A dispute resolution process, including a review or appeal of disputes can assist in maintaining the elements of openness, accessibility, and democracy within an organization. Part of openness, accessibility, and democracy is to have good internal processes that deal effectively and fairly with disputes and complaints, and to ensure that these are well understood and open in a fair and reasonable way to all who are affected.
On occasion, a dispute may not be resolved internally and a process of review or appeal that goes beyond the specific student society may be required for resolution to be achieved. Therefore, there is a requirement for a University-wide complaint and resolution process applicable to student societies: the University Complaint and Resolution Council for Student Societies (CRCSS).
The University affirms the value of autonomous student organizations operating independently and without interference from the University in their day-to-day operations. However, autonomy must be exercised in a manner that is compliant with the law and University policy. Further, all student organizations must conduct themselves in an open, accessible, and democratic manner.
Policy on Open, Accessible and Democratic Autonomous Student Organizations
For information about lodging a complaint and CRCSS procedures, please refer to the Complaints about Student Societies section of the Student Complaints page.
Below are the decisions made by the Complaint and Resolution Council for Student Societies (CRCSS). For each decision, a panel of students was selected to review the complaint. In addition to those listed below, there have been several complaints that have been managed by their respective student societies prior to the review by the panel. Complaints pertaining to recognized student groups are not within the purview of the CRCSS and are forwarded to the appropriate Student Affairs/Student Life office for follow-up.
As per the Policy on Open, Accessible, Democratic Autonomous Student Organizations, “the CRCSS Panel has the power, in its discretion, to determine that no further action is required; to pursue informal resolution among the parties; to issue a reprimand where it determines that a Student Society has not operated in an open, accessible and democratic fashion or followed its constitution; to recommend to a society that changes to its by-laws, constitution, or operational processes be made; to recommend that actions be taken by the Student Society to enhance openness, accessibility and democratic operation; and/or to recommend to the Vice-President and Provost that fees be withheld pursuant to the Policy for Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees. The authority to withhold fees remains the Vice-President and Provost’s.”
The decisions made by the CRCSS are shared with the Vice-President and Provost, and the appropriate University office(s) for follow-up, if required.
Complaint against the University of Toronto Mississauga Students Union (UTMSU)
A candidate for a UTMSU executive position was assessed demerit points based on an anonymous complaint and disqualified from the election. The candidate was not provided an opportunity to speak to the Election and Referenda Committee to appeal the decision. Additionally, it was alleged that the demerit points lead to the candidate’s ineligibility to receive any reimbursement for campaign expenses.
The Panel recommended:
Complaint against the Scarborough College Athletic Association (SCAA)
Two candidates were assessed demerit points for allegedly campaigning in a restricted zone. The demerit points resulted in the candidates’ disqualification from the election. Additionally, the complaint reported an inability for voters to vote for specific positions, which was not in compliance with the SCAA by-laws.
The Panel recommended:
Complaint against the University of Toronto Mississauga Students Union (UTMSU)
The complaint alleges that the CRO did not assign the appropriate number of demerit points to candidates of a slate for “campaigning in an unauthorized area”. The complainant was unable to attend the Election and Referenda Committee (EARC) meeting where the matter was discussed and was not made aware of a secondary appeal process.
The Panel recommended:
Complaint against the University of Toronto Mississauga Athletic Council (UTMAC)
The complaint alleged that there were issues of non-compliance with UTMAC’s by-laws and constitution regarding election procedures that resulted in of several members of one slate being disqualified from the election. It was further alleged that one member of the opposing slate was not eligible to run.
The Panel recommended:
Complaint against University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU)
The complaint alleged that the UTGSU’s BDS Committee (now Caucus) violates the UTGSU’s Anti-Discrimination Policy and University of Toronto policies that prohibit discrimination.
The Panel Recommended:
Following the release of the decision, the CRCSS panel received several submissions from UTSGU and the Complainant. Based on their review of these materials, the Panel determined that UTGSU had not satisfactorily responded to their recommendations. As a result, the Panel forwarded their recommendations to the Provost for consideration.
On March 4, 2022, the Provost informed UTGSU of her decision to withhold from the fees of UTGSU an amount that is equivalent to the BDS portion of the UTGSU society fee until such time as UTGSU complies with its obligations under University policies.
Complaint against University of Toronto Graduate Students’ Union (UTGSU)
The complaint alleged that an email circulated among graduate students on the final day of the April 2020 spring election period had a direct negative impact on the election results. They also contend that the candidates endorsed in the email engaged in “slate-like behaviour” that constitutes a violation of UTGSU Election Policies.
The matter was brought before the UTGSU Election and Referenda Committee (ERC) who rejected the appeal. The complainant alleged that a member of the ERC previously submitted a formal complaint against one of the complainants – but did not declare a conflict of interest.
The Panel Recommended: