Academic Misconduct and Discipline

An academic misconduct file usually begins with an instructor's report and a meeting with the dean of the faculty. We settle the chronology and the supporting documents with the student before that meeting, because the dean determines at this stage whether to close the file, give a written warning or refer the allegation to a hearing. Where a dean closes a file, the allegation is not counted against the student if a later allegation is made.

An integrity plan is a diversionary agreement between a dean and a student, available only where the misconduct is admitted and the student has no prior record. We advise on what an admission settles and what an admission gives up, since neither the dean nor the student is obliged to agree to a plan. Getting that assessment right early matters, because a draft plan that is proposed and then refused cannot be raised before the President's Committee by either side.

When an allegation is referred to the President's Advisory Committee on Student Discipline, the initiator files a Statement of Case and the student answers with a Statement of Response. Working from the course materials, the assignment file and the student's own record of the work, our lawyers draft that response. The Statement of Response is the document the committee reads first, and everything argued later is measured against what the response said.

Students come to us once a hearing date is set and the committee's rules have been sent to them. Our lawyers prepare the case to those rules, published by the Office of the University Counsel, because the rules need not follow an adversarial model and an inquiry model is often applied instead. That difference changes how a student gives evidence and how far a representative can press a point.

The committee finds, on a balance of probabilities, whether the alleged misconduct occurred, and then reports its findings to the President. We test the material the initiator relies on against the contemporaneous record, including drafts, file histories, submission logs and the assignment instructions in force at the time. We put that comparison before the committee in writing, so the finding rests on the documents and not on recollection.

Discipline is imposed by the President, not by the committee that heard the allegation. We make submissions on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances, on the student's record and on the measure that fits the finding, because the President may take a prior academic misconduct record into account. Where a finding is unavoidable, the argument that remains is about which measure the President chooses.

When an allegation falls outside academic work, a student code of conduct applies and a separate committee hears the matter. Working from the code's own definitions of prohibited conduct and the limits on where the code reaches, our lawyers test whether the conduct alleged is conduct the university can discipline at all. A code that reaches off campus reaches only on stated conditions, and those conditions are worth contesting before any finding is made about the facts.

Students instruct us on sexual misconduct files where an investigation report, and not a hearing, produces the findings the President relies on. We act both for the student answering an allegation and for the student who made the report, on separate files. Our lawyers work inside the investigation because the report is where the account is fixed, and an appeal from a decision built on that report is answered by the investigations office as well as by the university's counsel.

A university's disciplinary process runs on a timetable of its own and is not suspended because a criminal charge or a civil claim covers the same conduct. We coordinate the response across proceedings with ATAC LAW's criminal defence lawyers, so an account given in one forum does not undermine the position in the other. Getting the sequence right protects the answer in both places.

The Senate Committee on Student Appeals on Academic Discipline hears appeals from the President's disciplinary decisions, under the standing committee the senate establishes by section 37(1)(v) of the University Act. We read the decision letter against the grounds of appeal and the standard of review attached to each, since the committee applies correctness to the application of a university policy and reasonableness to the assessment of evidence. A written appeal must reach the Registrar within 45 calendar days of the day the student receives the President's letter.

An academic standing appeal is a different proceeding before a different senate committee, argued on a different test. We bring these appeals where a faculty decision on a student's academic standing was reached through improper or unfair procedures and a wrong decision may have followed. Where the sole question turns on the exercise of academic judgment, that committee has no jurisdiction, and the notice of appeal is due within ten working days of the faculty's written decision.

When the internal appeals are spent, a university decision made under a statutory power can be challenged by petition to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The Judicial Review Procedure Act governs that petition. Working from the record the university produced, our lawyers frame the challenge around how fairly the process was run and how far the reasons hold up on the material before the decision maker. A court that sets a decision aside ordinarily directs a fresh decision instead of substituting one of the court's own.

A notation of academic misconduct on a transcript is a separate measure from a failing grade or a suspension, and a notation carries a period before removal can be requested. We argue the duration of a notation at the discipline stage, because the President sets that period when the measure is imposed and may later decline to permit an application at all. Getting the period argued early is worth more than an application made after the fact.

A suspension stops participation in university activities and removes credit for courses taken elsewhere during the suspension, so the academic cost runs past the term named in the order. We make submissions on duration and on the conditions attached to a return, and we act on later applications for admission or re-admission where an earlier finding sits on the file. Where expulsion is the measure sought, the submission has to address the record as a whole.

International students instruct us because a study permit carries conditions of its own, namely enrolment at the designated learning institution named in the permit and actively pursuing the programme of study. Our lawyers work with ATAC LAW's immigration lawyers on the reporting a disciplinary measure may require, since a university will generally tell a student that changes relevant to a study permit may have to be reported. That second exposure usually turns on the same facts as the first.