SLC discusses key revisions to sexual and gender-based violence policy
By Vama Saini, November 26 2024—
The Nov. 19 Student Legislative Council (SLC) meeting saw a presentation on proposed updates to the university’s policy on sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV).
The proposed revisions are centred around three core sections: complainant rights and support, respondent rights and support and institutional accountability. These updates are designed to address gaps in support, maintain confidentiality and ensure clarity in institutional processes.
Paula Russel, the interim manager of sexual and gender-based violence prevention and response, emphasized the importance of a holistic approach to sexual violence.
“Our goal is not only to respond to incidents but also to prevent them and provide robust support for all involved,” she said.
A significant portion of the discussion focused on revisions to the complainant and respondent rights sections. Jennifer Quin, Senior Director of Human Services, presented a key revision that clarified the confidentiality surrounding disclosures. The updated Section 4.3 now ensures that a disclosure does not automatically trigger a formal process, allowing survivors to seek help without the fear of immediate investigation.
“We’ve added an additional process for a complainant to follow and to raise concerns on specific grounds if a formal report is determined to be unsubstantiated. So a complainant would have an opportunity to provide information if they believe that a procedural error was made,” said Quin.
Another major update involves the establishment of a coordinated response team to handle complex cases, particularly those originating from public platforms like social media. The team, led by the SGBV Office, will offer a more integrated response to cases requiring extensive support.
“This team will not review every disclosure or report, but it will focus on complex cases that demand a more coordinated approach,” Russel explained.
Respondents, or those accused of SGBV, will also benefit from a clearer and more defined process. Quin outlined that if new or conflicting information is presented, complainants will have the opportunity to respond before any decisions are made.
“If a complainant provides information that or the investigator receives information that’s inconsistent with what the complainant provided, the complainant will be offered the opportunity to respond to that information, and that is only if that information is going to be relied upon to make a finding in the formal report,” Quin explained.
Additionally, students will now be able to submit written statements during the sanctioning process, ensuring they have a chance to provide their perspective before decisions are finalized.
“We’ve flushed out that section to provide complainants with some opportunities and some choice around whether or not they’d like a process followed that’s more informal in nature and not a formal investigation,” Russel added.
The revised policy introduces informal resolution processes, which provide both complainants and respondents the option to resolve issues outside formal investigations. This change responds to feedback about the challenges of navigating which office to report to, especially since the current policy requires knowing the respondent’s role on campus (faculty, staff, or student). By centralizing intake in the Protected Disclosure and Research Integrity Office, the process will be more streamlined and accessible.
“Bringing that central intake into the protected disclosure and research integrity office just provides ease of navigation for folks who want to file a formal report,” Russel said.
Additionally, the policy strengthens enforcement of interim measures, such as adjustments to academic or living arrangements, ensuring they are not optional but mandatory during an ongoing investigation.
“Interim measures are non-disciplinary, but they must be followed,” Quin emphasized.
A question was raised by Vice President Internal Naomie Bakana regarding the support available for students who experience SGBV during experiential learning terms.
“If [a student] experiences SGBV while they’re away on their term, do they have opportunities to finish that work term?” said Bakana.
The presenters clarified that if both parties are students, the policy covers off-campus activities. However, if one party is a university member and the other is not, the policy may not apply, although students will still have access to resources and support. The implications for academic progression or credit would depend on the specific circumstances, as stated by Senior Legal Counsel Louw.
“With respect to the potential implications on academic progression or credit, I anticipate that’s going to be a case-by-case analysis because each circumstance can be very individually specific,” said Sarah Louw, senior legal counsel at Legal Services.
Faculty of Science Representative Gabriela Dziegielewska questioned how students filing complaints against individuals protected by collective agreements would be affected, ensuring their rights are not compromised.
“If it was a student filing a complaint or pulling a report against somebody in the university who was protected by a collective payment, What kind of implications would that have for that student and making sure that their rights are protected, or that procedurally, they’re protected?” asked Dziegielewska.
The presenters assured the council that while the SGBV policy applies to all individuals, it does not override collective agreements, allowing respondents to challenge decisions through existing grievance procedures.
“Under a collective agreement, there are processes by which to challenge determinations processes, which in some ways may be akin to the ability of a respondent to appeal the outcome of a process under the appeals policy suite,” said Louw.
Aitazaz Shah, faculty of arts representative, raised concerns about the intersection of gender-based violence and minority groups, asking whether the policy addressed the specific needs of equity-deserving communities.
“Are there any updated measures addressing gender-based violence experienced by equity-deserving communities?” he asked.
The presenters noted that the university offers collaborative support through various offices, including International Student Services and Indigenous Support Advisors, and that specialized staff are available to assist marginalized individuals.
Dziegielewska sought clarification on the mention of “legal obligations” in the updated policy. She noted that the reference to the Criminal Code of Canada had been removed, with the explanation that the policy’s definition of sexual assault may differ from that of the Criminal Code, and questioned why legal obligations were still included in the revised version.
“If that’s the justification for taking the code out, why is there a mention of taking into consideration legal obligations?” said Dziegielewska.
Louw explained that the Occupational Health and Safety Legislation mandates investigations into certain types of incidents, which is the legal basis for the policy’s inclusion of legal obligations.
After the presentation, SLC members unanimously passed Resolution 82.16, which delegated authority for screening candidates for the vacant Faculty of Nursing Representative position.
In other updates, Vice President External Masteusz Salmassi reported from Edmonton, where he and President Ermia Rezaei-Afsah are lobbying provincial leaders on key priorities. He reminded SLC members to communicate any concerns within their faculties to help inform the external lobbying efforts.
Faculty of Science Representative Ben Shi also announced that he, alongside the other faculty of science representatives, have been working to find out more about the challenges that students face when seeking research opportunities. A survey has been released to explore this topic further.
For agendas, minutes and upcoming meetings, visit the SU website.