Policy 67a

Date and Instance of Approval
February 25, 2012
Board of Governors (2012.3)

Amendments:
June 11, 2024
September 25, 2025

Please contact the Secretariat for previously approved versions.

1.     PURPOSE

1.1    This Policy sets out the University of Ottawa’s principles, values and commitments with regards to preventing incidents of harassment or discrimination in the University’s learning and work environment, and provides a process for addressing Complaints (see Appendix A of this Policy).

2.    DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION

2.1    Capitalized words and expressions in this Policy and any procedure adopted pursuant to it have meanings set out in Appendix B. 

2.2    The expression “Harassment or Discrimination” when used in this Policy encompasses any one or more of the following as defined in this Policy: “Harassment,” “Discrimination,” “Hate,” “Poisoned environment,” “Systemic discrimination” and “Workplace harassment.”

2.3    This Policy and any related procedure adopted pursuant to it must be interpreted in a manner consistent with the University’s obligations under applicable harassment and discrimination laws. 

3.    APPLICATION

3.1    This Policy applies to all members of the University Community.

3.2    This Policy applies to Complaints of Harassment or Discrimination made to the University’s Human Rights Office (HRO) within one year of the most recent incident of alleged Harassment or Discrimination involving a member of the University Community engaged in or carrying out their University role, responsibility or engagement, and with a connection to the University learning or work environment. If the HRO receives a Complaint beyond the one-year period mentioned in the previous sentence, the HRO can consider the Complaint if it is satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith and that no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay, or if the University has a legal obligation to investigate it under applicable law.

3.3    Where Harassment or Discrimination is covered by a collective agreement and there are conflicting provisions between this Policy and the collective agreement, the collective agreement will take precedence unless its provisions are contrary to applicable harassment and discrimination laws and compliance-related modifications to such provisions have not yet been agreed to by the University and the relevant union.
3.4    Harassment or Discrimination might be addressed by another University policy or procedure. Therefore, the application of this Policy and any procedures adopted pursuant to this Policy can depend on other relevant University policies and procedures, as may be established or amended from time to time, including but not limited to the following: 

Policy 66 — Prevention of Workplace Violence
Policy 67b — Prevention of Sexual Violence 
Policy 130 — Student Rights and Responsible Conduct
Policy 77 — Occupational Health and Safety and the related Procedure 14-1 Internal Responsibility for Health and Safety Issues
Policy 121 — Statement on Free Expression
Faculty of Medicine Professionalism Policy

Recreation and Varsity Sports policies on prohibited behaviours and maltreatment in sport

4.    GENERAL PRINCIPLES

4.1    The University is committed to maintaining a learning and work environment that promotes understanding and respect for the dignity of the person as part of the University Community and is free from Harassment or Discrimination, including anti-Indigenous racism, anti-Black racism, antisemitism, Islamophobia and Hate.  

4.2    All members of the University Community have the right to express their views freely. The University recognizes that free debate and criticism are essential to the pursuit of knowledge, in accordance with Policy 121 — Statement on Free Expression.

4.3    The University expects all members of the University community (including, without limitation, visitors and guest speakers, contractors and those renting or occupying a University facility or engaged in a University activity) to adhere to the above-mentioned principles.

4.4    The University recognizes its obligations under the legal framework set out in the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act with respect to Workplace harassment.

4.5    The University also recognizes that it is obligated to assess, address, investigate and remedy proven acts of Harassment or Discrimination and that its response must be timely, effective and proportionate to the circumstances. The University will provide and maintain a fair, impartial and timely process for reporting and investigating Complaints of Harassment or Discrimination.

4.6    The University is committed to providing training to University employees, as well as other educational activities, to informing members of the University Community about this Policy and Harassment or Discrimination issues, and to encouraging other proactive measures such as practices to support dialogue, early intervention and de-escalation.  

4.7    The University is also committed to facilitating access to support mechanisms for members of the University Community who experience Harassment or Discrimination.

5.    HUMAN RIGHTS OFFICE (“HRO”)

5.1    In addition to the responsibilities described elsewhere this Policy, the HRO is responsible for:

a)    providing information to members of the University Community on the prevention of Harassment or Discrimination;

b)    interpreting this Policy;

c)    implementing and maintaining a process for receiving, investigating and managing Complaints, and delegating tasks or retaining external Investigators or other assistance as it deems necessary;

d)    recommending interim measures during a Complaint process to the Appropriate Authority or to other relevant University officials with authority to approve or implement them; 

e)    annual reporting to the Board of Governors and to the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security on the implementation and effectiveness of this Policy, including anti-racism and anti-Hate aspects of this Policy, in a manner that protects the privacy of individuals and the confidentiality of information. The annual report will be made publicly available on the University website and submitted to the Ministry of Colleges, Universities, Research Excellence and Security, and must include the following
1)    the number and type of Complaints reported by students, faculty or staff, a general description of the Complaints and the number that did not proceed to an initial review or Investigation, 
2)    the associated Human Rights Code prohibited grounds (for example, ethnicity, race, religion, sexual orientation) and the sub-category (anti-Black, anti-Indigenous racism, antisemitism or Islamophobia), and
3)    outcomes of these incidents, including responses and resolution timelines (for example, the number of months to resolve a complaint), findings of Investigations, disciplinary measures taken and any involvement of law enforcement.

5.2    The HRO is impartial on matters of Harassment or Discrimination and in its handling of Complaints. It does not advocate for a Complainant or for a Respondent.

6.    APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY

6.1    The Appropriate Authority is the University official who holds a University role with authority over the Respondent to a Complaint.  The Appropriate Authority is responsible for and has the authority when it comes to:

a)    deciding on interim measures or, depending on their nature, recommending them to the relevant governing body at the University with authority to approve or implement such interim measures;

b)    making a final decision in response to a Complaint on,
1.    whether to accept or reject the Investigator’s report;
2.    consequences after consultation with Human Ressources or Faculty Relations, as applicable, or, if not within their authority, recommending consequences to the relevant delegated authority or governing body at the University with authority to approve, impose or implement them;

c)    following up on the implementation of consequences resulting from a Complaint, including, where appropriate and depending on the nature of the consequences, working with Human Resources or Faculty Relations or the relevant administrative or academic unit.

6.2    The Appropriate Authority will depend on the University position of the Respondent or the Respondent’s relationship to the University. The table below offers guidance on identifying the Appropriate Authority. 

6.3    If the Appropriate Authority cannot be identified in the table above or if the Respondent holds more than one role with the University (for example, the Respondent is a student and an employee), the Appropriate Authority will be determined by the HRO based on the nature of the alleged conduct or incident(s) and the person holding a position of authority over the Respondent in relation to such alleged conduct or incident(s).

6.4    If an Appropriate Authority is unable to act or is a conflict of interest, the HRO will, determine the Appropriate Authority to act. Alternately, the person in authority over the Appropriate Authority who is unable to act or is in a conflict of interest will either act as the replacement Appropriate Authority or appoint an alternate Appropriate Authority.

7.    GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINT PROCESS 

7.1    Complaint process: HRO receives, investigates and otherwise handles Complaints of Harassment or Discrimination pursuant to this Policy according to the Complaint process in Appendix A of this Policy.  This process is not intended to discourage an individual from pursuing any external legal recourse that may be available to them.  It also does not replace or supersede a Complaint or Investigation processes in any applicable collective agreement provisions that align with the University’s obligations under the Human Rights Code and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

7.2    No reprisals: No person acting in good faith shall be negatively treated for bringing forward a Complaint, providing information related to a Complaint or helping to resolve a Complaint. There must be no reprisals nor threats of reprisals or retaliation against a Complainant or anyone else taking part in a Complaint process or anyone pursuing their rights under this Policy. All involved parties must be able to participate freely in a Complaint process without reprisals or threats of reprisals.

7.3    Confidentiality: 

a)    Individuals involved in a disclosure of Harassment or Discrimination, or Complaint (including, but not limited to the Complainant, Respondent and their representatives or support persons referred to in Section 7.9 c) of this Policy, witnesses and the Appropriate Authority) must maintain confidentiality to safeguard individuals against unsubstantiated allegations, protect the rights of those involved in the allegation and preserve the proper functioning of the Complaint process and the integrity of an Investigation.  

b)    HRO staff will maintain confidentiality of a report or Complaint made to it and of any documents related to the Complaint, in accordance with University Policy 90 — Access to Information and Protection of Privacy. 

c)    Information in relation to a Complaint can be disclosed if the information is necessary for University employees or those retained by the University to carry out their University duties, carry out the Investigation, implement interim measures, impose consequences or otherwise enable the University to address the Complaint. 

d)    Any person breaching confidentiality can be subject to discipline or other appropriate action.

7.4    Disclosure:

a)    Any member of the University Community who believes that they may have experienced or witnessed Harassment or Discrimination is encouraged to report the matter to their Head of Unit or to the University employee with decision-making authority relevant to the relationship between the member and the University, or to the HRO.

b)    If a University Community member who believes they have been subjected to Harassment or Discrimination chooses to disclose the experience by confiding in another University Community member, the member of the University Community receiving the disclosure should make them aware of this Policy and the Complaint process in Appendix A, and encourage them to contact the HRO.  

7.5    Initiating a Complaint: Members of the University Community who believe they have been subjected or have witnessed Harassment or Discrimination and that it should be investigated must report this in writing to the HRO to initiate a Complaint. Once reported to the HRO, the Complaint is treated in accordance with the process in Appendix A.  A person can file or withdraw a Complaint without fear of reprisal or threat before the Appropriate Authority’s final decision.  

7.6    Anonymous Complaint: An anonymous Complaint can be considered by the HRO if it consists of sufficient, substantive and verifiable information and if the Complainant’s anonymity does not prejudice the fairness of the Investigation.

7.7    Resolution efforts:  At any time before or during the Complaint process set out in Appendix A of this Policy, if both the Complainant and the Respondent have voluntarily agreed in writing to participate, the HRO will suggest resolution efforts that allow the Complainant and Respondent to arrive at a mutually acceptable resolution to the Complaint. Examples of resolution efforts include direct communication with the parties involved in addressing the Complaint and discussion about possible outcome(s), an apology, mediation or other forms of resolution.  Either Party can discontinue a resolution process at any time. The decision not to participate in a resolution effort (or to discontinue it, if it has begun) must not be held against a Party and there must be no negative consequences. Where a resolution is reached, it must be documented and agreed to by the Parties in writing. Where resolution efforts are not successful, the Complaint process remains available to address the Complaint.

7.8    Investigation:  The Investigation into a Complaint must be impartial, timely and fair, and address all relevant issues of Harassment or Discrimination. The HRO will ensure that Investigations are conducted into disclosures made to it of alleged incidents of Harassment or Discrimination involving the University and a member of the University Community where there is a legal obligation to investigate but no Complaint has been filed with it, there is no person willing to act as a Complainant or the Complainant has chosen not to pursue the Complaint. In such cases, the Investigation will be conducted in accordance with Appendix A, Section A3.2.

7.9    Support: 

a)    The University recognizes that those involved in a Complaint may require different services, resources and supports at different times. The University is committed to making available reasonable support services and mechanisms and treating each individual with compassion, which could include on-campus workplace and/or academic accommodations, referrals to counselling or to health care, or on-campus safety planning.

b)    Students and staff who are a Party to a Complaint are always free to consult with or seek advice and support from the relevant student association, union or other employee group about the matter, including regarding confidentiality, support and services, and the Complaint process.

c)    The Complainant and Respondent to a Complaint can be accompanied by a support person of their choice. The support person can provide encouragement or other emotional or moral support. The support person’s role is not to act or speak on behalf of a complainant or respondent; representations (both oral and written) must come directly from the complainant and respondent. The support person must maintain the confidentiality of information and may be required to sign a confidentiality agreement.

7.10    Interim measures: Measures can be put in place temporarily by the Appropriate Authority or their delegate during the Complaint process, pending resolution or Investigation of a Complaint, to stabilize a situation or to protect a person from retaliation or the threat of retaliation, to prevent further incidents or to address safety or other concerns, and/or otherwise provide support. Examples of interim measures can include preventing contact between the parties, modifying duties or schedules, or imposing a temporary leave of absence on a non-disciplinary or without prejudice basis.  Interim measures are precautionary, not disciplinary.

7.11    Complaint processing deadlines: 

a)    Processing deadlines are established to ensure that complaints are dealt with in a timely fashion. Normally, a Complainant will receive an initial message from the HRO within 30 days of filing the Complaint with the HRO with an outline of the process, next steps and estimated time for issues to be addressed.  The estimated time to reach a final outcome of a Complaint should be no longer than 12 months from the date the Complaint is received by the HRO.  

b)    There may be, in exceptional circumstances, reasons to extend a deadline established in the Complaint process. In such cases, the HRO can extend a deadline where the delay is requested in good faith and the extension does not prejudice or harm those involved in the Complaint. It can be difficult to determine appropriate timelines for the resolution, Investigation or a final disposition with respect to a Complaint. Therefore, where no deadlines are established, the intention is always to use a reasonable time period and to act as expeditiously as possible in light of the nature and complexity of the circumstances of the Complaint and of other circumstances that may arise during the process that are beyond a Party’s reasonable control.

7.12    Consequences: Where Harassment or Discrimination has occurred or where a Complaint is determined to be frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith, the University will take appropriate preventative and corrective action and will, where warranted, hold individuals responsible in accordance with applicable collective agreement provisions, the terms of their employment, or University policies or procedures, or with the terms of their involvement with the University. Normally a final decision on the consequences will take effect immediately unless otherwise stated.

8.    REVIEW AND IMPLEMENTATION

8.1    The HRO is responsible for the review and implementation of this Policy.  This Policy and any procedures adopted pursuant to it will be reviewed annually. 

8.2    Revisions to the Policy will be sent for comment to the student associations (The University of Ottawa Students’ Union (UOSU), the Graduate Students’ Association (GSAED), employee groups, unions, and any other stakeholders, as determined by the HRO.

9.    APPROVAL AND AMENDMENTS

9.1    The HRO is responsible for recommending any amendments to this Policy. Amendments require the approval of the Board of Governors. 

9.2    The HRO may establish, amend or abrogate procedures for purposes of the effective implementation of this Policy, provided that such procedures are consistent with the provisions of this Policy and are approved by the Secretary-General. 

9.3    Notwithstanding section 9.1, the Secretary-General can amend this Policy without the need to submit such amendment to the Board of Governors for approval if such amendment is required to: 

a)    update or correct the name or title of a position, unit, law, bylaw, policy, procedure or authority; or  

b)    correct punctuation, grammar, typographical errors, revisions to format and other technical revisions, where appropriate, if the correction does not change the meaning of a provision, or make other similar corrections if it is clear both that an error has been made and what the correction should be; or  

c)    correct the form of expression of a provision in French or in English to be more compatible with its form of expression in the other language; or  

d)    make consequential amendments to conform with or arising from another University bylaw, resolution, policy or procedure.

 
APPENDIX A – COMPLAINT PROCESS

A1.    INITIATION OF A COMPLAINT AND INTAKE 

A1.1    A person who wishes to submit a Complaint to the HRO must:

a)    complete and submit the forms available on the HRO website or submit the complaint in writing to the HRO within one year of the most recent incident of Harassment or Discrimination;
b)    provide the full name of the Complainant; 
c)    provide the full name of the Respondent; and 
d)    describe the nature and the extent of the allegations of Harassment or Discrimination by using detailed facts, specific dates, and the names and contact information of potential witnesses.

A1.2    The HRO will do an initial review of the Complaint and will, if necessary, seek additional information from the Complainant if it is lacking sufficient detail to do an initial review. The HRO can seek appropriate consultations and retain external assistance to conduct an initial review of the Complaint.

A1.3    The HRO will decide whether the Complaint is receivable in accordance with Section 3 of this Policy.

A1.4    If the HRO decides that the Complaint is receivable, it will,

a)    contact the Complainant about next steps under the Complaint process in this Policy,
b)    provide a copy of the Complaint to the Respondent for a response,
c)    inform the Appropriate Authority of the HRO’s receipt of a Complaint and recommend interim measures, if any. 

A1.5    If the HRO decides that the Complaint is not receivable, the HRO will communicate its decision and its reasons in writing to the Complainant.  Where appropriate and applicable to the circumstances, the HRO will outline options that may be available to the Complainant under Policy 67b or Policy 130 or will refer the Complainant to other University policy or processes, or other resources. Below is a non-exhaustive list of potential instances where a Complaint is outside the scope of this Policy:

a)    the alleged incident(s) described in the Complaint occurred more than 12 months prior to the date the Complaint was submitted and there is no legal obligation to investigate under applicable law, or the HRO is not satisfied that the delay was incurred in good faith, and no substantial prejudice will result to any person affected by the delay;
b)    the Complaint contains a request for advocacy;
c)    the Respondent is not a member of the University Community; 
d)    the Complaint is anonymous and there is insufficient, substantive or verifiable information or the anonymity could prejudice the fairness of an investigation;
e)    the alleged incident(s) described in the Complaint lacks a connection to the University learning or working environment;
f)    the alleged incident(s) described in the Complaint, even if true, do not amount to “Harassment or Discrimination” as defined in this Policy;
g)    the alleged incident(s), even if true, amounts to, 
1)    sexual violence within the meaning of Policy 67b or to a breach of responsible conduct by a student under Policy 130, in which case it should be treated by the HRO in accordance with the said policy; or
2)    workplace issues that are not Workplace harassment as defined in this Policy, in which case, it can be referred to Human Resources or Faculty Relations;
h)    the Complaint is frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith, meaning that it is clearly devoid of substance, lacking in factual basis, absent a basis of reality, lacking in proper seriousness, without importance, or clearly repetitious of one or more previous Complaints that all share substantially the same theme and have already been investigated. 

A2.    INTERIM MEASURES

A2.1    The HRO and the Appropriate Authority will consult with Human Resources, Faculty Relations and the relevant administrative or academic unit before recommending or deciding on interim measures that affect employees or students.

A3.    COMPLAINT PROCESSING


A3.1    RESPONDENT’S RESPONSE
The Respondent is given an opportunity to respond in writing to the allegations in the Complaint. The Respondent must send a written response (if any) to the HRO within 10 business days from the date the HRO sent the Complaint to the Respondent. If the Respondent does not provide a written response within 10 business days, the Complaint process will continue and may proceed to an Investigation.

A3.2    INVESTIGATION

A3.2.1    If the Complaint proceeds to an Investigation, the HRO will decide whether to designate an HRO staff member as the Investigator or to retain an external Investigator. As well, the Investigator must have the appropriate skills, training and/or experience.

A3.2.2    Investigations must be conducted in a procedurally fair manner in accordance with the following:

a)    the Investigator must be impartial and unbiased;
b)    the Respondent must be provided with a full and proper opportunity to respond to the allegations, which includes providing the Respondent with
1)    sufficient notice of the process;
2)    the opportunity to be interviewed; and
3)    a written copy of the specific allegations in advance of the interview;
c)    The Investigator must communicate with the Complainant and the Respondent to allow them to provide any additional information or comments, as well as with any other witness or person deemed necessary to inquire into the allegations.

A3.2.3    An external Investigator will keep the HRO informed on the status of the Investigation, who in turn, will inform the Complainant, the Respondent and the Appropriate Authority. 

A3.2.4    Upon completion of the Investigation, the Investigator will send to the Complainant, the Respondent and the Appropriate Authority a written confidential final report summarizing the allegations, the steps taken during the Investigation, the evidence gathered, findings of fact and the Investigator’s determination of whether Complaint is substantiated or not. If the Investigation has been conducted by an external Investigator, the Investigator will send the final investigation report to the HRO staff member in charge of the Complaint, who in turn will send it to the Complainant, the Respondent and the Appropriate Authority. 

A4.    OUTCOME

A4.1    The Appropriate Authority will carry out their responsibilities as referred to in Section 6.1 of this Policy.

A4.2    When deciding on the appropriate consequences, the Appropriate Authority must fully consider circumstances, including, but not limited to, the following, where relevant and as applicable:

a)    where a Complaint is founded, the Appropriate Authority should consider addressing the conduct, preventing the Harassment or Discrimination from recurring in the future and remedying the effects of the Harassment or Discrimination; 
b)    where a Complaint has been filed in good faith, but after investigation, is deemed unfounded, the Complainant should not be penalized, but where there is compelling or undeniable evidence that the Complaint was maliciously filed with deliberate intent to injure or mislead, the Appropriate Authority should consider such evidence; 
c)    the severity of the behaviour or incident of Harassment or Discrimination;
d)    any mitigating factors;
e)    any aggravating factors; 
f)    the terms of any relevant collective agreement or other relevant terms and conditions of employment;
g)    any other factors the Appropriate Authority considers to be relevant.  

A4.3    The following list provides examples of consequences. It is not meant to be exhaustive nor necessarily represent a progression of consequences:

a)    apology;
b)    education and training;
c)    counselling or coaching;
d)    prohibited or restricted access to University premises;
e)    disciplinary measures such as reprimand, suspension, dismissal or termination, or expulsion; in the case of a student or trainee, the Dean is the authority to suspend them from their program and the Provost and Vice-president, Academic Affairs is the authority to approve and impose mandatory and permanent withdrawal from their program or cancellation of their admission or registration at or relationship to the University;
f)    broader institutional measures. 

A4.4    The Appropriate Authority will consult with Human Resources or with Faculty Relations as applicable in advance of deciding on consequences that are disciplinary or affect the employment conditions of the Complainant or Respondent.

A4.5    The Appropriate Authority will inform the Complainant and the Respondent in writing of the outcome of the Complaint and will outline steps of an appeal, if available.

A4.6    Information related to the outcome of the Complaint may be disclosed subject to applicable collective agreement provisions, University Policy 90 – Access to Information and Protection of Privacy or other applicable laws. 

A4.7    The imposition of consequences takes effect immediately unless otherwise stated by the Appropriate Authority or unless the sanctions and measures require the approval or decision of another delegated authority or governing body at the University. 

A5.    APPEAL

A5.1    REQUEST FOR AN APPEAL

A5.1.1    Either Party can appeal a final decision made under Section 6.1 of this Policy within 10 business days of the date of the final decision. The request for appeal must be made in writing and specify in detail the grounds for appeal. The other Party will be given an opportunity to respond to the appeal.

A5.1.2    An appeal is not an opportunity for the Complainant or the Respondent to repeat the information provided to the Investigator or to the Appropriate Authority. The right to an appeal is not automatic and an appeal will only be referred to and considered by an appeal committee referred to in Section A5.2 if it meets the following requirements:

a)    The appeal is of a final decision of the Appropriate Authority or a University governing body pursuant to Section 6.1 b) of this Policy.
b)    The appeal must be made in writing to the HRO within 10 business days of the date of the final decision that is the subject of the appeal.
c)    The appeal must include the reasons for the appeal and why it should be granted, the arguments in support of the appeal and the outcome sought.
d)    An appeal must be made by either the Complainant or the Respondent.

A5.1.3    The HRO will review the request for appeal and decide whether it meets the requirements of section A5.1.2.  If the request does not meet the requirements of section A5.1.2., the HRO will so inform the requesting Party.  If the request for appeal meets the requirements in section A5.1.2, the HRO will refer it to an appeal committee as mentioned in section A5.2 and will so inform the Party requesting the appeal, other Party and the Appropriate Authority. The HRO’s decision resulting from its review of the request for an appeal is final.  

A5.2    APPEAL COMMITTEE

A5.2.1    Within 30 days after making its decision referred to in section A5.1.3, the HRO will appoint three individuals from the University Community to form an appeal committee, taking into consideration the Parties to the formal complaint (for example if both a Complainant and the Respondent are students, a student will be appointed to the appeal committee).  The members of the appeal committee will decide who among them will act as chair of the appeal committee.

A5.2.2    The HRO will ensure the members of the appeal committee have knowledge of proper investigative practices and of basic principles of fairness in complaint processes, specifically in relation to Harassment or Discrimination.  

A5.2.3    The appeal process is conducted in writing. The Complainant or Respondent, as the case may be, does not need to respond to the appeal unless the Appeal Committee sends a letter requesting them to do so. The HRO will send a copy of the Complaint, the Respondent’s response and any written replies, the final Investigation report and any comments, a copy of the written appeal and a copy of the Appropriate Authority’s decision to the members of the appeal committee.

A5.2.4    The appeal committee will review the documentation, to determine whether the Party seeking the appeal has demonstrated that:

a)    there has been a fundamental procedural error in the making of the final decision and that the said error has caused or will cause actual prejudice to the Party seeking the appeal; or
b)    there are new facts relevant to the final decision that were not available and could not have been provided to the Appropriate Authority or the University governing body.

A5.2.5    The following is a non-exhaustive list of examples of situations in which an appeal would not be granted:

1)    The appeal asks for review of a sanction or measure that has not yet been finally decided or approved.
2)    The appeal repeats arguments made in written submissions and does not provide any new information relevant to the final decision.
3)    The appeal is based only on a disagreement with a finding of fact, including findings made about the credibility of witnesses.
4)    The appeal raises new arguments that were not made but could have been made in written submissions or to the Appropriate Authority or University governing body.
5)    The appeal amounts to a mere speculation or a bald statement of a procedural error causing prejudice and does not provide detailed, convincing information to establish the error and establish a link between the error and actual prejudice or a reasonable expectation of prejudice to the person seeking the appeal.

A5.2.6    The appeal committee can deny the appeal if it decides that the appeal shows no reasonable prospect of demonstrating the requirements of section A5.2.4 or if the appeal falls under an example listed in A5.2.5. In such a case, the chair of the appeal committee will inform the requesting Party of its decision.

A5.2.7    If the appeal shows reasonable prospect of demonstrating one of the requirements of Section A5.2.4, the chair of the appeal committee will inform the responding Party of the appeal, provide the documents listed in section A5.2.3 to the responding Party and request that the responding Party provide their response to the appeal, if any, to the appeal committee within 10 business days.

A5.2.8    Once the responding Party to the appeal has had an opportunity to file a response with the appeal committee, the appeal committee, after reviewing the documents listed in section A5.2.3 and any written representations made by the Party seeking the appeal and the responding Party, will

a)    decide to grant or reject the appeal;
b)    if needed, provide recommendations to the Appropriate Authority to revise the final decision related to consequences or measures.

A5.2.9    The decisions of the appeal committee and the reasons in support of it must be in writing and be delivered to the Complainant and to the Respondent. Simultaneous with the delivery of the decision to the Complainant and the Respondent, the decision of the appeal committee will also be communicated to the HRO and to the Appropriate Authority.

A5.2.10 All decisions of the appeal committee are final.

A6.    OTHER RECOURSE

A6.1    After exhausting the Complaint process under this Policy and any other complaint process available at the University, the Complainant or Respondent can seek the assistance of the University Ombudsperson.

 
APPENDIX B – DEFINITIONS

For the purposes of this Policy and any procedures adopted pursuant to it, the following words and expressions have the following corresponding meaning.

“Appropriate Authority” is described in section 6 of this Policy.

“Complaint” means a written complaint of alleged Harassment or Discrimination or alleged reprisals pursuant to this Policy.

“Complainant” means any person who believes that they have experienced or witnessed Harassment or Discrimination and who files a Complaint and seeks recourse pursuant to this Policy. The University can be a Complainant.

“Discrimination” means:

A distinction—intentional or unintentional, direct or indirect—because of one or more of the following grounds: a person’s race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, marital status, family status, record of offences, or disability that has the effect of erecting barriers or creating obligations, disadvantages or situations of unequal treatment involving withheld or limited access to privileges, advantages or political, social or economic rights available to other members of society.

“Head of Unit” means the University employee who holds a University position with the highest level of managerial decision-making authority of an academic or administrative unit.   

“Harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. A single unwelcome incident, if serious enough, can be sufficient to support an instance of harassment. Harassment includes comments or conduct that intimidates, humiliates, undermines or dominates the other person by belittling, embarrassing or demeaning them or involves the use of abusive or threatening language.  Legitimate performance management of an employee or any reasonable action taken by a supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace is not Harassment or Workplace harassment.

“Harassment or Discrimination” is intended to encompass any one or more of the following as defined in this Policy: “Harassment,” 
“Discrimination,” “Hate,” “Poisoned environment,” “Systemic discrimination” and “Workplace harassment.”

“Hate” is a means of action or behaviour using extreme language or a form of communication that expresses detestation for or vilifies an individual or group of individuals because of their race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, or any other similar prohibited ground of Discrimination. 

“HRO” means the University’s Human Rights Office.

“Investigation” means the act of formally examining the alleged incidents of Harassment or Discrimination, events and behaviours described in the Complaint and in the Respondent’s response to the Complaint, in a manner appropriate in the circumstances, to determine whether there has been a breach of Policy 67a.  For the purposes of this Policy, an Investigation begins when the appointed Investigator first contacts the Complainant(s) and Respondent(s) and ends when the Investigator submits their final report.

“Investigator” means a person, either internal or external to the University, who is appointed by the HRO to do an Investigation into allegation of Harassment or Discrimination.

“Party” means either the Complainant or Respondent and where plural, means both.

“Poisoned environment” means a comment or conduct that constitutes Harassment or Discrimination and that creates a negative psychological and emotional environment for work or study.

“Respondent” means a person or persons against whom an allegation of Harassment or Discrimination has been made pursuant to this Policy.

“Systemic discrimination” means a situation that unintentionally singles out particular people and results in unequal treatment. It exists in a situation where a requirement, qualification or factor exists that is not overt discrimination but results in the exclusion of, restriction of or preference for a group of persons who are identified by one of the grounds as listed in the above definition of discrimination. Systemic discrimination does not occur when the requirement, qualification or factor is in good faith and legitimate in the circumstances or is permitted by law.

“University Community” means all individuals who have a relationship with or to the University, including but not limited to, 

a)    students, trainees in postgraduate education, postdoctoral fellows, 
b)    employees,  
c)    individuals with a University academic appointment, visiting and emeritus professors,
d)    entities engaged by the University to provide services or goods, or entities renting or occupying a University facility;
e)    members of the Board of Governors, of the Senate and any of their respective committees, 
f)    employees of a University student group recognized by the University or of a University employee union when at a University facility or while acting in a capacity defined by their relationship to the University,
g)    guests, visitors, volunteers or persons who serve on advisory or other committees.  

“Workplace harassment” means engaging in a course of vexatious comment or conduct against a worker in a workplace, including virtually through the use of information and communications technology that is known or ought reasonably to be known to be unwelcome. Workplace harassment does not include legitimate performance management of an employee or any reasonable action taken by a supervisor relating to the management and direction of workers or the workplace.