The purpose of this Supplier Code of Conduct is to outline the minimum standards expected of Suppliers who provide goods and/or services to the University. Wherever possible, the University expects that Suppliers will work proactively, towards exceeding industry standards and best practices and encourages their Subcontractors to also meet the standards outlined forthwith.

2. Scope and Application

2.1 This Procedure applies to all Suppliers who provide goods and services to the University.

2.2 This Procedure should be read in conjunction with the University’s associated policies, procedures, guidelines and any relevant and applicable legislation, and any other policy that may become applicable and/or relevant.

3. Definitions

For the purposes of this Procedure, the terms

��ٳܱ��������” means any individual or business who provides goods and/or services to the University.

��ٳܲ����DzԳٰ������ٴǰ�” means any individual or business who provides goods and/or services to the Supplier in the fulfillment of their business operations.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

4.1 The Vice-President Finance and Administration will be responsible for the implementation of this procedure.

4.2 The Director, Strategic Procurement Services will be responsible for responding to concerns raised by People Managers where a Supplier is believed or discovered to be acting in contravention of this Supplier Code of Conduct.

5. Review

This procedure will be reviewed every 5 years at a minimum. During the review, the procedure will remain in full force and effect.

6. Procedures

6.1 Objectives

The provisions set forth in this Supplier Code of Conduct outline the minimum standards expected of Suppliers who provide goods and/or services to the University. Wherever possible, the University expects that Suppliers will work proactively, towards exceeding industry standards and best practices and encourages their Subcontractors to also meet the standards outlined forthwith.

6.2 Expectation of Suppliers to adopt the Code

Any Supplier who supplies the University with goods and/or services are expected to abide by the tenets of this Supplier Code of Conduct (hereafter Code) at all times. In instances where a Supplier is found to be in breach of or is otherwise non-compliant with this Code, the University may, at its sole discretion, use any measures at its disposal to bring about compliance, including requiring remediation by the Supplier or its subcontractors.
Suppliers are responsible for promoting the values of this Supplier Code of Conduct with their Subcontractors. Suppliers may not, however, advertise or promote in any way that they are compliant with this Code.

6.3 Environmental

Suppliers shall operate in an environmentally responsible and resource-efficient manner in accordance with applicable law, and best practices. Suppliers should, wherever possible, proactively undertake initiatives to promote greater environmental responsibility within their own organization and their Suppliers by:

a. Reduce greenhouse gas consumption – Suppliers shall strive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions wherever possible. Suppliers should develop processes to monitor, measure and evaluate their emissions, and where possible, share their emissions data with the University to contribute to the University’s Net-Zero targets.

b. Reduce waste – Suppliers shall have in place and maintain appropriate provisions to ensure the minimization of plastics and other disposable items, safe handling, storage, reuse or management of waste, wastewater and air emissions that protects the wellbeing of human health and biodiversity.

c. Promote biodiversity and responsible resource management – Natural resources shall be used in an environmentally sustainable way including the avoidance of practices which contribute to deforestation and to refrain from conducting activity in areas that have high biodiversity value.

6.4 Social

Suppliers shall at all times uphold the human rights of employees, communities and vulnerable populations. Suppliers must ensure the following:

a. Human rights – Suppliers shall support human rights conventions and ensure at all times that they are not willfully or passively condoning any human rights abuses. Where an abuse is discovered, Suppliers must notify the University and immediately seek to remedy the abuse.

b. Prohibition of child labour – The University does not tolerate child labour. The University expects Suppliers to abide by, at a minimum, the Fundamental standards of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO). In instances where there are differences between local legislation and the ILO, the higher age shall be followed. In absence of local laws, Suppliers shall abide by the ILO regulations. Where a child worker must be displaced, adult family members should have the opportunity to assume the child’s position to maintain family livelihoods.

c. Prohibit all forms of forced/involuntary/indentured labour – The University does not tolerate forced, involuntary and indentured labour. The University expects Suppliers to abide by, at a minimum, the Fundamental standards of the International Labour Organization’s (ILO). Suppliers shall not use forced, illegal, or prison labour including indentured or bonded labour or any form of compulsory labour to manufacture products. Suppliers shall not recruit or onboard employees in any way that contravenes applicable laws and regulations nor shall Suppliers retain employees’ identity papers or passports.

d.��Promote supplier diversity – Suppliers shall engage socially and economically different categories of their Subcontractors through inclusive sourcing processes that promote equal opportunities. Suppliers should also encourage the same principles within their human resources in the recruitment and promotion of staff.

6.5 Ethical/Behavioural

Suppliers shall at all times act in good faith, with integrity, in an ethical manner, and in accordance with applicable laws and regulations. Suppliers must abide by the following:

a. Ensure fair wages – Suppliers shall pay employees at least the minimum wages required by local laws and written accounting of hours worked, deductions and regular and overtime wages in a language understood by the worker.

b. Ensure fair competition – Suppliers shall take reasonable actions to ensure healthy competition amongst subcontractors. Suppliers shall not share privileged information, terms and conditions, or bidding strategies, or other information that restricts free and open competition.

c.Ensure occupational health and safety – Suppliers shall ensure that workplaces abide by occupational health and safety standards and promote safe working practices for its employees. Where appropriate, Suppliers shall provide workers with adequate protective clothing and equipment to prevent, as far as can be reasonably practicable, adverse effects to health and safety.

d. Avoid conflicts of interest – Suppliers shall monitor their own conflicts of interest, and, in all dealings with the University, abide by the University’s governing Conflict of Interest policies and regulations.

e. Protect data and sensitive information – Suppliers shall protect the University’s data, including personal information, intellectual property, and sensitive corporate information and take all reasonable measures to prevent the misuse, theft, fraud, and/or improper access to disclosure or usage of the University’s data. Suppliers shall at all times comply with corresponding data protection laws and regulations.

In addition, Suppliers and their subcontractors shall not use the University’s name or logo without express prior written consent of the University.

f. Avoidance of bribery and kickbacks – Suppliers shall not engage in any form of bribery or other benefits of the University’s staff, or family members in an attempt to further influence or attain potential business opportunities with the University.

The post Supplier Code of Conduct appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

1. Purpose

The purpose of this Procedure is to provide a process through which Employees can submit a Good Faith Disclosure of any Improper Activity without fear of Reprisal. This Procedure reflects the University’s commitment to accountability and ethical conduct.

2. Scope and Application

This Procedure applies to all Employees.

3. Definitions

This Procedure relies on definitions set out in the Safe Disclosure Policy.

4. Procedure

4.1 Any Employee with information and reasonable grounds to believe that an Improper Activity has occurred, is occurring, or may be reasonably foreseeable to occur or imminent is encouraged to make a Good Faith Disclosure as soon as possible.

4.2 When submitting a Good Faith Disclosure, Employees are encouraged to provide the following information in writing, to the best of their ability:

a. Identification of the alleged or suspected Improper Activity, including date, location, and other relevant information;

b. Description of the activities involved in the alleged or suspected Improper Activity;

c. Explanation of the perceived risks to the University or parties involved;

d. Identification of parties involved; and

e. Any other relevant information to evaluate the Good Faith Disclosure.

4.3 Where a Good Faith Disclosure has been received, it will be forwarded to the Director, Internal Audit. Where there are established Policies and procedures or collective agreements governing the alleged Improper Activity in question, the Director, Internal Audit will redirect the Good Faith Disclosure to the appropriate office specified in the relevant Policy or procedure or collective agreement.

4.4 If not redirected under section 4.3, the Director, Internal Audit will conduct a preliminary review of the Good Faith Disclosure to determine if there are reasonable grounds to pursue the allegation of Improper Activity. If the Director, Internal Audit determines there are such reasonable grounds the Director, Internal Audit shall, in collaboration with other internal and external resources as appropriate, respond or investigate.

4.5 If the Director, Internal Audit determines an investigation is warranted, it will be conducted in an impartial, confidential, and timely manner either by the Director, Internal Audit, or such other internal or external investigator as the Director, Internal audit may assign.

4.6 The Director, Internal Audit will provide the investigator’s report to the appropriate officers of the University responsible for the Employee(s) who performed the Improper Activity to determine whether follow up remedial or managerial action is warranted.

4.7 Individuals making a Good Faith Disclosure may receive limited information on the status and resolution, subject to legal and confidentiality constraints.

4.8 Any Employee who experiences Reprisal as a result of making a Good Faith Disclosure can report their concerns to the Director, Internal Audit who will assess and determine the appropriate course of action.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

The Vice-President Finance & Administration will be responsible for the implementation of this Procedure.

6. Review

This Procedure will be reviewed every five (5) years. During the review, this Procedure will remain in full force and effect.

The post University Whistleblower Procedure appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

1. Inquiry: Applicability

1.1. These procedures govern the determination of misconduct in academic research by all University employees, and persons employed under research grants by the University or by its faculty members, including persons who are also students at the University.

1.2. These Procedures shall be consistent with applicable clauses in any existing collective agreement at the university.

2. Receiving Allegations

2.1. An allegation of misconduct in academic research shall be made in writing using the RCR Allegation Submission Form, signed by the complainant(s), dated, accompanied by documented evidence and directed to the President.

2.2. Allegations should be written, with sufficient detail about the nature of the alleged breach, the location and time of its occurrence (e.g. date or timeframe). It should be supported by all available documentation and contain enough information to permit a determination of whether the alleged conduct, if substantiated, would constitute a breach of the Policy and to permit further information gathering about the alleged breach.

2.3. Anonymous allegations will be considered only if all relevant facts are publicly available or otherwise independently verifiable. If all relevant facts are verifiable, the AVPR or Senior Administrator will initiate an Inquiry to determine whether the complaint should be dismissed or investigated. Anonymous complainants are not entitled to participate or receive information on any of the outcome.

2.4. The privacy of both the complainant and the respondent will be protected as far as possible. Individuals making allegations in good faith or providing information related to an allegation will be protected from reprisals to the full extent possible.

2.5. Within 10 days of the receipt of an allegation in writing, the President shall notify the individuals named therein with a copy of the document containing the allegation, provided that the signature(s) of complainant(s) shall be removed.

3. Assessment of Allegations

3.1. The President's authority under Sections 2 and 3 shall normally be delegated to the Vice President Research and Innovation and the Director, Research Ethics and Integrity (Research Integrity Officer - RIO).

3.2. INITIAL ASSESSMENT

a. On receipt of a complaint, the RIO, in consultation with the VPR, must determine:

i. the applicability of the relevant Senate Policy and Collective Agreement provisions to the complaint;
ii. if the allegation(s) were true, if the complaint would constitute misconduct; and
iii. if the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated.

b. Given the diversity of research and scholarship covered by the Policy, establishing special circumstances and other facts may be of essential relevance when making an initial assessment; hence, prior to reaching the decision to move forward with an allegation, the RIO may request additional information, may consult with the Vice-President (Research and Innovation), with persons in the relevant unit of the University and with others who can provide context for reaching the decision.

c. If it is determined that the relevant Senate policy or collective agreement provisions do not apply, or if the complaints are deemed frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated, the allegations, if found to be true, could not constitute misconduct. The RIO, in consultation with the VPRI may recommend to the President to dismiss the complaint as it would be deemed to be out of scope. If the complaint is not dismissed, then the allegation is deemed to be within scope and proceeds to the preliminary inquiry.

3.3. PRELIMINARY INQUIRY

a. If an allegation is within scope, the President will refer the case to the Vice-President Research & Innovation, Associate Vice-President Research and/or Director, Research Ethics and Integrity, who will conduct a Preliminary inquiry. This inquiry may include further discussions of the allegations with the Complainant and requests for additional information via the standard operating procedure for addressing an allegation of a Breach of RCR Policy.

i. Where circumstances warrant or require the University may take immediate action to protect the administration of funding agency funds without first undertaking an investigation and/or identifying research misconduct.
ii. Similarly, subject to any applicable laws including privacy laws, if the allegation involves significant financial, health and safety or other risks and is related to activities funded by the Tri-Agencies, the Institution is required to advise the relevant Council of the Tri-Agencies or the Tri-Agency Secretariat on Responsible Conduct of Research (SRCR) of the allegation. However, any ambiguity or uncertainty in agency rules or in their application shall be construed in favour of the protection of privacy

b. The Preliminary Inquiry shall normally be completed and report forwarded to the President within 30 business days. In some circumstances, however, an additional 15 business days may be utilized to complete the review. Should this occur, parties to the matter shall be notified.

c. Upon receipt of the Preliminary Inquiry report, the President shall determine whether the allegation warrants further investigation or should be dismissed. Parties to the matter shall be informed of the outcome (President’s decision) in accordance with the Standard Operating Procedure for addressing an allegation of a breach of RCR Policy.

4. Investigation

4.1. If an investigation is deemed to be warranted through the Preliminary Inquiry, the President shall, in writing, notify the persons involved within 30 days. Within 30 more days of such notification, the President shall designate and convene an ad hoc committee of no fewer than 3 persons to conduct the investigation (known as ‘the Committee’).

4.2. Some but not all of the members of the Committee shall be from the same discipline as the person under investigation. In addition, for research funded by the Tri-Agencies, one member of the committee shall be a person not currently affiliated with the University.

4.3. The Committee shall have the discretion to establish in each case, a procedure suitable to the circumstances, provided that in every case, its discretion will be exercised with the following parameters:

a. before any determination of an investigation is made, the person against whom the allegations are made shall have full disclosure of the allegations and evidence and be provided an opportunity to answer in full.

b. the investigation shall proceed in a timely manner; and

c. the proceedings will remain confidential to the extent possible, with a view of protecting persons that are:

i. not party to
ii. witness in the preceding of the identity of the persons making the allegations, and
iii. the person against whom the allegations are made.

4.4. In every case, the detailed procedures of the investigation shall be in accordance with the provisions of the applicable collective agreement.

5. Determination of Findings

5.1. Within 7 days following the conclusion of its investigation, the Committee shall report to the President, in writing, with its findings as to whether misconduct has occurred.

5.2. If the determination is that the allegations are unfounded, the file shall be closed, and all parties will be notified. Every effort will be made to protect the reputation of individuals wrongly subjected to an allegation.

5.3. If the allegations disclosed are shown to constitute misconduct, the President shall determine an appropriate discipline taking into account the severity of the misconduct.

5.4. In every case, the imposition of a discipline shall be in accordance with the provisions of the applicable collective agreement and Faculty regulations in force at the time of the imposition of the discipline.

5.5. In the case of a breach of this Policy, and subject to applicable privacy laws, the President may disclose any information relevant to the breach that is in the public interest including the name of the researcher subject to the decision, the nature of the breach, and the recourse imposed. To inform disclosure of this information, the extent to which the breach jeopardizes the safety of the public, potentially damages the integrity of or brings the conduct of research and/or the University into disrepute will be considered.

6. Records

6.1. Written records shall be kept of the inquiry and investigation and these records shall be kept as confidential files, for a minimum of 3 years within the Office of Research Ethics following the finding of either misconduct or dismissal of the allegation. An annual report of investigations will be compiled and forwarded to the relevant internal and external institutional office (Canadian: CIHR, SSHRC, NSERC; US – NIH if the university has received applicable funding) as or if required.

The post Responsible Conduct of Research, Procedures appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

The temporary suspension of admissions to a degree program is a normal and
necessary step to manage the sustainability of programs. Administration may initiate a temporary suspension of admission for a variety of reasons, including low enrolments and a program falling below a position of financial sustainability. The step of temporarily pausing new admissions is intended to provide colleagues the time and space to review and/or renew a program’s curriculum, explore alternative programming options, or to move towards program closure. Resulting changes to curriculum and program requirements or decisions to close a program will be governed by the 91��ɫ Quality Assurance Procedures and applicable collegial governance processes.

Administrative decisions to temporarily suspend admission to degree programs are made by the relevant Dean(s) / Principal in consultation with the Provost and Vice-President Academic. Temporary suspensions of admission shall be time-limited,
normally with a two-year maximum, with the possibility to extend the suspension a maximum of two further years. An Early Notice of Intent stage shall be provided by the Dean/Principal before a decision on temporary suspension of admissions for the
purpose of input and consultation with a program on the criteria and considerations guiding admission suspensions. Suspensions of program admissions do not imply closure of courses. Courses would be expected to continue to be taught based on the norms and practices for determining course offerings, and plans established to ensure the necessary supports are in place for the progression of students currently in the program.

Criteria for Administrative Suspension of Admissions

The following criteria are considered in a decision to temporarily suspend admissions to a degree program:

• Concerns about the quality of the student experience and/or student�� outcomes
• Low and / or declining enrolments over several years
• Low and / or declining applications over several years
• Low financial sustainability given Faculty budgets
• Insufficient human or physical resources to deliver the program

Additional Considerations for Administrative Suspension of Admissions

In considering a decision to temporarily suspend admissions to an academic program,other considerations may also be applied by Deans / Principal, including:

• timely input from affected individuals and groups
• timing related to recruitment and enrolment cycles
• impact on other academic and non-academic units and/or programs
• other circumstances that program colleagues may raise

Procedures for Temporary Suspension of Admissions to Programs at 91��ɫ

�� �� 1. Definitions

���𲹲�” includes the Principal of Glendon College.

“P���Dz�������” refers to a degree program established under the 91��ɫ Quality Assurance Procedures (YUQAP).

“Suspension of Admission” is the temporary administrative suspension of new admits to a program.

“Financial unsustainability” of a program occurs when there is evidence of continued low and/or declining student demand for the program, low and/or declining enrolment, and where the net revenue from the program is less than the total operating costs associated with the delivery of the program. Strong enrolment in individual courses alone does not necessarily make a financially sustainable program.

�� �� �� 2. Application

In��fulfillment of their responsibility to manage the financial sustainability of their Faculty’s degree programs, Deans review program data annually to monitor enrolment trends, student outcomes and other resource considerations related to a program’s financial sustainability. Data reviewed include new and continuing applications, major (and minor) enrolment, retention, degrees awarded, time to completion, course enrolment, and other relevant indicators.

Decisions to temporarily suspend admission to degree programs can be made by the relevant Dean in consultation with the respective program and the Provost & Vice- President Academic. The following procedures guide the decision-making and implementation processes.

�� �� ��3. Procedures

A. Early Notice of Intent

Where the decanal assessment of program data indicates a position of financial unsustainability, a temporary suspension of admission to the program may be considered. In such circumstances, the relevant Dean will provide an Early Notice of Intent (NOI) to the program before any temporary suspension of admissions decision is made. Normally an NOI will be provided to a program at the start of the University’s main recruitment cycle for the subsequent academic year.ii A guiding principle of the NOI stage is that programs are provided an opportunity to understand the core challenges contributing to the program’s financial position and to provide input into a decision to temporarily suspend admissions.

Upon providing an Early Notice of Intent to a program, the Dean shall ensure:

a. that an opportunity for program representatives and the Dean (or designate) is provided to discuss and provide input on the program and revenue data, criteria and considerations that program colleagues want to raise.

b. exploration with program representatives regarding possible alternative program scenarios (e.g., optimal program design and offerings aligned with enrolment data; sustained course offerings for existing undergraduate certificates or graduate diplomas; a minor degree option versus a major degree option).

c. that there is an assessment of the impact a suspension of admissions could have on other academic and non-academic units and/or programs.

d. confirmation for the program what supports are available to assist with the Action Plan process.

B. Development of Action Plans

To support the development of an Action Plan the Dean shall ensure that relevant student data, including a market assessment about the demand for the proposed programming, and an assessment of future cost and revenue structures of the proposed program and/or or credential option are provided.

To that end, required Action Plans to be developed following an NOI to a program should:

a. address the recovery plan for the Major and/or define an alternative strategy to address financial sustainability and grow student demand for the program.

b. as appropriate to the program in question, define specific actions in response to:

• low and / or declining enrolment and retention over several years
• low and / or declining applications over several years
• low financial sustainability given Faculty budgets
• insufficient human or physical resources to deliver the program
• the alignment with program demand relative to comparators in the sector and/or with workforce trends
• student concerns about their program experience / challenges

c. incorporate relevant information / insights from the most recent Cyclical Program Review and the associated Implementation Plan.

d. be finalized within six months of the issue of the NOI, unless another timeline is agreed upon by the Dean in consultation with the Provost & Vice-President Academic.

e. confirm any curriculum proposals required to implement the Action Plan and the commencement of the proposal preparation and collegial governance review process at the earliest opportunity.

Action Plans are approved by the Dean in consultation with the Provost & Vice-President Academic. Following approval of an Action Plan, the Dean (or designate) shall provide oversight to support the program’s progress on the plan to the defined timeline for implementation. Programs are provided a minimum of two admission cycles following implementation to monitor and assess signs of progress.

C. Temporary Suspension of Admissions

When new admissions to a program are suspended, it shall normally be for a period of up to two years with the possibility of a further two years. When new program admits are suspended, courses continue to be taught based on the norms and practices for determining course offerings. The Dean shall establish a plan to ensure the necessary supports are in place for the progression of students currently in the program. The Dean shall also ensure that a communication plan regarding the decision to suspend admissions is developed in consultation with the program and Provost & Vice-President Academic.

Following the Notice of Intent and Development of Action Plan stages, a decision to temporarily suspend admissions to a program may be taken in one of two circumstances:

a. the absence of an approved Action Plan within the defined timeline

If a decision is taken to suspend admissions in the absence of an Action Plan, the program shall continue work to develop the Action Plan with the support of the Dean with the expectation that a Plan be approved within six months and work to prepare program changes / proposals required to implement the Action Plan begin immediately thereafter. Upon approval of an Action Plan, the suspension of admissions will be lifted for the subsequent F/W academic year. If a completed Action Plan is not received or approved by the Dean, the suspension continues for another F/W academic year.

b. a continuing financially unsustainable position after two admissions cycles with the program Action Plan implemented

If after two years of the Action Plan program changes being implemented, the program data continue to indicate financial unsustainability, admissions to the program will be temporarily suspended for a two-year period.
Following that decision, the Dean and program colleagues will meet to discuss next steps. Program options for discussion at this stage of the process are either:

a. preparation of a Revised Action Plan, with defined timelines for submission and approval

b. program closure through 91��ɫ Quality Assurance Procedures.

If a Revised Action Plan for the program is to be developed by the program, it shall be submitted to the Dean within six months of the decision to suspend admissions. The Dean, in consultation with the Provost & Vice-President Academic will review the Revised Action Plan to determine whether to extend the two-year suspension to allow for the implementation of the Revised Action Plan to a maximum of two further years. If an extension of the suspension is not supported by the Dean, program proponents should expect to close the program through the
91��ɫ Quality Assurance Procedures.

(i) A program may be deemed unsustainable on review of its revenues and expenditures and / or in the context of the Faculty’s overall budget and applications and enrolments. This assessment is best made at the Faculty level as operating revenue is attributed to Faculties. Each Faculty has accountability for the financial sustainability of the Faculty and can be expected to vary in the way that the revenues and/or costs associated with programs and/or departments and schools are calculated. In general, however, it is understood that the costs of a program involve not only the direct costs of the salaries and benefits associated with the delivery of the program but also associated costs including for program advertising and recruitment, space and other supplemental costs. Revenues similarly include monies associated with majors as well as teaching.

(ii) The annual F/W recruitment cycle typically commences annually in July for the subsequent FW academic year. If necessary, the NOI process could be implemented ahead of summer or winter term admission cycles.

(iii) As part of the recovery planning for the Major, colleagues may elect to explore a merger with another program, a redesign of the credential being offered, a Minor, Certificate or Diploma option, course planning options that make sense for the program’s enrolment context.

The post President’s Policy Framework for Temporary Suspension of Admissions to Programs at 91��ɫ appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

1.1 The University personalizes its abstract ideals through the granting of honorary degrees to people whose achievements represent the values the University cherishes, whose benefactions have strengthened the community and the institution, and whose public lives are deemed worthy of emulation. The granting of an honorary degree provides a focal point for Convocation ceremonies. The citation of honourable deeds and the words of experience of the honorary graduand challenge and inspire the university and reinforce its links to the wider community. The granting of a degree honoris causa is the highest distinction the University can bestow on person. In granting the degree, the University engages its reputation before its community and the world and, at times, must act to protect that reputation from honourees who have discredited themselves such that they are no longer worthy of the honour.

1.2 This Policy establishes rules and procedures that frame the process to review an honorary degree bestowed upon a person by the University. Its aim is to protect the University’s reputation from harm caused by honourees whose actions have discredited them, while ensuring that the review of an honour, which can conclude in the recission of the honour, is conducted equitably.

2. Scope and Application

2.1 Scope

This Policy applies to the review of honorary degrees bestowed by the University. It does not encompass other distinctions conferred or bestowed by the University. The process to bestow honours is set in Guidelines established by the Senate Sub-committee on Honorary Degrees and Ceremonials and is not regulated under this Policy.

2.2 Application

This policy applies to all members of the University Community who submit a request to the effect that an honour be rescinded, honourees, officers of the University who have a role in the process of reviewing honours, members of the Senate Sub-committee on Honorary Degrees and Ceremonials, the Executive Committee of Senate, and the Secretary of Senate.

3. Definitions

For the purposes of this Policy, the term:

Honour: means an honorary degree bestowed by the University,
Honouree: means a person on whom the University has bestowed an honorary degree or their estate in succession

Secretary: means the Secretary of Senate as appointed by the President under section 2.5 of the Rules of Senate.

Sub-committee: means the Senate Sub-committee on Honorary Degrees and Ceremonials,

University Community: means a member of faculty, a student, an employee or an officer of the University.

4. Policy

4.1 A review of an honour shall be conducted where the Sub-committee receives credible information that an honouree:

a. has been convicted of any criminal offence (and all appeal options have been exhausted) which shall be held by the Executive Committee of Senate to be of an immoral, scandalous, or disgraceful nature;

b. has obtained the honour by fraud, deception, or any other inappropriate means;

c. has had their name removed for misconduct by a properly constituted legal authority from any official register of members of the profession to which they belong; or

d. has engaged in conduct which, in the reasonable opinion of the Executive Committee of Senate, constitutes a significant departure from generally recognized standards of public behavior and which is deemed to undermine the public reputation of the University, or is inconsistent with the University’s mission and values, or constitutes a breach of any agreement made with the University as a condition of the conferment of the honour.

4.2 All communications, information, records and documents regarding a review of an honour or in support of a decision to sustain or rescind an honour, are confidential. Only persons who have a role in the processes established under this Policy will be informed of such processes and only to the extent necessary to execute their role under this Policy.

5. Roles and Responsibilities

5.1 The Chair of the Sub-committee on Honorary Degrees and Ceremonials will ensure that the proceedings of the Sub-committee comply with the requirements under this Policy and that all matters brought before the Sub-committee for consideration under this Policy be resolved fairly and equitably.

5.2 The Secretary of the Sub-committee is responsible for providing guidance and advice, supporting the duties and responsibilities of the Sub-committee and Senate Executive Committee and diligently preforming all duties assigned to them under this Policy.

5.3 Members of the Sub-committee and of the Executive Committee of Senate are responsible for conducting deliberations in a fair and equitable manner, in accordance with all University Conflict of Interest policies, with consideration of the balance to be struck between the protection of the reputation of the University and the potential reputational harm to the honouree in all matters coming before it under this Policy.

5.4 The Executive Committee of Senate is:

a. responsible for the implementation of this Policy

b. granted authority to establish procedures:

i. To frame notices and communications under this Policy

ii. To further define the roles and responsibilities under this section of entities and officers of the University

iii. To define the processes and procedures to submit a request to review or reestablish an honour under sections 7.1 and 7.4.

6. Review

This Policy will be reviewed by the Sub-committee every 5 years with any following recommendations to proceed to the Executive Committee of Senate and, on the recommendation of Senate Executive, to Senate for approval.

7. Procedures

Initiation of a Review of an Honour

7.1 The Sub-committee will meet to consider whether to conduct a review of an honour:

a. Upon receipt by the Chair or the Secretary of a written request to that effect from a member of the University Community; or

b. At the Chair’s initiative, from information available to the Chair, including information provided by the Secretary; or

c. At the request of the Executive Committee of Senate.

7.2 In coming to a determination as to whether a review should be conducted, the Sub-committee will consider all information available in the public record, provided by the Chair or the Secretary of the Sub-committee, the Executive Committee of Senate or any other source of information deemed useful by the Sub-committee, and ascertain whether there is sufficient credible information to warrant a review.

7.3 If the Sub-committee, after considering all information available,

a. is of the opinion that the information is insufficient or spurious, it will declare that the honour is sustained, and the matter closed; or

b. is of the opinion that the information is sufficient and credible, it will initiate a review of the honour.

7.4 Following a decision by the Sub-committee to initiate a review, the Secretary will provide notice to the honouree, or a representative of their estate, of the review and describe to them the process of review under this Policy, in accordance with procedures established further to this Policy by the Executive Committee of Senate. The Secretary will also inform the President and the Executive Committee of Senate, in confidence, that a review will be conducted.

Conducting a Review of an Honour

7.5 To conduct a review of an honour, the Sub-committee will:

a. request that the Secretary investigate within reason and with the means normally available to the University, allegations brought to its attention regarding the honouree and submit to the Sub-committee a report of findings.

b. share the report of findings with the honouree and offer an opportunity to address the findings in writing or in person before the Sub-committee by a deadline established by the Sub-committee, while making it clear that the review will continue even if the honouree omits to reply before the deadline.

c. based on elements of the report of findings that the Sub-committee, after considering the rebuttal from the honouree (if any), deems credible, approve and submit a report to the Executive Committee of Senate with a recommendation as to whether the honour should be rescinded.

Rescission of an Honour

7.6 The Executive Committee of Senate, on a recommendation from the Sub-committee, will rescind an honour when an honouree:

a. has been convicted of any criminal offence (and all appeal options have been exhausted) which shall be held by the Executive Committee of Senate to be of an immoral, scandalous, or disgraceful nature;

b. has obtained the honour by fraud, deception, or any other inappropriate means;

c. has had their name removed for misconduct by a properly constituted legal authority from any official register of members of the profession to which they belong; or

d. has engaged in conduct which, in the reasonable opinion of the Executive Committee of Senate, constitutes a significant departure from generally recognized standards of public behavior and which is deemed to undermine the public reputation of the University, or is inconsistent with the University’s mission and values, or constitutes a breach of any agreement made with the University as a condition of the conferment of the honour.

7.7 If, on consideration of a recommendation from the Sub-committee, the Executive Committee of Senate determines

a. that the honour is sustained, the matter is deemed closed, the Secretary will inform the honouree of the decision to sustain the honour and that all rights and privileges remain. A matter that has been closed cannot be reopened unless, in the opinion of the Sub-committee, significant new information has come forth that warrants a new review; or

b. that the honour is rescinded, the Secretary will:

i. inform the former honouree that they may no longer style themselves as a recipient of an honour from the University;

ii. request of the former honouree that they return their honorary degree parchment and, upon receiving it, destroy it before witnesses (preferably the General Counsel or the University Registrar or their designates); and

iii. remove the name of the former honouree from the list of honourees.

Reestablishment of an Honour

7.8 The Executive Committee of Senate may reestablish an honour it has rescinded when, following a submission to that effect from the former honouree, it believes that there is sufficient evidence that the honour was rescinded in error. The process to reestablish the honour is similar to the process to sustain and rescind an honour under this Policy, and will be in accordance with procedures established further to this Policy by the Executive Committee of Senate.

Return of the Honour

7.9 At any time, an honouree may return their honour to the University. If an honour is returned to the University while a review in being conducted, the review immediately ends, and the matter is closed. On the return of an honour, the Secretary will implement section 6.8 b.

The post Review of Honorary Degrees, Policy and Procedures appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

1. Indoor Individual or Small Group (2-4) Smudging or Pipe Ceremony (for those familiar with smudging)

1.1. Being a Good Neighbour

a. Being a good neighbour means letting the people around you know that you practice smudging on a regular/semi-regular basis. They may notice the aroma, but it dissipates fairly quickly. Share a link to the Smudging Policy if requested.

b. The person leading the smudge is responsible for promptly addressing any concerns or issues that may arise.

c. In personal spaces and dedicated spaces where there is no smoke detector, there is no need for advanced notice.

2. Indoor Medium (5 – 25) and Large (26+) Group Smudging or Pipe Ceremony

2.1. Being a Good Neighbour

a. It is the responsibility for the leader of the Indigenous ceremonial practice to implement the principles of a Good Neighbour and notify nearby spaces of the upcoming Indigenous Ceremonial Practice to ensure good working relationships with the surrounding spaces.

b. Signage will be placed at entry-points prior to the start of the Indigenous Ceremonial Practice to inform the public and participants of the Indigenous ceremonial practice taking place. Signage must include the date, time and location.

c. The lead is responsible for guiding and assisting participants during the ceremony.

d. The lead is responsible for promptly addressing any concerns or issues that may arise.

e. Information will be provided to participants regarding the nature of the Indigenous ceremonial practice for those with allergy or scent sensitivity concerns to accommodate themselves accordingly.

f. Those leading pre-planned large gatherings are to provide advance notice (minimum 72 hours) notice to the AVP Indigenous Initiatives of the intention to smudge or perform pipe ceremonies.

3. Outdoor Smudging or Pipe Ceremony

3.1. Smudging and pipe ceremony is allowed outdoors on any campus without prior notice but should take place no closer than 9 meters to any building entrance.

4. Health & Fire Safety

4.1. The person performing the smudge or pipe ceremony will be responsible for ensuring the presence of fire extinguishers, locating the closest fire extinguisher to the area where the smudging or pipe ceremony is taking place. A small bowl or glass of water should be used to extinguish embers remaining.

4.2. Medicines used for smudging and pipe ceremony must be burned in a fireproof vessel (e.g. earthenware bowl, large shell, stone pipe).

4.3. Leaders of the ceremony must appropriately manage the amount of medicine used in indoor spaces so as not to create enough smoke to overpower the space.

4.4. The ceremonial leader is responsible for ensuring materials are attended to until they have been completely extinguished and disposed of in a culturally appropriate manner.

4.5. For indoor ceremony, doors shall remain closed for the duration of the ceremony and until all smoke has dissipated.

4.6. A designated individual must remain present for the duration of the ceremony to be able to call for assistance in the case of a fire or medical emergency.

4.7. If a fire alarm goes off during smudging or pipe ceremony taking place indoors, evacuate the building as per normal procedures, ensuring any lit medicine is extinguished. If the cause of the alarm is due to the ceremony taking place in a space that is exempt from this policy (see section 6), ceremony lead(s) may be charged for any costs incurred by the University.

5. Respect and Responsibilities

5.1. It is important that a smudge or pipe ceremony as part of a group activity is conducted with respect to both those who choose to be involved and those who choose not to participate.

5.2. The lead is responsible for assigning roles and responsibilities to individuals participating in the ceremony.

5.3. Cultural practices including smudging and pipe ceremonies are voluntary; no individual will be pressured to participate. Individuals who choose to refrain from participating can either stay in the room or leave. Individuals who wish to exit an area where smudging is taking place shall do so quietly, respecting ceremony participants.

5.4. University community members have a responsibility to exercise respect and consideration to one another. Some people may have sensitivity or allergies to the smoke created during the ceremony, and ceremony leads should endeavour to ensure they are given the opportunity to leave the area prior to the event.

6. Exceptions

6.1. Smudging and pipe ceremony cannot be conducted in some spaces for a variety of reasons, including the following spaces:

a. Athletic facilities or areas where aerobic activity is taking place;

b. Kitchens or food preparation spaces;

c. Laboratory facilities;

d. Libraries where smoke may impact rare books or other key archives;

e. Mechanical or industrial workshop spaces where there may be an increased risk of fire;

f. Medical clinics where there may be an increased presence of individuals with respiratory conditions.

6.2. Spaces, including private rooms, that use smoke detectors as their fire detection system must be cleared by facilities services to be used for smudging or pipe ceremony. This may require temporarily bypassing of fire systems for the duration of an event. Facilities service maintains a listing of spaces that use smoke detectors. Facilities also provides a copy of this list to the office of Indigenous Initiatives. Leads must email the University Building and Fire Code Compliance office (firesafe@yorku.ca) and the AVP Indigenous Initiatives (avpii@yorku.ca) to request clearance of these spaces for smudging at least five business days in advance of the ceremony.

The post Smudging and Pipe Ceremony Procedures appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

These Procedures are implemented pursuant to the Recognition – Physical Naming Policy (the “Policy”). The below outlines the procedures for Naming, including approval, re-Naming, revocation and retirement pursuant to the Policy. Procedures for renewal or extension of Naming are also set out below.

2. Definitions

All capitalized terms not otherwise defined in these Procedures shall have the same meaning given to such terms as in the Policy.

3. Naming Procedures – Donor Recognition

Proposals Process

a) Prior to committing to a Donor the Naming of a University Asset to recognize the Donor, University personnel are required to submit recommendations for Naming to the Vice-President Advancement for review.

b) The Vice-President Advancement will conduct a preliminary consultation with relevant University stakeholders to identify any initial conflicts or concerns regarding the proposed Naming (for example, if the proposed University Asset is available for a naming opportunity).

c) If no initial conflicts or concerns are identified during the preliminary consultation, the Vice-President Advancement or their delegate will invite the University personnel to submit a formal proposal in the form of a "Naming Approval Memo".

Naming Approval Process

d) Only naming proposals set out in a Naming Approval Memo that have been reviewed and accepted by the Vice-President Advancement will be presented to the Board of Governors or the President, or their designate, for approval in accordance with the Policy.

e) No commitment can be made, whether orally or in writing, to a Donor nor can terms be finalized relating to a Naming with a Donor, without the approvals in Section 3(d) being obtained and the process set out in this Section 3 being followed.

Documentation of Terms related to a Naming

f) Terms related to a Naming should also be outlined in documentation such as a Gift Agreement or other recognition document, as appropriate, and will be subject to Vice-President Advancement review and approval per the University's Gift and Sponsorship Acceptance Policy. Terms may include, but are not limited to, duration of Naming, minimum pledge payments required for public acknowledgement and/or recognition, signage to be mounted, types of signage and location, etc.

4. Naming Procedures – Honorific Recognition

Honorific Naming Proposals Process

a) Any individual or group within the University community may propose to the Vice-President Advancement an honorific Naming.

b) University personnel are required to submit recommendations for honorific Naming to the Vice-President Advancement for review.

c) The Vice-President Advancement will conduct a preliminary consultation with relevant University stakeholders to identify any initial conflicts or concerns regarding the proposed honorific Naming (for example, if the proposed University Asset is available for an honorific naming opportunity and a due diligence check).

d) If no initial conflicts or concerns are identified during the preliminary consultation, the Vice-President Advancement or their delegate will invite University personnel to submit a formal proposal in the form of an "Honorific Naming Approval Memo".

Honorific Naming Approval Process

e) Only honorific Naming proposals set out in an Honorific Naming Approval Memo that have been reviewed and accepted by the Vice-President Advancement will be presented to the Board of Governors or the President, or their designate, for approval in accordance with the Policy.

f) No commitment can be made, whether orally or in writing, to the individual or group within the University community who proposed the honorific Naming, nor can terms be finalized relating to an honorific Naming, without the approvals in Section 4(e) being obtained and the Process set out in this Section 4 being followed.

Documentation of Terms related to an honorific Naming

g) Terms related to an honorific Naming should also be outlined in documentation such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or other recognition document, as appropriate, and will be subject to Vice-President Advancement review and approval. Terms may include, but are not limited to, duration of honorific Naming, requirements for public acknowledgement and/or recognition, signage to be mounted, types of signage and location, etc.

5. Naming Revocation, Re-Naming (including naming of another comparable room or facility) or Retiring of Naming Procedures

Proposals Process

a) Any University personnel may submit recommendations to the Vice-President Advancement, for review, proposing the revocation, re-Naming, or retirement of a Naming.

b) The Vice-President Advancement will conduct a preliminary consultation with relevant University stakeholders to identify any initial conflicts or concerns regarding the proposed revocation, re-Naming or retirement of the Naming.

c) If no initial conflicts or concerns are identified during the preliminary consultation, the Vice-President Advancement will invite University personnel to submit a formal Approval Memo

Approval Process

d) Only proposals in an Approval Memo that have been reviewed and accepted by the Vice-President Advancement will be presented to the Board of Governors or the President or their designate, for approval in accordance with the Policy.

6. Renewal / Extension of Naming Procedures

a) Any University personnel may submit recommendations to the Vice-President Advancement, for review, proposing the renewal or extension of a Naming.

b) The Vice-President Advancement will conduct a preliminary consultation with relevant University stakeholders to identify any initial conflicts or concerns regarding the proposed renewal/extension of the Naming.

c) If no initial conflicts or concerns are identified during the preliminary consultation, the Vice-President Advancement will invite University personnel to submit a formal Approval Memo.

Approval Process

d) Only proposals in an Approval Memo that have been reviewed and accepted by the Vice-President Advancement will be presented to the Board of Governors or the President or their designate, for approval in accordance with the Policy.

7. Review

The Vice-President Advancement is responsible for the review of this Procedure every five (5) years at a minimum.

The post Recognition - Physical Naming, Procedure appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

1. Preamble

Academic integrity is fundamental to a university’s intellectual life. The mission of 91��ɫ is the pursuit, preservation, and dissemination of knowledge. Central to this mission, is the relationship between teaching and learning. Honesty, fairness, and mutual respect must form the basis of this relationship in the pursuit and dissemination of knowledge in the University. 91��ɫ embraces the International Centre for Academic Integrity’s definition of academic integrity as acting in all academic matters with honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility, and the courage to act in accordance with these values (ICAI, 2021).

2. Purpose
This policy establishes standards for academic honesty and academic conduct to protect academic integrity in the University and to promote learning for students who might find themselves in difficult academic conduct situations.

The Policy:

i. outlines the roles and responsibilities of the University community (including students, faculty, and staff) for practicing good scholarship;

ii. provides information on available educational resources to support the practice of good scholarship;

iii. identifies a range of actions that constitute academic misconduct;

iv. establishes sanctions for academic misconduct; and outlines the procedure and process to be followed in cases of suspected breaches of academic integrity.

3. Scope and Application

3.1 This Policy applies to allegations of breach of academic conduct committed by a student, unless otherwise stated below.

3.2 This Policy does not apply to non-degree studies in Faculties and in the School of Continuing Studies. Faculties and the School of Continuing Studies must establish policies and procedures on academic conduct for non-degree studies.

3.3 Faculties must have a process in place�� to implement this policy within their jurisdiction. Such process must be approved by the relevant Faculty Council and Senate by way of the Senate Academic Standards, Curriculum and Pedagogy (ASCP) Committee, and the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC).

3.4 This document is to be read in conjunction with other University policies, procedures, regulations and guidelines including but not limited to the following:

i.

ii. Senate Policy on Responsible Conduct of Research

3.5 In place of or in addition to procedures under this Policy, the University may also, where necessary or applicable, invoke other University policies and any civil, criminal or other remedies that may be available to it as a matter of law.

4. Definitions

In this policy:

Academic Dishonesty: means inappropriate academic conduct. It includes impersonation, plagiarism, cheating and copying the work of others.

Academic Integrity: The International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI) defines Academic Integrity as comprising the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, and responsibility, and the courage to uphold these values. These values are interrelated and are the foundation of an ethical community.

Academic Misconduct: means any action or attempted action that may result in creating an unfair academic advantage for oneself or an unfair academic advantage or disadvantage for any other member or members of the academic community. This includes but is not limited to a wide range of behaviour including cheating, plagiarism, misrepresentation of identity or performance, fraudulent conduct and research misconduct.

Bias: means the existence of a lack of neutrality, which may have the outcome of influencing or affecting the application of this Policy and its associated procedures in an unfair manner.

Course Director (CD): means the instructor and/or director of a course, or member of a supervisory committee.

Expulsion: means a sanction permanently terminating a person’s right both to continue as a student in the University, and to reactivate their registration.

Expulsion from the University may be imposed only by a Faculty-Level Appeals Committee/Panel, which is recognized by a Faculty Council as the responsible body to assign this sanction.

Faculty-Level Appeals Committee(s)/Panel(s): means the committee(s) or panel(s), recognized by the Faculty Council in each Faculty, as the responsible body for considering academic conduct appeals relating to any decision taken by the person of primary responsibility (PPR) or their Designate.

Faculty-Level Appeals Committees/Panels must have a minimum of three members, at least one of whom must be a student and the majority of whom must be faculty members. For the purpose of this Policy these bodies are referred to as the Faculty Appeals Committee/Panel, though individual Faculties may assign this role to bodies with a different title.

Graduate Supervisor: means the faculty member responsible for primary supervision of a graduate student’s research.
High Volume Academic Misconduct: means allegations of academic misconduct involving 10 or more students within one course where the breach is of the same nature and results in consistent outcomes.

Impartiality: means freedom from bias or prejudice, ensuring fairness and neutrality in the application of this Policy and its associated procedures.

Person of Primary Responsibility (PPR): refers to the person or panel, identified by the Dean’s Office in each Faculty, who will coordinate the implementation of this Policy in their Faculty or unit.

The PPR will normally be an Associate Dean who is knowledgeable about Academic Conduct matters. The Faculty PPR is responsible for coordinating the activities of PPR Designates, ensuring the consistent implementation of the Policy and reporting annually to Senate, as required. The University Registrar will identify a PPR who will coordinate the implementation of the Policy within the Office of the University Registrar for breaches falling under the auspices of the Office of the University Registrar.

Person of Primary Responsibility (PPR) Designate: refers to the person or group delegated authority, by the PPR for certain academic conduct matters.

A PPR Designate may include, but not limited to, an Undergraduate Program Director (UPD), Graduate Program Director (GPD), or Chair of a department.

Senate Appeals Committee: refers to the Senate Committee responsible for hearing appeals of decisions made by Faculty Appeals Committees on matters concerning academic regulations, grade re-appraisals and charges of academic misconduct.

Student: refers to any person admitted to the University who was previously, or who is currently, enrolled and/or registered at the University.

Student File: refers to the official record of a student’s academic misconduct case, kept in the student’s home Faculty.
Student Record: refers to a student’s academic history as electronically recorded in the University’s central Student Information System.

Student Transcript: refers to the official record of a student’s academic history at the University, providing a comprehensive summary of course enrolment, grades earned and academic decisions.

Support Person: refers to a person who may provide support and advice to a student involved in an academic misconduct process, and who may speak on behalf of the student. The support person may be internal or external to the University and may include legal counsel, a peer or family member.

Suspension: means a sanction of a variable but limited period during which the student’s enrolment and registration in courses at the University are prohibited. A student who is otherwise eligible to graduate, but is suspended, may not graduate until the suspension is lifted.

Suspension from the University may be imposed only by a Faculty-Level Appeals Committee/Panel, which is recognized by a Faculty Council as the responsible body to assign such sanction.

Undocumented/Unreferenced: refers to undocumented and/or unreferenced quotes, passages, sources, and other missing or improper citation of work submitted for evaluation.

University Community: means students, faculty, instructors, staff, and invigilators, all of whom have responsibility for the cultivating and upholding good academic conduct in all elements of academic life, including research, teaching, learning and administration.

5. Policy

5.1 All members of the University Community are to cultivate and maintain the highest standards of academic conduct by avoiding behaviours which create unfair academic advantages. As a clear sense of academic integrity and responsibility is fundamental to good scholarship, all members of the University are to foster and uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, and to be informed of and adhere to acceptable standards of academic conduct articulated in this policy.

5.2 Breaches

It is a breach of this Policy to engage in any form of academic misconduct, including but not limited to the range of behaviours that are listed in this section. The behaviours described below are not mutually exclusive.

a. Cheating – the attempt to gain an unfair advantage in an academic evaluation. Forms of cheating include but are not limited to:

i. Using an undocumented or unreferenced content generator, including the use of text-, image-, code-, or video-generating artificial intelligence (AI);

ii. Obtaining assistance by means of documentary, artificial intelligence technology, electronic or other aids that are restricted by the instructor (see Section 6.2.c);

iii. Obtaining a copy of all or parts of an examination, test or course material before it is officially available;

iv. Copying another person’s answer(s) to any submitted assessment including examination questions, assignments, and lab reports;

v. Consulting an unauthorized source in the completion of an assessment such as a test, quiz or exam;

vi. Deliberately disrupting an academic evaluation by any means;

vii. Changing a grade, score or a record of an assessment;

viii. Submitting the work one has done for one class or project to another class, or as another project, without the prior informed consent of the relevant instructors;

ix. Submitting work prepared in whole or in part by another person, whether for money or otherwise, and representing that work as one’s own;

x. Submitting work prepared in collaboration with a third party when collaborative work on an assessment has not been authorized by the instructor/supervisor, and goes beyond correction of grammar, idiom, punctuation, spelling and sentence mechanics;

xi. Preparing work in whole or in part that is to be submitted by another student for appraisal;

xii. Circumventing the anti-cheating safeguards when completing in-person or remote exams, tests or assignments; Representing another’s substantial editorial or compositional assistance on an assignment as the student’s own work (See 5.2.a.i and ii); and

xiii. Taking any action which can reasonably be interpreted as intending to encourage or enable others to commit an offence of academic honesty.

b. Plagiarism – the appropriation of the work of another whether published, unpublished or posted electronically, attributed or anonymous, without proper acknowledgement. This includes but is not limited to:

i. Presenting all or part of another person’s work or ideas as something one has produced where work includes, but is not restricted to, text, code, technical and creative production, paragraph and essay structure and organization, and other forms that constitute intellectual property;

ii. Paraphrasing another’s writing without proper citation;

iii. Representing another’s artistic, technical work or creation as one’s own;

iv. Reproducing without citation the student’s own work originally presented elsewhere; and

v. Failing to attribute sources, or failure to attribute sources properly.

c. Misrepresentation of personal identity or performance includes but is not limited to:

i. Submitting all or part of work, for assessment, which is stolen, donated or purchased from unsanctioned sources such as a tutor, website, or other students;

ii. Impersonating someone or having someone impersonate you to confer or gain an unauthorized academic advantage, whether in person, in writing, or electronically; and

iii. Falsifying one’s identity, academic record or other admissions-related material for the purposes of gaining admission to the University or a program, to access a course, or to reactivate one’s registration.

d. Fraudulent conduct includes but is not limited to:

i. Selling, offering for sale or distributing essays or other assignments, in whole or in part, with the reasonable expectation that these works could be submitted by a student for appraisal or used as an unauthorized resource;

ii. Submitting altered, forged or otherwise falsified medical or other certificates or documents to gain a deadline deferral, extension, postponement or other advantage under false pretences;

iii. Altering or having another person alter a grade on academic work after it has been marked;

iv. Altering, stealing or destroying the academic work of another to gain academic advantage or to disadvantage another;

v. Accessing without authorization, stealing or tampering with course-related material or with library materials; and

vi. Using the intellectual property of others for distribution, sale or indirect profit without permission or licence from the owner of rights in that material, including slides and presentation materials provided in a class or course.

e. Student Research Misconduct refers to any action or attempted action of misconduct in the collection, use or dissemination of research including but not limited to:

i. Dishonest reporting of investigative results from original research or course-based activities, either through fabrication or falsification;

ii. Taking or using the research results of others without permission or acknowledgement;

iii. Misrepresentation or improper selective reporting of research results or the methods used;

iv. Knowingly publishing information that will mislead or deceive readers, including the falsification or fabrication of data or information, the failure to give credit to collaborators as joint authors or the listing as authors of others who have not contributed to the work;

v. Disseminating data or other products of research done by, or with, a faculty member or another student for publication or presentation without permission and due acknowledgement;

vi. Using or releasing ideas or data of others, without their permission, which were given with the express expectation of confidentiality; and

vii. Listing of potential collaborators without their agreement.

f. Violation of specific departmental or course requirements – refers to academic misconduct related to requirements included in a course outline/syllabus, where such requirements are consistent with this policy.

5.3 Jurisdiction

a. Allegations of academic misconduct in a course will be dealt with by the Faculty offering the course. Where allegations of misconduct occurs under joint 91��ɫ programs or where allegations arise in more than one Faculty, the PPRs of the respective areas will determine which program or Faculty will have jurisdiction over the proceedings.

b. Allegations of misconduct in a graduate course or in the process of working towards a graduate degree, will be dealt with by the PPR or PPR Designate and the appropriate committee(s)and associated processes of the Faculty of Graduate Studies.

c. Allegations of academic misconduct pertaining to the falsification of one’s identity, academic record or other related materials used for the purposes of gaining admission to a program or course at the University, or for reactivating registration, will be dealt with by the Office of the University Registrar.

d. Should a matter arise for which there appears to be no clear Faculty jurisdiction, the Senate Appeals Committee shall determine which Faculty or unit will have carriage of the matter.

e. Where appropriate, academic misconduct allegations will be communicated to relevant units, such as a student’s home Faculty or an academic program connected to the one in which the student is enrolled by way of cross-listed courses or joint programming.

f. If the student is suspected of having committed academic misconduct in work related to a funded research project, the Office of Research Services will be notified. In these instances, the academic misconduct process will be determined by the granting agency working with the President’s Office.

g. If the student is an employee at 91��ɫ and is suspected of using information or resources from their employment to commit academic misconduct, the matter may also be investigated in accordance with appropriate collective agreement and Human Resources procedures.

h. Allegations of academic misconduct may be referred to the Office of Research Ethics (ORE) for independent review at the outset of the academic misconduct process or after a finding of breach, whereas it is a requirement to refer a case of suspected breach of the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy to the ORE.

i. All findings of academic misconduct shall be communicated to the PPR and/or PPR Designate in the student’s home Faculty.

5.4 Investigations

a. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe academic misconduct has occurred, the matter will be dealt with in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice.

b. Findings of academic misconduct are made according to a balance of probabilities and not bound by formal rules of evidence applicable in courts of law.

c. The PPR may delegate authority for certain Academic Conduct matters to PPR Designates. Such delegations may vary according to the size of the Faculty, its internal governance structure, and its disciplinary standards for academic conduct.

d. Investigations of allegations of academic misconduct of a student may be conducted by a PPR, PPR Designate or appropriate Faculty or University-level body to be identified by the Senate Appeals Committee, according to associated Procedures.

e. Investigations must be initiated in a timely manner, normally within 10 business days of the alleged misconduct being brought, in writing, to the attention of the PPR or PPR Designate.

f. An investigation may encompass multiple allegations of academic misconduct involving the same student.

g. Cases of High Volume Academic Misconduct will be resolved in accordance with the process outlined in the associated Procedures.

h. Normally, a decision is in force as soon as it is officially communicated to the student.

5.5 Records and Notations of Decisions

a. A record of each finding of academic misconduct will be maintained by the student’s home Faculty and shall be kept separate from any other of the student’s records. The purpose of this record is to allow access to information on previous offence(s) and to aid in determining sanctions in the event a new case is opened. This record of offence(s) shall not be used for any other purpose.

b. Sanctions will be noted on the student’s record in the following manners:

i. sanctions noted in 5.6(a)(i) to (v) inclusive, will remain on the student record for five years or until the student graduates, whichever is less; and

ii. sanctions noted in 5.6(a)(vi) to (xv) inclusive, will remain on the internal record permanently.

c. If, at any time in the investigation or process, it is determined that misconduct did not occur, the allegation will be dismissed and all records of the allegation destroyed.

d. If a student from another institution is found to have committed academic misconduct while enrolled at 91��ɫ via a joint program or while on a Letter of Permission, the Office of the University Registrar shall report the finding to the student’s home institution.

e. In keeping with Ontario laws governing the protection of privacy, a request for disclosure of any information about academic conduct will be considered in the first instance by the Office of the University Registrar, the University’s sole central repository for its records concerning students.

5.6 Sanctions

a. Violations of this Policy may lead to one or more sanctions, which may be imposed for an individual violation or for combined violations. Sanctions may include, but are not limited to the following:

i. written warnings or reprimands;

ii. educational development: requirement to complete a remedial education activity such as a workshop, an academic honesty assignment and/or a related assessment. If the activity is not completed, higher-level sanctions may be applied;

iii. resubmission of the piece of academic work in which the violation was committed, for evaluation with or without a grade sanction;

iv. completion of a make-up assignment or other form of assessment;

v. a lowered or failed grade, including a grade of zero, on the assignment in question;

vi. a lowered grade in the course;

vii. failure in the course (with permanent grade of record);

viii. a permanent grade of record wherein the grade assigned shall remain as the one grade of record for the course even if the course is repeated;

ix. research-based sanctions:

• completion of a required research survey paper;
• confidential Referral to the Office of Research Ethics with appropriate disclosure; and
• denial of permission to use certain facilities of the University, including computer facilities, studios, and laboratories, for a Designated period of time.

x. suspension from the University for a definite period ranging from one term to up to six consecutive terms (two years), effective either immediately or at the conclusion of the academic session during which the sanction is imposed; students may or may not be permitted to complete courses that are ongoing at the time of a decision but will be withdrawn from any courses in which they have registered and which would begin during the suspension;

xi. expulsion from the University;

xii. withholding or rescission of a 91��ɫ degree, diploma or certificate, or another credential;

xiii. rescission of admission to the University;

xiv. transcript notation, which may be permanent or for a specified period of time and may be combined with any sanction, but will always be included with suspensions, expulsions and the withholding or rescission of a degree, diploma, certificate or other credential; and

xv. suspension or expulsion from the University and withholding or rescinding a degree may only be imposed by a Faculty Appeals Committee. The Faculty Appeals Committee is required to report expulsions to the Senate Appeals Committee.

xvi. When a Faculty decides to rescind a degree, diploma or certificate, or applies another penalty that may be considered negatively transformational, the decision, with supporting documentation, must be forwarded to the Senate Appeals Committee for approval on behalf of Senate.

b. Sanctions will take into account all the circumstances of the case, including but not limited to:

i. whether it is a first or subsequent offence;

ii. the relative weight of the assignment in question;

iii. student’s academic experience;

iv. the severity of the conduct;

v. whether the student accepted responsibility for the conduct;

vi. the extent to which the integrity of the student evaluation process was impaired;

vii. the extent of the harm caused to the University, one or more of its members, and/or third parties;

viii. academic misconduct by a graduate student will generally result in more severe consequences than for undergraduate students;

ix. extenuating circumstances or aggravating factors that may help explain the action taken by a student.

5.7 Appeals

a. Appeals of decisions taken by the PPR or PPR Designate in relation to this Policy may be appealed to the Faculty Appeals Committee (see definitions). The process associated with Appeals is set out in the associated Procedures.

b. Requests from students for a stay of sanction pending appeal may be addressed to the Chair of the Faculty Appeals Committee who will make a determination.

c. When no period is specified for a transcript notation, a student may petition to the relevant Faculty Appeals Committee to have the notation removed after a period of five years from the date at which the notation was entered; a transcript notation of expulsion from the University and withholding or rescinding a degree, diploma, certificate is not appealable.

d. A student may submit a petition to the relevant Faculty Appeals Committee for the destruction of permanent records of offences. Such a petition will not be considered until at least five years after the decision was taken. If the petition is granted, however, the record shall not be destroyed before the student is eligible to graduate.

e. Appeals of decisions of a Faculty Appeals Committee are considered by the Senate Appeals Committee. The process associated with such appeals is set out in the Senate Appeals Committee Procedures.

6. Roles and Responsibilities

6.1 All members of the University community (students, faculty, instructors, staff, and invigilators) have responsibility for upholding the standards of good academic conduct as set out in this policy. All members of the University have the responsibility to:

a. identify and report incidents of academic misconduct in a timely manner to the relevant unit or Faculty Dean’s office;

b. provide assistance and cooperation in investigations and adjudication processes; and

c. engage in the promotion of education and related remedial activities associated with this Policy.

6.2 It is the responsibility of students to:

a. read and become familiar with this Policy and to comply with the principles and practices of good academic conduct set out herein;

b. become familiar with related educational resources including, but not limited to those offered through the office of the Vice-Provost academic; 91��ɫ libraries; 91��ɫ Writing Centre, and at the Faculty level.

c. follow their instructors’ expectations for using text-, image-, code-, or video-generating artificial intelligence (AI); referencing sources; group work and collaboration, and be proactive in pursuit of clarification and resources to support these expectations;

d. take necessary precautions to prevent their work from being used by other students;

e. use course and exam software in a manner that is consistent with this policy; and

f. act in accordance with this policy and/or the Policy on Responsible Conduct of Research when conducting and reporting research.

6.3 It is the responsibility of course directors and graduate supervisors to:

a. read and become familiar with this Policy and comply with the principles of good academic conduct set out herein;

b. communicate with and support students in following instructors’ expectations for using text-, image-, code-, or video-generating AI; referencing sources; conducting group work and collaboration;

c. encourage and support students to uphold the principles and standards of good academic conduct when conducting and reporting research;

d. include a statement on academic integrity on course syllabi. Menu of possible statements will be made available on the Academic Integrity page on the Vice-Provost Academic website.

e. consider regular course revisions to cultivate an environment that supports upholding good academic conduct;

f. identify and report all suspected incidents of academic misconduct to the Faculty PPR or PPR Designate; and

g. collect or assist in the collection of necessary information; participate in an investigation and be prepared to act as a witness at any hearing of the matter in order to fulfil the duty to comply with procedural fairness and natural justice.

7. Review

This policy will be reviewed every five years or at such shorter interval as Senate deems necessary.

8. Procedures

8.1 Where there are reasonable grounds to believe academic misconduct has occurred, the matter will be dealt with in accordance with principles of procedural fairness and natural justice:

a. the student will first be informed by the PPR or PPR Designate of the allegations against them and then will normally have access to any available evidence against them;

b. the student will be informed of their right to have a Support Person throughout the process;

c. the student will be provided with an opportunity to respond to the allegations and evidence against them;

d. while admissibility is not governed by the formal rules of evidence, appropriate weight will be given to evidence based on its credibility or reliability; and

e. the student will have the right to request leave to appeal a decision.

8.2 Reporting Suspicion of Academic Misconduct

a. Any person who believes academic misconduct has occurred has a responsibility to report the matter to:

i. the Course Director of the course in which the misconduct has occurred, who will in turn undertake to report the matter to the Faculty PPR or PPR Designate, or

ii. the PPR or PPR Designate of the Faculty or unit in which the misconduct occurred; if not course related, the PPR or PPR Designate will ensure the matter is reported to the appropriate University office;

iii. the PPR or PPR Designate in the Faculty of Graduate Studies on matters involving academic misconduct of a graduate student that are not course related. The PPR or PPR Designate in the Faculty of Graduate Studies will undertake to inform the relevant graduate supervisor or graduate program;

iv. the Office of the University Registrar in the case of suspected falsification of one’s identity, academic record or other admissions-related material for the purposes of gaining admission to the University, a program or course, or reactivating registration.

8.3 Responsibility for Initiating and Conducting an Investigation

a. In course-related cases of suspected academic misconduct, the responsibility for the decision to conduct an investigation lies with the PPR or PPR Designate, who will invite the course director (CD) to provide evidence and to attend any subsequent hearing on the matter.

b. In cases of suspected falsification of one’s identity, academic record or other admissions-related material for the purposes of gaining admission to the University, a program or course or reactivating registration, the PPR or PPR Designate in the Office of the University Registrar will initiate and conduct an investigation.

c. In cases where the PPR or PPR Designate do not have clear jurisdiction, the Senate Appeals Committee will identify an appropriate Faculty or University-level body to initiate and conduct an investigation.

8.4 Procedures for Initiating and Conducting an Investigation

a. Where there are reasonable grounds to believe there has been a breach of this Policy and an investigation is being initiated, the responsible authority as outlined in Section 8.3 will notify the PPR or PPR Designate (if the responsible authority is not the PPR or PPR Designate).

b. Upon receipt of notification, the PPR or PPR Designate will:

i. post a block on enrolment activity in the course, effectively barring the student from dropping the course, withdrawing from the University or obtaining transcripts. A request by a student for a transcript to be sent to another institution or to a potential employer will be processed but, if the student is found to have performed academic misconduct, the recipients of the transcript will be provided automatically with an updated transcript;

ii. notify the PPR or PPR Designate in any other relevant unit, as required, such as a student’s home Faculty or an academic program connected to the one in which the student is enrolled by way of cross-listed courses or joint programming, normally on the same day the student is notified.

c. Once it is determined that there are reasonable grounds to begin an investigation and a block on enrollment is initiated, the individual undertaking the investigation (PPR or PPR Designate) will notify the student in writing (by email or by registered mail) at the first available opportunity, normally within five business days of the block on enrollment, communicating:

i. the allegation and a summary of the evidence available and the possibility that a sanction will be imposed;

ii. that they will not be permitted to withdraw from the course in question and that a hold will be placed on their record;

iii. their right to provide a response to the allegations in writing or in person, or to discuss the allegations with the investigator (in person, by phone or videoconference), and if a response is not received within 10 business days, the PPR or PPR Designate may continue and conclude the investigation without the student. The PPR or PPR Designate may extend the student’s response timeline beyond the 10 business days if/as deemed necessary.

iv. their right to be assisted by a Support Person (if they choose), who may provide support and advice and speak on behalf of the student; and

v. that they will be provided any additional evidence that becomes available over the course of the investigation and afforded the opportunity to respond.

vi. that the student, or the PPR or PPR Designate, may elevate the matter to the Faculty Appeals Committee for review of the outcome of the investigation

d. If the student does not provide a response within 10 business days, the PPR or PPR Designate may continue and conclude the investigation. The PPR or PPR Designate may extend the student’s response timeline beyond the 10 business days if/as deemed necessary.

e. The PPR or PPR Designate will assess all available evidence, including but not limited to:

i. reviewing documents and other records, including a written or verbal response from the student, if provided;

ii. reviewing audio or video recordings or photographs;

iii. reviewing evidence produced by plagiarism or cheating detection software;

iv. interviewing the student;

v. interviewing witnesses; and

vi. examining physical evidence.

f. Once the investigation is complete, the PPR or PPR Designate will determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a breach occurred.

g. Where the PPR or PPR Designate believes the evidence gathered points to academic conduct grave enough to warrant a suspension, expulsion, or other penalties that are negatively transformational, the PPR or PPR Designate shall refer the matter in the first instance to the Faculty Appeals Committee for review. In such instances, the Faculty Appeals Committee process will take effect, otherwise the process outlined hereunder 8.4 will be continued by the PPR or PPR Designate.

h. If it is determined that a breach occurred, the PPR or PPR Designate will initiate a check for past offences.

i. The PPR or PPR Designate will take into account the circumstances of the case in deciding appropriate sanction(s) in accordance with the Policy.

j. The decision will be provided to the student in writing (sent by email or registered mail), and will include the following:

i. a summary of the investigation process including relevant timelines;

ii. a summary of the key evidence obtained during the investigation, including the response of the student to the allegation;

iii. an indication of which key evidence was considered credible and reliable;

iv. the decision reached on a balance of probabilities and the reasons for the decision;

v. the sanction, if any, being imposed including a rationale for the sanction;

vi. if a sanction is being imposed, information regarding the student’s right to appeal and path for appeal; and

vii. a request that the student acknowledge receipt of the decision via email contact information provided in the decision letter or email sent to the student.

k. Absent the receipt of student acknowledgement within 10 business days, the decision will stand. The PPR or PPR Designate may extend the student’s response timeline beyond the 10 business days if/as deemed necessary.

l. The decision will be provided to the PPR in the student’s home Faculty if it differs from the Faculty or unit in which the investigation was conducted.

8.5 High Volume Academic Misconduct

a. The PPR or PPR Designate will investigate at least five of the alleged breaches of misconduct using the procedures set out in section 8.4.

b. If the PPR or PPR Designate concludes on a balance of probabilities after a minimum of five investigations, that academic misconduct of the same nature occurred in the majority of the cases, the decision may be applied to the other students implicated in the investigation.

c. The PPR or PPR Designate shall communicate the decision to the students in writing (sent by email or registered mail), addressing the items set out in Section 8.4(j). The names of any other students involved will not be disclosed.

d. Upon receipt of the decision, the student may request, within 10 business days, that their case be reviewed individually by the PPR or PPR Designate. The PPR or PPR Designate may reassess the evidence and, if the original decision is confirmed, will confirm the original sanction.

8.6 Records of Academic Misconduct Findings

a. Records of academic misconduct findings will be kept in accordance with Section 5.5 of the Policy.

b. In cases where a finding results in a sanction of transcript notation, the following language will be used:

i. For the withholding or recission of a degree: “91��ɫ degree withheld/rescinded by the University on (date of decision).”

ii. For suspension from the University: “Suspended by the University for academic misconduct for ___ months effective (date suspension starts).”

iii. For limitations on students’ registration: "Registration limited by the University for (dates of the terms for which limits were applied).”

iv. For removal from the student’s program of study: “Removed from program of study by the University for academic misconduct for ___ months effective (date suspension starts).”

v. For expulsion: “Expelled by the University for academic misconduct (effective date).”

vi. If an imposed sanction requires an alteration of a student's academic record, a copy of the decision will be sent from the Faculty Dean’s office to the Office of the University Registrar for implementation. The decision will be retained by the Office of the University Registrar for a time consistent with Section 5.5 of the Policy.

c. Where a finding is related to course work, a note shall be placed on the Student Information System to bar the student’s withdrawal from the course(s) in which the breach occurred.

8.7 Appeals

a. Appeals relating to any decision taken by a PPR or PPR Designate in relation to this Policy shall be considered by the Faculty Appeals Committee.

b. If the student wishes to appeal the decision, the student must submit a notice of appeal to the Faculty Appeals Committee within 10 business days of receiving the decision.

c. Upon receipt of a notice of appeal, the Faculty Appeals Committee will notify the PPR or PPR Designate and give them an opportunity to submit a response to the notice of appeal. The PPR or PPR Designate shall normally respond within 10 business days.

d. All documents considered by the PPR or PPR Designate will be considered by the Faculty Appeals Committee and a copy of the evidence, as set out in Section 8.4(e), will be given to the student. Both the student and the PPR or PPR Designate may submit additional supporting documentation by no later than two business days prior to the hearing.

e. The Faculty Appeals Committee will provide the student with a copy of the Committee’s procedures.

f. All parties will receive not less than 10 business days notice of the time and location of the hearing, which may be held in person or by videoconference.

g. All parties must inform the Faculty Appeals Committee of their intention to call witnesses and file names of these witnesses at least five business days prior to the hearing.

h. Only the Faculty Appeals Committee members and Secretary, PPR or PPR Designate, the student and their Support Person, and the witnesses may be present at a hearing. The faculty member(s) or person(s) who reported the academic misconduct or other persons with knowledge of the allegation may attend as witness(es). Committee members are expected to act with impartiality (as defined in section 4).

i. Witnesses shall be present at the hearing only while testifying, but exceptions may be made at the discretion of the Faculty Appeals Committee. The Chair of the Committee has full authority to assure an orderly and expeditious hearing. Any person who disrupts a hearing, or who fails to adhere to the rulings of the Committee may be required to leave. Witnesses will be reminded about the expectation of confidentiality.

j. If a student fails to appear at a hearing, the hearing may proceed, and the Faculty Appeals Committee may issue a decision. The Committee may postpone the hearing if the student can establish, in advance of the hearing and to the satisfaction of the Committee, that there are circumstances beyond their control which make an appearance impossible or unfairly burdensome.

k. Electronic recordings of hearings may be permitted if all parties agree. The Secretary of the Faculty Appeals Committee is responsible for coordinating and maintaining, within the Faculty Dean’s office, the sole electronic record of the hearing.

l. The Faculty Appeals Committee shall consider the facts and circumstances of the case and determine, on a balance of probabilities, whether a breach has occurred and/or whether the sanction imposed by the PRR or PRR Designate is appropriate.

m. If the Faculty Appeals Committee confirms the original finding, it may maintain the original sanction, or it may change the sanction.

n. If a sanction is imposed that requires an alteration of a student's academic record, a copy of the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee will be sent to the Office of the University Registrar for the sanction to be implemented. The decision will be retained by the Office of the University Registrar for a time consistent with Section 5.5 of the Policy.

o. A record of the proceeding will be kept in the student’s file to be housed in the student’s home Faculty, Dean’s office. The Record of the Proceeding shall include:

i. the allegation of academic misconduct and all documentary evidence filed with the Faculty Appeals Committee;

ii. the notice of the Hearing; and

iii. the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee.

p. The Faculty Appeals Committee Secretary is responsible for ensuring all relevant records of the proceeding are included in the file and filed appropriately.

q. The student may subsequently appeal the decision of the Faculty Appeals Committee to the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC) on the grounds for appeal set out in the Senate Appeals Committee Procedures.

The post Academic Conduct Policy and Procedures appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

Responsibility: Director, ORE; Manager, Advisor, Coordinator, ORE; members of Human Participants Review Committee (HPRC)

1. Scope of Research Ethics Review:

1.1. All University-based research involving human participants, whether funded or non-funded, faculty or student, scholarly, commercial, or consultative, is subject to the ethics review process. Research subject to review includes, but is not limited to, surveys, questionnaires, interviews, and participant observation. It should be noted that if researchers at 91��ɫ reference their affiliation to the University or use any of its resources when engaging in research, they must submit their research proposal to the HPRC for research ethics review in accordance with this policy.

1.2. As per TCPS2 (2022, p. 14) research is “defined as an undertaking intended to extend knowledge through a disciplined inquiry and/or systematic investigation. The term “disciplined inquiry” refers to an inquiry that is conducted with the expectation that the method, results, and conclusions will be able to withstand the scrutiny of the relevant research community”. Human participants are “individuals whose data, biological materials, or responses to interventions, stimuli or questions by the researcher, are relevant to answering the research question(s)” (2022, p. 14).

1.3. All course-based research activities involving human participants are also subject to REB review. While the primary purpose is pedagogical, they may pose possible risks to those recruited to participate in such activities, and from their perspective, such activities may appear indistinguishable from those that meet the TCPS’s definition of research (2022, p. 14).

1.4. All pilot and preliminary research activities involving human participants are also subject to HPRC review. Pilot studies are smaller versions of the main study (e.g., fewer participants, shorter duration) with the purpose of assessing the feasibility and/or inform the design of a subsequent study intended to address a research question (2022, p. 14).

1.5. The HPRC only reviews research that falls within the scope of research as defined by the Tri-Council Policy Statement; however, the HPRC is responsible for reviewing research involving human participants to determine if it is exempt from ethical review. Researchers are responsible for obtaining confirmation from the HPRC on whether or not their project is exempt from ethics review. In accordance with the TCPS, research not requiring REB review and approval include:

1.5.1. activity not defined as research or does not involve human participants as defined by the TCPS2. The key consideration when making the determination as to whether ethics review is required is to ascertain whether research is the intended purpose of the undertaking or not. Researchers are advised to consult with the Office of Research Ethics when unclear as to whether their research project requires ethics review before commencing any research activities;

1.5.2. legally and publicly accessible information or data where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy;

1.5.3. observation of people in public spaces where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy, is not epidemiological in nature, involves no direct interaction or intervention by the researcher, and dissemination does not identify specific individuals;

1.5.4. interaction with individuals who are not themselves the focus of the research (e.g., collecting information from authorized personnel about the ordinary course of their employment, organization, policies, procedures, professional practices, or statistical reports);

1.5.5. research that relies exclusively on secondary use of anonymous information, or anonymous human biological materials, so long as the process of data linkage or recording or dissemination of results does not generate identifiable information. However, when there is a reasonable prospect that this data could generate information identifiable as originating from a specific Indigenous community or a segment of the Indigenous community at large, REB review is required;

1.5.6. quality assurance and improvement studies, program evaluation and performance reviews, testing within normal educational requirements when used exclusively for assessment, management, or improvement purposes;

1.5.7. creative practice whereby an artist makes or interprets a work or works of art or studies the process of how a work of art is generated. However, research that employs creative practice to obtain responses from participants that will be analyzed to answer a research question is subject to REB review;

1.5.8. exploratory phase of a research project where the intent of the researcher is to assess the feasibility of the project, establish relationships and/or partnerships with potential participants or to inform the research design or questions. The preliminary phase of research should not be confused with “pilot studies” or “preliminary research”. Researchers are still required to submit an ethics protocol which clearly outlines activities to be undertaken in the exploratory phase of the research so as to afford the HPRC the ability to assess whether ethics review and approval of that portion of the research may in fact be required.

2. Research Ethics Review Process and Procedures:

2.1. Principles of Research Review:

2.1.1 Respect for human dignity is the underlying value of ethics review. Per TCSP2 respect for human dignity is expressed through three core principles: Respect for Persons, Concern for Welfare, and Justice.

2.1.2 Respect for persons recognizes the intrinsic value of human beings (including their data and biological materials) and incorporates the dual moral obligation to respect autonomy while protecting those with developing, impaired, or diminished autonomy. Respecting autonomy requires participants’ free, informed, and ongoing consent and choice. Human participants should be clearly, fairly, and fully informed of the research objectives, procedures, foreseeable risks, and potential benefits. Their decision to participate should be fully voluntary (TCPS2 2022: 6).

2.1.3 The welfare of a person is the quality of that person’s experience of life in all its aspects (physical, mental, and spiritual health, economic, and social circumstances etc.). Researchers and HPRC should aim to protect the welfare of participants, and, in some circumstances, to promote that welfare in view of any foreseeable risks associated with the research (TCPS2 2022: 7). The risks (if any) should never be excessively harmful, and the risk-to-benefit ratio should be taken into consideration when proposing the research. Research design should be especially sensitive to ethical issues when the research involves not legally competent individuals and vulnerable populations as well as when it involves risky procedures, deception, or withholding of information. Participants’ anonymity and confidentiality shall be fully protected, unless this right is expressly waived (or unless disclosure is authorized or required by law).

2.1.4 Justice refers to the obligation to treat people fairly and equitably. Equity requires distributing the benefits and burdens of research participation in such a way that no segment of the population is unduly burdened by the harms of research or denied the benefits of the knowledge generated from it. Historically some groups of people have been either excluded or inappropriately targeted in research. As such, the recruitment process should be based on inclusion and/or exclusion criteria that are justified by the research question (TCPS2 2022: 8).

2.2. Research Ethics Review Procedures:

2.2.1. All researchers must complete and submit the relevant Protocol Form for ethics approval to the appropriate ethics review body. The review shall be conducted according to the principles and procedures set out in this document.

2.2.2. Research that is subject to ethics review and that is not approved may not be undertaken. Researchers found to have conducted research without ethics approval and/or contrary to an approved ethics protocol may face serious sanctions (please see the Tri-Agency Framework for Responsible Conduct of Research and the YUFA collective Agreement, sub-section 11.03-9 for further information as to the implications of non-compliance with this policy.)

2.2.3. The appropriate level of review is determined by the nature of the research and the level of risks or foreseeable risks to the participants. Ultimate determination of the appropriate level of review rests with the HPRC. Pursuant to the TCSP2 Article 6.1, the default requirement for research involving human participants is ethics review by the full HPRC.

2.2.4. Full Ethics Review - At 91��ɫ, research that poses greater than minimal risk to participants is reviewed by the full HPRC. TCPS2, Chapter 2, defines minimal risk as: “research in which the probability and magnitude of possible harms implied by participation in the research is no greater than those encountered by participants in those aspects of their everyday life that relate to the research”. Further, negative decisions by Delegated Review committees, that is, a decision to not approve a protocol before the committee, must be referred to the HPRC for full review. The HPRC will communicate the result of the final review.

2.2.5. HPRC-Delegated Ethics Review - The TCPS2 describes a “proportionate approach” to the ethics review and clearance process for minimal risk research, Article 6.12. Under this approach, 91��ɫ’s HPRC delegates authority to individual members of the HPRC, including non-voting members such as the Director, ORE and/or Manager and Coordinator, ORE (each a “Reviewer”) for ethics review and clearance of research that poses no more than minimal risk to participants. New submissions of minimal risk research, amendments and annual renewals of approved minimal risk research shall be reviewed by no less than two delegated reviewers. Where delegated reviewers decide that a protocol should not be approved, the protocol will be referred to the HPRC for full board review.

2.2.6. Graduate Theses and Dissertations Research Ethics Review - Ethics review of research that is conducted for the purposes of completion of graduate theses or dissertation that is minimal risk and/or is not funded (please consult the Faculty of Graduate Studies for further information as to what constitutes “funded research” in a graduate context) will be conducted by the delegates of the HPRC, namely, the Chair/Vice-Chair HPRC and Associate Dean(s), Research, Faculty of Graduate studies. Where delegated reviewers decide that a protocol should not be approved, the protocol will be referred to the HPRC for full board review.

2.2.7. Graduate and Undergraduate Course-related Research (including MRPs) Ethics Review - Course-related, non-funded, minimal risk research proposed by students in Departments, Schools or Graduate Programs, with the exception of theses and dissertations, are subject to review by the relevant Faculty/Departmental level Ethics Review committee. Departmental/Faculty level review committees must be comprised – at a minimum – of two members.

2.2.8. Administrative Review - For minimal risk research and/or protocols that have undergone a delegated review by another REB, administrative reviews will be conducted by a member of the Office of Research Ethics (Director, Manager, Policy Advisor or Coordinator – with oversight from Sr. ORE rep).

2.2.9. Annual Renewals - At a minimum, research that extends beyond one year and/or the expiry date of the certificate of ethics approval must be renewed. Researchers must submit an application for renewal of ethics approval prior to the expiration of the approval certificate in order to maintain on-going compliance.

2.2.10. Progress Report - Research that is more than minimal risk may require and be subject to greater post approval monitoring to ensure the continued protection of participants rights and researcher’s responsibilities. Consequently, the HPRC may require researchers to provide more frequent progress reports on the status of their research than that of the standard Annual Renewal application. The need for progress reports will be project specific and determined on a case-by-case basis. The need for and number of progress requirements are the discretion of the HPRC.

2.2.11. Amendments to Protocols - Researchers are required to complete and submit an amendment application outlining any proposed changes to their approved protocol, to the HPRC in as timely a manner as possible. Approval for said changes must be received prior to the continuation of the research. Researchers may not proceed with their proposed amended research until such time as the proposed amendments have received ethics approval. Substantive changes to approved protocols may be required to undergo full committee review and the subsequent submission of a new protocol.

2.2.12. Adverse and Unanticipated Events - Researchers are required to report any unanticipated or adverse events to the HRPC as soon as possible, or immediately if the risk to the participants of the event is significant. Documentation of said events must be submitted to the Office of Research Ethics as soon as possible and should include a description of the event or issue and how the researcher has addressed the matter. The HPRC will review reports of adverse or unanticipated events and may, as a consequence, require the researchers to amend their protocols to prevent future recurrences.

2.2.13. End of Project Reporting - Researchers are required to complete an “End of Project Report” so as to notify the HPRC of the completion of their research project.

2.2.14. Incidental Findings - Researchers are obligated to ensure that participants are provided with the information necessary to maintain consent to participate. Thus, should information become known or available that may have an impact on participants or may impact their continued participation in the project, researchers are required to inform the participants as soon as possible. Similarly, should it become known to researchers that there are new potential significant risks to participants or substantial benefits, participants must be informed of the changes immediately. Similarly, any material incidental findings (i.e. findings that have been interpreted as having significant welfare implications for the participant, whether health-related, psychological or social) may be required to be disclosed to the participants. The Office of Research Ethics must receive documentation of any changes to the risks to or benefits for the participants or any material incidental findings of which researchers become aware and/or that have been disclosed to participants.

2.2.15. Confidentiality: All information provided by Principal Investigators is confidential and shall be retained in the files of the Office of Research Ethics on that basis to the fullest extent possible by law.

2.3. Reconsideration and Appeals:

2.3.1. A researcher may request reconsideration of a decision made by the HPRC within 30 days of receiving notice of the HPRC’s decision. The onus is on researchers to justify the grounds on which they request reconsideration and to indicate any alleged breaches to the established research ethics review process, or any elements of the HPRC decision that are not supported by the TCPS2. The HPRC shall review the reconsideration request and respond to the researcher within 30 days of receiving the request.

2.3.2. Should the HPRC and the researcher fail to come to an agreement with regards to the committee’s decision, the researcher may appeal the ethics review body’s decision to the 91��ɫ Ethics Appeal Committee which shall conduct an ethics review of the research Protocol and the procedures followed by the body that conducted the first review. Decisions of the 91��ɫ Ethics Appeal Committee are final and binding.

The post SOP: HPRC Ethics Review Process and Procedures appeared first on Secretariat Policies.

Emergency Procedure, Plans, or Public Safety Information are available in accessible format upon request.

1. Purpose

This Emergency Response Plan aims to keep the University community safe.�� In alignment with University’s Community Safety Strategic Plan, the Emergency Response Plan (the Plan) establishes the framework for responding to emergency related risks that the University may face and outlines collective and individual roles and responsibilities in responding to and managing an emergency.�� The plan facilitates and guides the effective coordination of human and physical resources, services, and activities necessary to:

• provide for the safety and health of people
• save lives
• reduce suffering
• protect public health
• protect infrastructure
• protect property
• protect the environment
• reduce economic and social losses

2. Scope

The Emergency Response plan aims to promote the safety of students, faculty, staff, and visitors, protect property, and help ensure the continuance of critical University operations during Level 2 and Level 3 Emergencies, as provided under “Definitions”, below.

3. Definitions

Activation: decisions and actions taken to implement an emergency response procedure or to open an Emergency Operations Centre.

Business Continuity Plan: a detailed guide on how to operate an organization’s critical functions during emergency events and safeguard its core mission and long-term health and lessen the impact of an emergency event.

Command: the act of directing, ordering, or controlling by explicit statutory, regulatory, or delegated authority.

Emergency: a situation or an impending situation that constitutes a danger of major proportions that could result in serious harm to persons or substantial damage to property and that is caused by the forces of nature, a disease or other health risk, an accident or an act whether intentional or otherwise.

Level 1 Emergency: a minor, localized emergency that normally has a short duration and a quick recovery time. It is handled within the normal scope of University operations. The emergency may result in minimal damage or disruption. Examples include localized power outages, plumbing failures and small hazardous material spills.

Level 2 Emergency: an emergency that affects multiple areas of the University and requires a degree of coordination among those areas. It may interrupt academic activities and/or administrative operations for an extended period. Examples include fires, large gas leaks and large hazardous material spills.

The EMT will be convened, EPG may be convened, and the EOC may be Activated.

Level 3 emergency: a catastrophic event that affects all or most areas of the University and is beyond the capacity of the University to respond through regular operations. It may require all divisions of the University to respond, support from external agencies, and may result in serious harm to the health, safety or well-being of people or animals and widespread property damage. Recovery may take weeks. Governments may declare a state of emergency. Examples include major earthquakes or long-term city-wide power outages. The EMT and EPG will be convened and the EOC will be Activated.

Emergency Exercise: a simulated emergency in which people carry out actions, functions, and responsibilities that would be expected of them in a real emergency as a test of the University’s emergency procedures.

Emergency Management Team (EMT): a group of University staff that may be convened to direct the University’s response to an emergency.

Emergency Operations Centre (EOC): a temporary or permanent facility from which incident management support to an Incident Command is co-ordinated. It must have appropriate technological and telecommunications systems to ensure effective communication in an emergency. The main purpose of the EOC is to serve as a single focal point for management of emergency information, decision-making and resource support and allocation in an emergency. 91��ɫ has a dedicated facility as a primary location for its EOC and designated backup and virtual locations, either of which can be Activated if the primary EOC location is inaccessible.

Emergency Policy Group (EPG): a group of executive University staff led by the president (or designate) that provides strategic policy direction and priority setting for managing the economic, legal, and social impacts of an emergency on the University.

Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee: a pan-University body comprised of senior representatives of University divisions that is responsible for assisting the Community Safety Department with the emergency management program.

Environment: refers to air, water, or soil quality and to plants or wildlife that may be affected by a technological, human-caused, or natural disaster.

��Hazard: a phenomenon, substance, human activity, or condition that may cause loss of life, injury or other health impacts, property damage, loss of livelihoods and services, social and economic disruption, or environmental damage. These may include natural, technological, or human-caused Incidents or some combination. For a sample of hazards that the University may encounter, see Appendix A.

Incident: an occurrence or event that requires a response to protect people, property, the environment, finances and/or services.

Incident Commander (IC): is normally the first responder to an incident and is the person who assumes responsibility for coordinating the emergency response at the site of an Incident. The IC may be transferred to another person as emergency response progresses. Incident Action Plan (IAP): an oral or written plan containing objectives and strategies for managing an Incident. It may include information regarding logistics, command, communications, resources, and other important information for management of an Incident.

Incident Management System (IMS): a standardized approach to emergency management encompassing personnel, facilities, equipment, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure. The IMS is a proven, international best practice, which is predicated on the understanding that in any and every Incident certain management functions must be carried out regardless of the number of persons who are available or involved in the emergency response.

Recovery Plan: a documented set of procedures developed to support short-term and long-term priorities for fully restoring all operations after an emergency.

University Divisions: For the purposes of this policy, “University Divisions” refers to the following: Division of the President; Division of the Provost and Vice-President Academic; Division of the Vice-President Research and Innovation; Division of Finance and Administration; Division of Equity, People and Culture; Division of Advancement; and Division of Students.

4. Roles and Responsibilities

4.1 Vice-President Finance and Administration

The vice-president finance and administration (VPFA) is responsible for managing Level 2 and Level 3 Emergencies, including but not limited to:

• assigning an EMT leader
• activating the EOC
• consulting with the Chair of Senate (or designate), per Senate policy on class cancellations, and with the provost (or designate), on the need to cancel and/or suspend academic activities

4.2 Executive Director, Community Safety

The executive director community safety is responsible for:

• recommending to the VPFA declaration of an emergency
• convening the EMT and assuming leadership role until otherwise assigned
• creating/maintaining an updated contact list for EMT and EPG personnel and support agencies

4.3 University Divisions

Each University Division is responsible for:

• developing and maintaining a Business Continuity Plan
• creating, maintaining, and sharing an updated list of divisional personnel with the Community Safety Department

4.4 External Partners

Officials designated under this procedure may call upon external agencies/organizations to assist the University in an emergency; they include but are not limited to, the following:

• fire services
• GO Transit Service
• Hydro One
• municipal, provincial, and federal departments
• non-governmental organizations
• paramedic services
• police services
• private sector partners and vendors
• public health services
• transit services
• Toronto Office of Emergency Management (municipal support)
• Office of the Fire Marshal and Emergency Management through the Provincial EOC (provincial or federal support)

4.5 Incident Management System

The Plan uses the Ontario Incident Management System (IMS) as a standardized response management system, designed to enable effective, efficient incident management by integrating a combination of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and communications operating within a common organizational structure.

• ��Command (green) – co-ordinating and directing the response, ensuring responder safety and ensuring achievement of objectives;
• Operations (red) – co-ordinating and supporting response at the scene, based on immediate needs and Incident Action Plans (IAPs);
• Planning (blue) – collecting and analyzing information, conducting long-range planning and documenting IAPs;
• Logistics (yellow) - obtaining essential resources to support response;
• Finance and Administration (grey) – managing and tracking costs and procurement associated with the response; and
• Communications (purple) – developing, co-ordinating and disseminating information and communications related to the emergency.

4.6 Emergency Response Structure and Functions

a. Emergency Policy Group (EPG)

The EPG is responsible for providing overall direction to manage the economic, legal, and social impacts of an emergency.

In a Level 2 Emergency, the EPG may be convened and may liaise with the EMT leader. In a Level 3 Emergency, the EPG will be convened and will liaise with the EOC director.

EPG membership includes but is not limited to the following:

• President (EPG chair)
• Provost and Vice-President Academic
• Vice-President Finance and Administration
• Vice-President Advancement
• Vice-President Equity, People and Culture
• Vice-President Research & Innovation
• Vice-Provost Students
• University Secretary
• General Counsel
• Chief communications and marketing officer

b. Site Incident Command

The incident commander is responsible for:

• establishing command and a command post (i.e. a location where the incident commander role is carried out. It should be located outside the hazard zone but be close enough to maintain command);
• establishing objectives for managing the emergency at the site and a strategy to achieve them;
• implementing the strategy established for meeting the objectives;
• ensuring that required resources are acquired, coordinated and deployed;
• maintaining a communication link with the EMT leader, once activated;
• demobilizing resources when they are no longer required;
• providing necessary briefings/de-briefings; and
• assisting in the development of an after-action report.

c. Emergency Management Team (EMT)

The EMT operates under the direction of the EPG. It may be activated in a Level 2 Emergency and will be activated in a Level 3 Emergency.

The EMT leader is responsible for convening the EMT to coordinate all aspects of the University’s response to an Emergency.

The EMT is responsible for:

• implementing the EPG’s directions;
• supporting the Incident Commander and site personnel;
• maintaining continuity of the University academic, research and administrative functions to the extent possible outside of the Emergency incident site;
• obtaining and coordinating resources, services, and supports as needed to effectively respond to and recover from an emergency; and
• developing, coordinating, and disseminating internal and external information and communications.

Every EMT member is responsible for pre-identifying designates who can assume the member’s responsibilities should they be absent during an Emergency.

Depending on the Emergency, the EMT may include the following:

• assistant vice-president facilities services
• assistant vice-president finance and chief financial officer
• assistant vice-president human resources
• assistant vice-president labour relations
• chief information officer
• director health safety and employee well-being
• director housing services and/or residence life
• director media relations
• director risk management
• director security services
• executive director ancillary services
• executive director(s) division of student services
• manager emergency preparedness
• senior executive officer academic administration
• University registrar
• general counsel

When the EOC is activated the EMT leader will act as the EOC director, and EMT members will convene in the EOC.

d. Emergency Management Team (EMT) Command Staff

The EMT is activated by the VPFA. The VPFA also assigns the EMT Leader.

EMT Command staff consist of the following positions:

i. Emergency Management Team Leader

The EMT Leader is responsible for all incident activities, including:

• • ensuring the VPFA is notified of the emergency;
  • managing the EOC (e.g., ensuring required EMT positions are filled);
  • liaising with the Incident Commander and EPG and approving the IAP;
  • determining what sections are needed and assigning section chiefs;
  • ensuring that section chiefs are staffing their sections, as required;
  • designating the geographical boundaries of an Emergency area;
  • setting out priorities and objectives for each operational period and ensuring that they are carried out;
  • authorizing extraordinary expenditures of funds during the emergency;
  • confirming the adequacy of expenditure limits (in purchasing by-law);
  • approving information that the Emergency Information Officer releases;
  • recommending to the VPFA and/or EPG to terminate the Emergency response and that the University implement its recovery plan; and
  • arranging debriefings and developing an after-action report.

ii. Safety Officer

The safety officer monitors safety conditions, develops health and safety measures, and is tasked with creating systems and procedures related to the overall health and safety of all incident responders. Responsibilities include:

• • working closely with Planning, Operations, Logistics and Communications to ensure incident responders and staff are as safe as possible under the circumstances;
  • reviewing the IAP to identify health and safety concerns and providing overall safety authorization for operational activities prior to implementation;
  • providing advice to the EMT regarding preventive and protective actions, personal protective equipment requirements, exposure risks (physical, chemical, biological, electrical, radioactive, etc.) and recommended protective strategies;
  • providing psychosocial supports to employees, as required; and
  • altering, suspending, or terminating any activities deemed hazardous.

�� iii. Emergency Information Officer

The emergency information officer co-ordinates internal and external communications. The EMT leader must approve all information the emergency information officer releases. Responsibilities include:

• • advising the EMT leader on issues related to communications, Emergency information dissemination and media relations;
  • informing the EMT leader of relevant emergency information obtained from the community and media;
  • ensuring there is a primary contact for anyone who requires information about the incident and response;
  • coordinating with emergency information staff from other organizations to ensure that clear and consistent information is issued;
  • establishing an Emergency Information Centre or media area and key messages for spokespersons and media products; and
  • arranging media interviews and/or briefings.

��iv. Liaison Officer

The liaison officer is the primary contact for external incident management support partners. Responsibilities include:

• • advising the EMT leader of issues related to outside assistance;
  • maintaining and updating a list of supporting partners;
  • providing briefings to partner representatives about the operation; and
  • in conjunction with the EMT leader, debriefing with EMT personnel and appropriate organizations and preparing an after-action report.

v. Scribe

During an Emergency or Emergency Exercise, all participants and EMT members must maintain logs of actions taken and decisions made. Scribe staff are assigned to maintain summary logs.

vi. Subject Matter Experts or Specialists

Depending on the nature of an emergency, other subject matter experts or specialists may be asked to join as EMT Command staff.

e. Emergency Management Team (EMT) General Staff

EMT General Staff are organized under the following sections:

i. Operations Section

The Operations Section is responsible for all tactical incident operations, including:

• • implementing the IAP;
  • organizing and assigning the emergency resources;
  • maintaining direct contact with the site(s) and supporting the overall site response;
  • gathering current situation information from the site and sharing it with other sections of the EMT, as appropriate;
  • coordinating emergency resources requested from the site; and
  • directing deployment of all EMT-issued resources to the incident commander.

��ii. Planning Section

The Planning Section is responsible for collecting, evaluating, and disseminating operational information related to the incident, including:

• • preparing the IAP;
  • maintaining information on the current situation, the forecasted situation and the status of resources assigned to the incident;
  • tracking the status of EMT-issued resources;
  • maintaining all EMT documentation;
  • conducting planning activities and making recommendations for action;
  • obtaining technical experts for the EMT, as required;
  • planning for EMT demobilization of personnel and resources; and
  • facilitating the transition to the recovery phase.

iii. Logistics Section

The Logistics Section is responsible for supporting the logistics-related portion of the IAP and acquiring facilities, services, and resources in support of the emergency, which can include personnel, facilities, equipment, supplies, technology, telecommunications and transportation. This will include:

• • obtaining, maintaining, and accounting for essential personnel, equipment, supplies and services beyond those immediately accessible to Operations; and
  • when needed, contacting external partners to assist in providing resources and services that are not available through the University.

iv. Finance and Administration Section

The Finance and Administration Section is responsible for supporting an incident through cost analysis and ensuring compliance with financial policies and procedures, including:

• • monitoring the expenditure process, and response and recovery costs;
  • coordinating claims and compensation;
  • tracking and reporting on personnel time;
  • developing service agreements and/or contracts; and
  • overseeing the purchasing and procurement processes.

v. Communications Section

The Communications Section is responsible for developing, coordinating, and disseminating information and communications to ensure timely, accurate accessible and consistent messaging internally to the University community and externally to the public.

Depending on the nature of an emergency, different types of messages may be issued:

• • to alert the 91��ɫ community about the emergency (e.g. statements from administration);
  • to inform 91��ɫ community about what steps they should take to respond to the emergency (e.g., evacuate a building or avoid a certain part of campus);
  • to inform the 91��ɫ community and the public about what steps the University is taking to respond to the emergency and to restore normal operations (e.g., through regular status updates); and
  • to correct misinformation as required (e.g., through social media responses and public statements).

Internal messaging will be issued to students, staff, and faculty through the Community Safety Department’s emergency notification system. External statements and communications will be issued by Communications and Public Affairs Media Relations:

• • In a Level 1 Emergency, the University’s emergency notification system may be used to communicate internally to affected community members.
  • In a Level 2 Emergency, the University’s emergency notification system will be used to communicate internally to community members. Communications and Public Affairs may provide external statements.
  • In a Level 3 Emergency, the University’s emergency notification system will be used to communicate internally to community members. Communications and Public Affairs will provide external statements.

Emergency communications will be carried out only by designated persons using official channels.

All Emergency communications products and key messages will be created in consultation with and are subject to the approval of the EMT leader (or designate) and, when the incident permits, with the approval of the EPG.

5. Review

The VPFA will conduct a review of this procedure, in consultation with the Emergency Preparedness Advisory Committee, every five years at a minimum.

The review of this Plan will be informed by any Emergency exercise and debriefing meetings held after Level 2 or Level 3 emergencies that occur.

6. Distribution

The Plan will also be distributed to employees who have a direct involvement in the University’s emergency response procedures.

The post Emergency Response Plan appeared first on Secretariat Policies.