• Keep all communication professional and try to remain calm and respectful. The situation will only get worse if you attack/threaten/swear at a University employee.
• Conduct discussions of the situation over email so you have a written record. This can be submitted as evidence if you choose to appeal.
• If you are asked to (or prefer to) meet in person with your instructor or TA, let them know you will be taking notes so you can be crystal clear about all aspects of the situation. Also, consider asking to record the conversation for your own records and so you can review everything again after the meeting. You may feel stressed during this meeting, so a recording can help if you miss anything. This can also assist you should you wish to file an appeal
• If the situation does not resolve after this discussion, the case may be advanced through the formal reporting process. Your Instructor, Department Head, or the Registrar should file an Academic Incident Report (AIR) that outlines their finding of facts. You should get a copy of this and it will be attached confidentially to your record. Only the Registrar’s Office or law enforcement can access this information- it is not shared for Graduate School applications or with potential employers for example.
• Sometimes an instructor may assign you a zero for an assignment without filling out an Academic Incident Report (AIR) and give you a “warning”. If you wish to dispute this, you can request a hearing before the UBSD and request that your instructor fill out an AIR to get the process started. If they do not file an AIR, there are pros and cons to this. It is hard to initiate an appeal, but there is also no official record of the incident and subsequent Academic Integrity issues will not necessarily have a compounding penalty. The Student Advocate can help you navigate this and weigh your options in these cases.

• If you disagree with the allegations, YOU can appeal to the University Board on Student Discipline for a hearing.
• If you don’t dispute the allegations, but do feel your punishment is too severe, YOU can also appeal to the Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals.

The Policy states that this formal process must be initiated against a student by a Department Chair on behalf of an instructor or the Registrar. In practice, your Instructor is typically the person who files the AIR. A student may dispute the findings of an instructor, Chair, or the Registrar and ask to have their case heard by the University Board of Student Discipline.

Advocate’s Advice:

• If false allegations have been brought against you and you can prove it, dispute them! This process is in place to protect you too.

The University Board on Student Discipline (UBSD) is made up of 3 faculty, 4 students, 3 staff, and a coordinator. The coordinator appoints a tribunal made up of 3 members from the above. There must be at least 1 faculty member and 1 student on a tribunal.

Advocate’s Advice:

• Impartiality of tribunal members CAN be called into question, so if you feel like you won’t get a fair hearing for some reason, speak up! You don’t want a Boardmember present who may have a conflict of interest.

• 4.1  “The UBSD is an internal administrative body, governed by the principles of procedural fairness.  Within this framework, it is free  to develop procedures and practices to conduct hearings and is not  constrained by strict rules of procedure and evidence.”
• 4.2  “Students must be treated fairly before being penalized for academic dishonesty or academic misconduct.  They are entitled to  receive information about the alleged wrongdoing and to provide a  response.”
• 4.3  “The Tribunal will provide individuals with an opportunity to  respond in a timely manner to allegations of academic dishonesty or  academic misconduct and, if appropriate, will recommend a course of  action to the President, or to the Vice-President, Academic, and Provost if the President has already played a role in the case.”
• 4.4  “In exceptional circumstances, the Coordinator of the UBSD may extend the time limits for a student to dispute the findings of fact made by an instructor, a Chair, or the Registrar.”

You will fill out a simple form and submit a written response including your side of the story and any evidence you have to support your argument. If you can refute your instructor’s evidence in the AIR, you should do so.  The Student Advocate can help you draft this letter. Set up an appointment at https://calendly.com/sfssadvocacy.

Advocate’s Advice:

• Keep to the facts of the case and avoid telling your whole life story.
• Organize your response thoughtfully and use headings and topic sentences to make the response easy to read and navigate. Don’t make your readers work too hard to find your argument and evidence.
• Keep your tone professional and focused on the matter at hand.
• The SFSS Advocacy Office can offer advice, help you polish your response, and/or attend your hearing as a support person (when available). Contact us here for help.

• Hearings are closed to the public, unless written consent from both sides is received.

• Hearings may be in person or virtual at the discretion of the Chair. Hearings have taken place over Zoom since the Pandemic.

• Witnesses may be called and both sides are able to ask them questions. The Tribunal may also hear impact statements from witnesses or parties. You should be informed if witnesses will be present.
• The Tribunal is responsible for interpreting any policy under consideration and the Chair is responsible for maintaining order.
• The burden of proof is on the person alleging academic misconduct or dishonesty.  
• The appropriate standard for a decision in this process is “proof on a balance of probabilities”.  This means your Instructor must prove you broke the rules and the case is judged on whether it is more likely than not that the rules were broken by you as alleged by your instructor.
• After the findings of fact, the Tribunal may have access to any other disciplinary information about the student that has been retained by the University. This may include previous AIRs on your record.

• Make sure you bring a copy of your response letter
• Consider preparing an outline with your main talking points and supporting evidence in case you get nervous.
• Bring copies of any evidence you may have.
• You are welcome to bring a friend and/or ask if the SFSS Advocate is available to attend with you.

Tribunal deliberations are closed and no records are kept in the long term. Hearings are typically recorded so the Chair can access this information while preparing their final report. The Chair votes only in the case of a tie. Abstention is not allowed by anyone on the Tribunal.

In cases brought before the UBSD by a student:

• The Tribunal must confirm or overturn the findings of fact made by the person whose decision (usually the Instructor) is under review. If the decision is confirmed, the penalty remains unaltered. If the decision is overturned, the Tribunal must decide upon an appropriate course of action consistent with the finding of fact of the Tribunal.

In cases brought before the UBSD by a University official:

• The Tribunal must convey its decision to the parties involved with regard to the penalty, the facts of the case, or both. The Tribunal must provide a written decision that includes the findings of fact, the reasons and the recommendation regarding penalty, if any, and provide both parties and the Registrar with a copy.

The penalties for academic misconduct that may be  recommended by the UBSD and officially imposed by the President, may include (but  are not limited to) one or more of the following:

• Recommend the student receive  counselling or other professional assistance and, if necessary, assist  the student in obtaining counselling or other professional services;
• Issue a formal written reprimand to the student;
• Assess and recover costs to rectify the damage or loss caused by the student;
• Require the student to write a letter of apology to any person adversely affected by the student’s behaviour;
• Require the student to perform up to 50 hours of community service;
• Terminate the student’s scholarships or other financial support.
• Change any grade that the student may have received as a result of academic misconduct.

AND/OR

• Denial of admission or re-admission to the University;
• De-registration, with or without a tuition fee refund;
• Forfeiture of University awards or financial assistance;
• Suspension or permanent suspension from the University;
• Revocation of a degree and  return of the student’s transcript and degree, certificate or diploma  parchment to the Registrar; or
• Removal of all relevant documents from the SFU Library, including papers and/or theses. (usually not applicable for Undergraduate Students)

Either party may initiate a final appeal through SCODA ONLY IF the case meets one or more of the following grounds:

• a procedural error occurred of sufficient magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have affected the fairness of the process or altered the outcome of the case; (policy 4.1.a)
• a factual error occurred of sufficient magnitude that it may reasonably be said to have altered the outcome of the case; (policy 4.1.b)
• the penalty imposed on the student is excessive in all the circumstances of the case; (policy 4.1.c)
• new, material evidence is available which, despite the exercise of due diligence by the party wishing to appeal, could not have been made available at the time of the hearing giving rise to the appeal. (policy 4.1.d)

Applications are made to the Secretary, Senate Committee on Disciplinary Appeals, Registrar’s Office and MUST be received in writing within 3 weeks of the decision by the University Board on Student Discipline. In exceptional cases, students may ask the Chair of SCODA for an extension of time to file the notice of appeal.  The Chair must decide whether or not to approve an extension.  This decision is final.

• The number of members of SCODA required to hear an appeal is two faculty members, two students, and the Chair
• No member with previous involvement in the case may judge the appeal.
• The impartiality of SCODA members may be called into question. Your case should not be heard by faculty from your own department.

• A SCODA hearing must be closed to the public unless there has been prior explicit written consent of all parties.
• If the you fail to appear before the Committee at the appointed time, the Committee may proceed to determine the appeal. In exceptional circumstances, the Committee may permit the student to appear in absentia by delegate.
• If there are medical or compassionate reasons for non-appearance, the Secretary must be notified immediately.  The Chair will determine the acceptability of such reasons and whether the appeal should be postponed.
• The student or their representative must be given the opportunity to make a statement to the Committee to support the appeal.
• The respondent may also appear at the appeal and be given an opportunity to make a statement.  Where the appeal is based on new evidence, the respondent is entitled to speak to the new evidence.
• Both parties may be accompanied by a representative at the appeal and may be accompanied by a support person (the support person does not speak).

• Appeals must be based upon the record of the preceding hearing or decision and any other relevant documentation considered.
• The Committee may hear new evidence only when a case is being appealed under section 4.1.d.

• Deliberations are closed and with no records
• The chair casts deciding vote in the event of a tie and no abstentions are allowed.
• Having heard the appeal, the Committee may find:
  • In favour of the student due to a procedural or factual error, and substitute its own finding or order a new hearing;
  • In favour of the student under the argument that a penalty was excessive and then vary the penalty;
  • In favour of the student in light of new evidence and substitute its own finding or order a new hearing; or
  • Against the student, confirming the original decision that remains unchanged.

This decision is final and must be communicated in writing with reasons to all parties as soon as possible after the decision is made.