. (b) Failure to comply with any sanction imposed by the University for misconduct under this Code. (c) Any other conduct that has, or might reasonably be seen to have, an adverse effect on the proper functioning of the University, or the health, safety, rights or property of the University, its members or visitors. |
| VI. Sanctions |
| Based on a recommendation from Senate, a sentence was added to the final paragraph of Section VI:
The sanctions imposed should be proportional to the type of misconduct. The most serious types of misconduct will merit the most serious sanctions: deregistration, suspension and expulsion. |
| VIII. Procedures |
| CCAC declined to act on Senate's recommendation to delete reference to legal representation at the
end of Section 7 (referring to the stage when the student meets with the Dean or Vice-Provost) but
modified it by indicating when legal representation is permitted.
7. At all meetings with the Dean (Vice-Provost), the student may be accompanied by a colleague of his or her choosing. Legal representation is not permitted at this stage; it is permitted at the appeal stage. |
| X. Appeals |
| CCAC did not accept Senate's suggestion that grounds for appeal should include "that the sanction imposed was not proportional to the type of misconduct", but did accept that a student would have a right of appeal if the sanction imposed is deregistration, suspension or expulsion. CCAC added "or forfeiture of University awards or financial assistance" to this list, as recommended by General Counsel. This led to restructuring of the Appeals section, breaking the former article 1 into articles 1 and 2 in the proposed Code. As a result, there were also some changes to what now appears as article 3 under X. Appeals. |
| On the recommendation of the University's General Counsel, CCAC expanded on Senate's
recommendation that a statement about legal representation at the appeal stage be added. The
following provisions are consistent with the rules of the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA) in
academic appeals.
5. The right to be represented by counsel will be accorded to the principal parties to the appeal only at this level of appeal. The UDAC also reserves the right to retain counsel. 6. The parties must bear all their own legal expenses, if any. UDAC will not order the University to pay all or part of the appellant's costs nor will it order the appellant to pay all or part of the University's costs. |
| XI. Review of Code |
| Senate's recommendation that there be a mandated review was accepted, with a minor change:
The Board of Governors shall review the Code within three years of initial implementation. |
FOR INFORMATION
At the CCAC meeting held on April 5, the Committee received the report from the USC on activity within the University Community Centre (attached as Annex 5) which covers the period April 2000 to March 2001 inclusive.
Background:
The Compulsory Ancillary Fee Policy Guidelines of the Ministry of Education and Training [now the Ministry of Training, Colleges, and Universities] state:
A non-tuition-related compulsory ancillary fee is a fee which is levied in order to cover the costs of items which are not normally paid for out of operating or capital revenue. [Article 4]
Compulsory non-tuition-related ancillary fees ... which were in effect during the 1993-94 academic year can neither be increased above 1993-94 levels nor expanded to include new fees except through the implementation of a protocol(1) which has been agreed to by representatives of the institution's administration and student government representatives in light of the Minister of Education and Training's announcement of March 23, 1994, and which has received approval from the institution's governing body. [Article 6]
The protocol will set out the means by which students will be involved in decisions to increase compulsory non-tuition-related fees or to introduce new ones. [Article 6]
The Student Services Committee Protocol was approved by the Board of Governors and the student government representatives in 1995. Under the terms of the protocol, the Student Services Committee (SSC) makes annual submissions to the Campus and Community Affairs Committee (CCAC) on changes or increases to fees relating to a number of ancillary operations detailed in the protocol, any user fees collected as a pre-condition for use of a student service, any new fee or service, and the direction and scope of student services. [SSC Protocol, Article 2.00]
According to the protocol, any fee increase or new fee that is instituted without the agreement of the SSC, will be considered to be contrary to the provisions outlined in the Ministry guidelines. [SSC Protocol, Article 3.00]
Fees levied or proposed by student governing bodies that affect only the students represented by that body do not fall under the Protocol. [SSC Protocol, Article 7.01]
Each year the CCAC receives recommendations for two types of Non-Tuition-Related Ancillary Fees -- those that fall within the Student Services Committee Protocol, and student organization fees which are not covered by the Protocol. Both types are referenced in Board Policy 2.4 - Student Fees - in section 2.00 (b) and (c) respectively. That policy is may be seen at
On March 8, 2001, the Campus & Community Affairs Committee received the annual report and recommendations of the Student Services Committee with respect to non-tuition-related ancillary fees, presented by its Chair, Mr. Dave Braun.
The Campus & Community Affairs Committee has recommended to the Property & Finance Committee that the student services fees recommended by the Student Services Committee be approved and recommended to the Board.
Background:
Non-tuition related ancillary fees that are exempt from the above-noted Protocol include student organization fees, student health plans(2) contracted by each of the student organizations, and fees approved by referenda.
On April 5, 2001, representatives of the Master of Business Administration Association (MBAA), the Society of Graduate Students (SOGS), and the University Students' Council (USC), presented their proposals for Non-Tuition-Related Ancillary Fees for members of their organizations. The Presidents of the organization of Ph.D. students in Business Administration advised that their organization did not propose to change fees from the 2000-01 level and therefore was not required to make a submission to CCAC.
• Fees Proposed by the MBA Association
The President of the MBAA, Mr. Mike Cowan, presented the recommendations of the MBAA which are, in summary:
MBAA Activity Fee $166.79 (includes $26.79 UCC Operating Fee)
Health Plan $240.00
The base activity fee of $140 is unchanged from the current year; however, the $26.79 UCC operating fee component has increased by $0.47 as a result of a legislated annual increment.
The MBA Health Plan fee has been $150 since 1999-2000. When the Association made its presentation to CCAC in the Spring of 1999, they acknowledged that they were experiencing about a 30% shortfall in the fees collected as compared to the premiums charged (based on usage), but were unable at that time to propose a specific increase in the fees. The Association declined to make proposals for increases to the Activity Fee or Health Plan Fee in the spring of 2000, but at the same time, usage of the Health Plan was increasing. As a result, the Association this year has experienced a significant shortfall.
The CCAC found the MBAA recommendations to be reasonable under the circumstances, but were concerned that the MBAA did not submit a review engagement report from an external accountant with the fee proposal, as required by the Student Fees Policy. The Committee agreed, however, to endorse the MBAA proposal and recommend it to the Property & Finance Committee conditional on submission of the review engagement report prior to the date of the P&F meeting.
• Fees Proposed by the Society of Graduate Students
Mr. Richard Telfer, Vice-President Finance of SOGS, and Mr. Fern Gauthier, President, provided the Committee with the organization's proposed fees for members of SOGS for 2001-02 and responded to a number of questions from members. SOGS reported that the Master of Library and Information Science (MLIS) co-op students will be paying part-time fees, based on a referendum of the MLIS student body.
CCAC supported the proposed 2001-02 fees shown below for graduate students (excluding those registered in the MBA and PhD programs in Business) and conveyed that recommendation to the Property & Finance Committee.
| Per term | 3 Terms | |
| Full-time Students | ||
| Organization Fee | $24.87 | $74.62 |
| Health Plan Fee | $56.61 | $169.83 |
| Part-time Students | ||
| Organization Fee | $16.98 | $49.75 |
For full-time students, the three-term Organization Fee is up 13.1% (from $66.00) and the Health Plan Fee has increased by 0.1% (up 21¢).
• Fees Proposed by the University Students' Council
Mr. David Brebner, Vice-President Finance of the University Students' Council, assisted by Mr. Dave Braun, President of the USC, presented the proposed fees for 2001-02, as detailed in Annex 6.
The CCAC has recommended to the Property & Finance Committee approval of the student organization fees shown in Annex 6 for undergraduate students for 2001-02, on the understanding that the Health Plan Fee shown is a preliminary estimate, subject to change prior to May 8, 2001.
1. At °ÄÃÅÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ô¤²â, this is the Student Services Committee Protocol
2. (Refundable with proof of other coverage, by a specified deadline.)