CJC Comments: Appeals of Hearing Board Decisions

Current practice described in Krause Report

Complainant or accused can appeal based on certain stated grounds. All appeals heard by board(s). JA has no right to appeal.

Proposed practice in Krause Report

Complainant (because of different role in the recast model) has no right of appeal. Accused or Office of Student Conduct may appeal based on certain stated grounds. If sanction involves suspension or dismissal, Review Board will hear appeal. All other appeals will be heard by a single “Conduct Review Officer” to be appointed by VP for Student and Academic Services.

I disagree with the Krause report on this issue— students should have the right to appeal in all cases. secondly, what is to prevent collaboration between “conduct review officer” and JA? I would predict under the proposed model a very low appeal success rate, as the review officer would not want to “go against” the JA and open himself to criticism.

The following is not a sentence or clause, and I can’t tell what it means. Would suggest rewording so the meaning is clear - “Agreed upon suspension and expulsion JA and accused may not agree to suspend or dismiss;…”

A single “conduct review officer” sounds efficient, i.e. in ensuring that few appeals succeed.

There are two changes proposed here. One removes the right of the person who brought the complaint to object to the decision by the Hearing Board. Currently, this happens, but only rarely. The second change involves how appeals by accused/convicted person will be handled. The specific appeal process used will depend upon the severity of the penality.

My assessment is that the current system works and is simpler. If the administration is willing to add a new position to the judicial process, I would rather see the Judicial Codes Counsellor function retained or another position added to the JA’s office to handle cases.

Given the nature of Ms. Krause’s proposals, I think this issue is closely linked to that of the judicial offices’ independence.

Since I’m not sure whether you want to see the same long post twice from me, I refer you to my remarks under “Independence of Judicial Process”.

I disagree with Ms. Krause. There are only 12 cases presented to the boards in 2005–06. And only one of them is to the Review boards. So I don’t think eliminating this procedure will increse the efficiency much. But the price is high, since innocient accused will have more incentive to appeal to the boards.