1. Page 1
    2. Page 2
    3. Page 3
    4. Page 4
    5. Page 5
    6. Page 6
    7. Page 7
    8. Page 8
    9. Page 9
    10. Page 10
    11. Page 11
    12. Page 12
    13. Page 13
    14. Page 14
    15. Page 15
    16. Page 16
    17. Page 17
    18. Page 18
    19. Page 19
    20. Page 20
    21. Page 21
    22. Page 22
    23. Page 23
    24. Page 24
    25. Page 25
    26. Page 26
    27. Page 27
    28. Page 28
    29. Page 29

J.P. Blaney, President
Pro Tern
Harassment Policy - Proposed Revision
December 10, 1997
For Discussion
On July 7, 1997 Senate approved a motion recommending to the Board of
Governors that any new or revised Harassment Policy be brought to Senate for
consideration before being implemented.
At its meeting on July 31, 1997, the Board noted the above motion, and indicated
it was the sentiment of the Board that Senate be given the opportunity to discuss
any new or revised Harassment Policy and to provide advice before the policy
was presented to the Board for approval.
In September the Harassment Policy Revision Task Force, chaired by J.M. Munro,
was appointed and given the task of developing and bringing forward a revised
policy for approval by the Board.
Attached are:
A memorandum from the Harassment Policy Revision Task Force
outlining the process for developing the revised policy and the
significant changes between the existing 1991 policy and the
• ?
The proposed revision of the Harassment Policy
• ?
Policy and Implementation Issues identified by the Task Force
Members of the Task Force will be present at SCAR and Senate to respond to
questions at the request of Senators.

TO: J.P. Blaney, ?
FROM: J.M. Munro, Chair,
President, Pro Tern
Harassment Policy Revision
Task Force
Proposed Harassment Policy DATE: December 9, 1997
On behalf of the Harassment Policy Revision Task Force I am sending you
our proposed revision to Policy GP 18, the Harassment Policy. This proposal has the
unanimous support of the members of the Task Force (the other members are Joey
Hansen, Kathy Heinrich, and Alison Watt). This memorandum describes the
revision process undertaken by the Task Force since its appointment on September
19, 1997 and outlines the differences between the proposed policy and the current
Simon Fraser University has had a Harassment Policy since 1988. With the
addition of a minor revision in 1991, the 1988 policy is still in force. In effect, the
mandated 1994 revision, which began in 1993, is still underway.
Although the Policy's formal resolution procedures have received much
attention this year, only about 3 percent of the almost 700 complaints which have
been handled by the Harassment Policy Office since 1990 have progressed to this
stage. This is an important and sensitive matter for the University and the
University needs an effective and fair Harassment Policy. The members of the Task
Force hope that our work will contribute to creating a policy that best serves the
needs of the University now and in the future.
In preparing this revision the Task Force's guiding principles were to
integrate the Harassment Policy with other University policies (and to bring it more
in line with similar policies at other universities) and to strive for fairness for all
parties. We also wanted to respond to the general policy and legal environment in
which the University operates and to reflect the current context of the Harassment
Policy. A final objective was to seek clarity in procedures and language.
The Task Force circulated two drafts for comment by the University
community. The first draft was circulated on October 15, 1997 and was based on the
draft prepared by the Harassment Policy Revision Committee chaired
by Kathleen Akins and the comments received on that draft. The second draft was

circulated on November 19, 1997 and reflects comments received on the October
15th draft;the final version reflects comments received on the November 19th draft.
For each of the drafts the Task Force's process for receiving comments
consisted of wide distribution, including posting on the web of each draft policy,
covering letters and responses, opportunities for written or e-mail comment, and
open meetings at the Harbour Centre and Burnaby Mountain campuses. In
addition, the Task Force met with groups representing the different University
constituencies. We also sought legal advice and received comment from outside
organizations such as the B.C. Civil Liberties Association. It goes almost without
saying that the nature of the comment was very diverse and the final version of a
new Harassment Policy could not reflect the views of everyone. Nevertheless, we
are confident that the recommended Policy does reflect the views of many and that
it has been immeasurably enhanced by the quality of the comments we received.
The Task Force will be sending you a supplementary report concerning
approximately 15 matters which are associated with the implementation of a new
Harassment Policy and related policy development issues. A list of these issues is
attached as an appendix.
This memorandum continues by presenting each section of the proposed new
policy and comparing it to the present policy.
Preamble ?
The new preamble adds references to British Columbia's Human Rights Code and to
prevention of harassment through training and education.
The current policy only defines "harassment" and "sexual harassment". The
proposed policy defines three types of harassment and provides definitions for eight
other terms which are used in the Policy and whose exact meaning is important for
the application of the Policy. For example, the jurisdiction of the policy relies on the
definitions of "University community" and "University-related activity".
In the proposed policy there are 14 statements of principle which are to govern the
administration of the Policy. The current policy dealt with two of these issues in its
sections on "Due Process and Natural Justice", "Confidentiality", and
"Interpretation". The Task Force believes that it is necessary to give clear and
complete direction concerning the procedural standards which are to be followed in
all aspects of the administration of this Policy and the interaction between the
Harassment Policy and other aspects of the University's operation. For example, we

have emphasized the primary responsibility of Chairs, Deans, and Directors in
maintaining a learning and working environment free from
3. ?
The jurisdictional scope of the proposed new Policy has been narrowed and clarified.
4. ?
Use of Information
This section replaces a section in the current Policy titled "Confidentiality". Other
issues besides confidentiality are dealt with here in a manner which addresses the
University's responsibilities under the Freedom of Information and Protection of
Privacy Act.
This matter is dealt with in a section entitled "Appointments Associated With the
Implementation of the Harassment Policy" in the current Policy. There are many
changes in the proposed new Policy including the following:
In naming various administrative positions, the term "Harassment Policy" is
replaced by "Human Rights". The purpose of this change is to focus attention
away from the Policy, as such, and to emphasize the overriding purpose of the
various administrative functions.
The responsible official for the Policy is now the Vice President, Academic, or
designate instead of the President. The detailed administrative roles assigned
to the President in the current Policy have no parallel in other University
policies and have proven unworkable.
The appointment process for administrative officials and groups has been
modified to provide a larger role for the University community.
A policy advisory role has been given to the Human Rights Policy Board. This
was not part of the functions of the current analogous body, the Harassment
Policy Panel.
The role and appointment process for Human Rights Advisors has been
modified and the number of Advisors will be limited to about 50.
6. ?
Informal Procedures
The procedures specified in this section are part of a section titled "Procedures" in
the current Policy. While the procedures for resolving complaints at this stage are
similar, there is more procedural detail specified in the new section.

Interim Measures
This section is similar to part of the section titled "Due Process and Natural Justice"
in the current Policy. However, in the new Policy interim measures do not require
a "preliminary determination" that harassment has occurred and the precautionary
purpose of interim measures is emphasized.
The current and proposed policies have similar sections on mediation. One change
is that the proposed policy calls for an experienced mediator.
This section and the subsequent sections on remedies and discipline are quite
different in the proposed policy. In the future the main fact-finding procedure
would be an investigation by an experienced investigator from outside the
University. The investigator's report would contain opinions on the facts of a case
and whether the Policy had been violated. This report would be sent to an
administrative official (the "responsible officer for the respondent", a Dean or Vice
President) who would decide if the Policy had been violated and determine
discipline. In the current policy, fact-finding is the responsibility of an internal
three-person Investigative Committee empowered to hold hearings. The
Investigative Committee sends its report and recommendations for action to the
President who makes the decision concerning discipline. In the current policy all
complainants may have access to the Investigative Committee process while in the
proposed policy the decision to authorize an investigation is made by the Chair of
the Human Rights Policy Board according to specified criteria. The procedures to be
followed in investigation are now spelled out in considerable detail. The procedural
revisions proposed in the new Policy will, the Task Force believes, allow fair,
consistent, and expeditious action on serious complaints of harassment.
This section outlines the process by which the responsible officer for the respondent
is to consider the investigator's report and decide whether the Policy has been
violated. The criterion for determining a violation of the Policy has been modified.
This material is in the current policy's section "Discipline and Remedies".
The provision of remedies has been described in more detail than in the current
policy and here and in the previous section specific provision is made for cases
where it is determined that the respondent has not violated the Policy or where it is
determined that the complaint was frivolous, vexatious, or malicious.

The proposed Policy specifies additional criteria for the discipline decision. It also
makes an explicit reference to disciplinary policies which are in place for various
groups within the University community.
There is no reporting requirement in the current Policy. The proposed Policy
specifies the content of a mandatory annual report. The Task Force hopes that this
report will both highlight the importance of preventing harassment and inform the
University community of what has actually constituted harassment in the ongoing
administration of the Harassment Policy. It should also assist in building trust in
the administration of this Policy to have a comprehensive record of its
administration widely available in the University. As a model, the Task Force has
reviewed the UBC reports; the most recent can be viewed at:
http:/ /www.equity.ubc.ca/pub/ARept/equity.htm#d
With the addition of the word "formal", the proposed Policy has the same
mandatory review after three years as the current Policy. The Task Force hopes that
' ?
subsequent reviews can be completed in a more timely manner than the current
review, which commenced in 1993. We also expect that if the proposed policy is
approved and later is found flawed in operation, correction of flaws will not wait for
the formal review.
J.M. Munro
cc. J. Hansen
K. Heinrich
A. Watt

% ?
Z ?
Simon Fraser University
Harassment Policy
December 9, 1997
Simon Fraser University promotes teaching, scholarship and research, and the free
and critical discussion of ideas. The University is committed to providing a
working and learning environment which allows for the full and free participation
of all members of the University community. Harassment undermines these
objectives and violates the fundamental rights, personal dignity and integrity of
individuals or groups of individuals. Harassment is a serious offence which may be
cause for disciplinary sanctions including, where appropriate, dismissal or
This Policy responds to the University's responsibility under British Columbia's
Human Rights Code to prevent harassment, and to provide procedures to handle
complaints, to resolve problems, and to remedy situations when harassment occurs.
The University will offer educational and training programs designed to support the
administration of this Policy and to ensure that all members of the University
community are aware of their responsibilities.
Complainant -
Any person or persons who seek(s) recourse pursuant to this Policy
as someone who believes he/she has experienced harassment. The University may
also be a complainant.
Complaint -
A statement by a complainant seeking recourse pursuant to this Policy.
Constituency organizations -
Administrative and Professional Staff Association,
CUPE 3338, Polyparty, Simon Fraser Student Society, Simon Fraser University
Faculty Association, Teaching Support Staff Union.
Page 1 ?
December 9, 1997

Harassment -
Any behaviour which satisfies one or more of the following
definitions :
of harassment.
Harassment based on a prohibited ground of discrimination -
Behaviour towards
another person or persons:
which is abusive or demeaning; and
includes a direct or indirect reference to a prohibited ground of
discrimination under British Columbia's Human Rights Code; and
would be viewed by a reasonable person experiencing the behaviour as an
interference with her/his participation in a University-related activity.
As of this date, the grounds protected against discrimination by British
Columbia's Human Rights Code (R.S.B.C. 1996 c. 210) are age, race, colour,
ancestry, place of origin, political belief, religion, marital status, family status,
physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation, and, in the case of
employment, unrelated criminal convictions.
Sexual harassment -
Behaviour of a sexual nature by a person:
a) who knows or ought reasonably to know that the behaviour is unwanted or
unwelcome; and
b) which interferes with another person's participation in a University-related
activity; or
c) leads to or implies job- or academically-related consequences for the person
Personal harassment -
Behaviour directed towards a specific person or persons:
which serves no legitimate purpose; and
would be considered by a reasonable person to create an intimidating,
humiliating, or hostile work or learning environment.
Reasonable person standard -
Whether or not a reasonable person in roughly the
same position as the complainant would judge harassment to have occurred as a
result of a behaviour or pattern of behaviour.
Respondent -
A person or persons against whom an allegation of harassment has
been made pursuant to this Policy.
Responsible officer -
The University official who may carry out one or more of the
following roles within the terms of this Policy:
decide whether the Policy has been violated;
make recommendations or decisions regarding remedies or discipline;
C) ?
assume the role of complainant to initiate an investigation;
initiate interim measures.
Page 2 ?
December 9,1997

The respoiisible officers in a particular case are determined by the University
positions of the complainant and respondent. For members of the Faculty
Association bargaining unit and other academic staff the responsible officer is the
appropriate Dean or University Librarian; for students the responsible officer is the
Director of Campus Community Services; for staff the responsible officer is the
appropriate Dean or Vice President or the University Librarian; for Deans and
Directors the responsible officer is the appropriate Vice President; and for Vice-
Presidents, the President is the responsible officer. The Vice President Finance and
Administration will be the responsible officer for members of units which report
directly to the President.
University community -
All students and employees of the University, all research
grant and research contract employees, and any researcher, instructor or student
spending an extended period of time at the University in an academic capacity.
University-related activity -
An activity of any type operated under University
auspices at any location. All activities on the University's two campuses are
University-related unless they are within the exclusive control of constituency
2.1 All members of the University community have the responsibility to respect
the rights of others.
2.2 This Policy will not be interpreted, administered, or applied to infringe the
academic freedom of any member of the University community. Academic
freedom is the freedom to examine, question, teach, and learn and it involves
the right to investigate, speculate, and comment without reference to
prescribed doctrine as well as the right to criticize the University and society at
large. The frank discussion of controversial ideas, the pursuit and publication
of controversial research, and the study and teaching of material with
controversial content do not constitute harassment.
members of the University community will be treated equitably under this
Policy. All matters arising under this Policy will be dealt with in a fair,
unbiased and timely manner.
Page 3
December 9, 1997

2.4 This Policy is not intended to interfere with ordinary social or personal
relatibnships among members of the University community.
2.5 In the University community, power differences exist between or among
faculty, staff, and students. Where one person has power or authority, implied
or explicit, over another there is an increased potential for harassment issues to
2.6 Members of the University community have a responsibility for ensuring that
the University's working and learning environment is free from harassment.
Chairs, Directors, and Deans bear the primary responsibility for maintaining a
working and learning environment free from harassment. They are expected
to act on this responsibility whenever necessary, whether or not they are in
receipt of a complaint. The expertise of the Human Rights Office is available to
all members of the University community.
2.7 Efforts at informal resolution will normally be made first in dealing with a
2.8 This Policy will be interpreted, administered, and applied in conformity with
the principles of procedural fairness and natural justice. In particular:
All parties will be advised of the provisions of this Policy and of the
procedures available to them.
Any complainant who wishes the University to assist in the resolution of
a complaint through mediation or investigation must be prepared to be
identified to the respondent.
All parties must be given the opportunity to present evidence in support
of their positions and to defend themselves against allegations of
All parties may be represented or accompanied by legal counsel, a support
person, and/or a representative of their constituency organization
throughout the procedures set out in this Policy.
All submissions, responses, comments, and decisions pursuant to this
Policy will be made in writing. Where a party has the opportunity to
make a submission, response or comment, it shall be provided within two
Page 4 ?
December 9, 1997

2.9 Those responsible for interpreting, administering, and applying this Policy will
use a reasonable person standard.
2.10 This Policy is not to be interpreted, administered, or applied in such a way as to
detract from the right and obligation of those in supervisory roles to manage
and discipline employees and students, subject to managerial and instructional
policies and procedures.
2.11 Members of the University community have an obligation to participate in
procedures under this Policy. It is a ground for discipline for either party to
refuse to participate in an investigation without reasonable justification.
2.12 Frivolous, vexatious or malicious complaints of harassment may be grounds
for discipline.
2.13 Either party to a complaint may object to the participation of a person in the
4 0
apprehensionof this policy on grounds of conflict of interest or reasonable
apprehension of bias.
3.1 Under this Policy a complaint of harassment may only be made by a member of
the University community against another member of the University
community. Such a complaint must pertain to University-related activities.
4.1 Allegations of harassment, particularly sexual harassment, often involve the
collection, use, and disclosure of sensitive personal information.
Confidentiality is required so that those who have been harassed will feel free
to come forward. Confidentiality is also required so that the reputations and
interests of those accused of harassment are protected. However, either party
may discuss the case in confidence with her/his supervisor, support person,
40 ?
and/or representative of her/his constituency organization.
Page 5 ?
December 9, 1997

4.2 Subject to any limits or disclosure requirements imposed by law, any and all
information, oral and written, created, gathered, received or compiled through
the course of a complaint is to be treated as confidential by both the respondent
and complainant, their representatives, witnesses, and the officials designated
by this Policy.
4.3 All recorded personal information will be treated as "supplied in confidence"
for the purposes of compliance with the Freedom of Information and
Protection of Privacy Act.
4.4 The office of record for all records documenting cases under this Policy is the
Human Rights Office.
4.5 Information concerning a complaint may be provided to appropriate
University officials on a need-to-know basis.
4.6 Any person informed of an allegation of harassment under section 4.5 will be
informed of its disposition. ?
4.7 Any person breaching confidentiality may be subject to disciplinary sanction or
other appropriate action.
5.1 The administration of this Policy is conducted by the following persons or
Vice President, Academic, or designate
Human Rights Co-ordinator and other members of the Human Rights
Human Rights Policy Board
Human Rights Advisors
responsible officers
5.2 After
the applications
the Vice-President,
of interested individuals
appoint a
Page 6 ?
December 9, 1997

Human Rights Policy Board taking into account the diversity of the University
5.3 After consulting with constituency organizations, the Vice President, Academic
will appoint a Search Committee, consisting of one faculty member, one staff
member and one student, to advise on the appointment of the Human Rights
Co-ordinator or the Chair of the Human Rights Policy Board. The Vice
President, Academic will be the Chair of the Search Committee. The
Committee will seek applications from interested individuals, consult with
constituency organizations, and recommend a candidate for appointment by
the Vice President, Academic.
5.4 The Human Rights Co-ordinator facilitates the implementation of the Policy by
selecting and training Human Rights Advisors, educating the University
community with respect to the Policy, and supervising the Human Rights
Office and its activities. The Human Rights Co-ordinator is not an advocate for
either party to a complaint. The Human Rights Co-ordinator is supervised by
the Vice-President, Academic.
5.5 The Human Rights Policy Board provides policy advice to the Vice President,
Academic concerning the implementation of the Harassment Policy and carries
out other functions as provided for in the Policy. The Human Rights Policy
Board will consist of two faculty members, two staff members, two students,
and a Chair. Appointments of staff and faculty will normally be for a three year
term and student appointments will be for one year terms. The length of terms
may be modified to establish a rotation of membership. The quorum for the
Human Rights Policy Board is four members. To provide for possible absence
of its Chair, the Board will elect a Vice Chair.
5.6 Human Rights Advisors are responsible for ensuring that persons who bring
matters addressed by this Policy to their attention receive appropriate
information and support. In particular, Human Rights Advisors provide
information on the Policy and its procedures and on University services
including the Human Rights Office, Counselling, the Employee Assistance
Program, Health Services, Campus Security, and the Ombuds Office. A Human
Page 7
December 9, 1997

Rights Advisor may be asked by the Human Rights Co-ordinator to serve as a
support person.
5.7 Human Rights Advisors may be nominated by any member of the University
community for consideration by the Human Rights Co-ordinator. The Human
Rights Co-ordinator will appoint approximately 50 Human Rights Advisors
across the University taking into account the diversity of the University
community, constituency representation, and location. Appointments will be
for one or two years. Human Rights Advisors will be trained through the
Human Rights Office.
5.8 A party to a complaint who objects to the participation of a person in the
administration of this policy on grounds of conflict of interest or reasonable
apprehension of bias may inform the Vice President, Academic. A person
involved in the administration of this Policy may, on similar grounds, direct a
request to the Vice President, Academic that he/she be replaced. The Vice
President, Academic will make decisions concerning replacements required
under this section.
5.9 If a responsible officer assumes the role of complainant under section 9.3, the
Vice President, Academic will appoint another responsible officer.
6.1 Any member of the University community who believes that harassment has
occurred should discuss the matter with a Human Rights Advisor, a member
of the Human Rights Office, or the person holding an administrative position
as head of a unit in which the concern has arisen.
6.2 A complainant or respondent may bring a complaint to the Human Rights
Office within twelve months of the last alleged incident of harassment. A
member of the Human Rights Office will discuss the complaint fully with the
party, who will be informed of the procedures of this Policy.
6.3 The
is frivolous,
Human Rights
on the
this Policy,
Page 8
December 9, 1997

is beyond the time limits for laying a complaint. This decision must include
the reasons for the decision and may be appealed to the Chair of the Human
Rights Policy Board. The Chair's decision will be final.
6.4 A complainant will be informed of internal avenues for redress or resolution.
Complainants who decide to pursue redress or resolution under other internal
University procedures (e.g., grievance procedures under a collective agreement)
may not use this Policy.
6.5 If a complaint proceeds, the Human Rights Co-ordinator or another member of
the Human Rights Office will begin an informal inquiry. After receiving the
consent of the complainant, the person responsible for the inquiry may discuss
the complaint with the respondent in order to seek a mutually acceptable
resolution. The complainant will not necessarily be identified to the
respondent at this stage.
6.6 If no resolution is reached, the Human Rights Co-ordinator or another
member of the Human Rights Office will explain the options for proceeding
further to both parties. The complainant may be identified to the respondent
during this explanation and will be identified if the complaint proceeds further.
6.7 Complaints involving alleged personal harassment may be dealt with using
the informal procedures of section 6 of this Policy but will not use the
procedures set out in sections 8 and 9. If informal procedures have not been
successful, the complaint should be directed to the supervisor of the person
whose behaviour is the subject of the complaint. The Human Rights Co-
ordinator may be asked to provide further assistance in resolving the
7.1 It may be necessary that interim measures be taken while a complaint is being
resolved, investigated or decided. Such measures will be precautionary, not
disciplinary. Interim measures will be initiated by the responsible officer for
either the complainant or the respondent on the recommendation of the
Human Rights Co-ordinator.
Page 9
December 9, 1997

8.1 In mediation, the parties attempt to resolve the issue(s) which led to the
complaint. Either party may make a written request for resolution through
mediation to the Human Rights Co-ordinator who will convey the request to
the other party. Mediation requires the agreement of both parties.
8.2 The Human Rights Co-ordinator will select an experienced mediator. The
mediator will inform the parties of the procedures to be followed. Both the
mediator chosen and the format of the mediation procedure must be acceptable
to both parties. Normally, mediation will begin within three weeks of the
selection of the mediator.
8.3 A mediated resolution of the complaint results in a written agreement setting
out the terms of the resolution. If a proposed resolution involves the
University, the University must also agree to the resolution.
8.4 Mediation proceedings are confidential. All communications made by each
party during mediation are made without prejudice.
8.5 Once a case goes beyond mediation, the Human Rights Co-ordinator has no
active involvement.
9.1 Investigation is intended to be used in cases where the alleged harassment may
have had a serious impact on the complainant or respondent, where the case is
important to the goals of the University, or where the respondent has refused
to participate in earlier efforts to deal with the complaint.
9.2 If mediation has not been attempted or has failed, a written request for an
investigation may be made to the Chair of the Human Rights Policy Board by
either party. Such a request must be submitted within three weeks after the
end of mediation or within twelve months of the last incident of alleged
harassment. This time limit may be waived by the Chair of the Human Rights
Policy Board in exceptional circumstances based on a submission made by
Page 10
December 9, 1997

either party and an opportunity for the other party to comment on the
submission. If the request for an investigation is made by the complainant, the
request will contain a full account of the alleged harassment. If the request for
an investigation is made by the respondent, it will contain an explanation of
why the respondent seeks an investigation.
9.3 Even if the complainant and respondent have reached a resolution through
informal procedures or mediation, a responsible officer may decide to assume
the role of complainant in a case in order to initiate an investigation. This
provision will be subject to the criteria set out in section 9.1 of this Policy and is
normally intended for cases involving a respondent who has previously been
the subject of substantiated complaints of harassment.
9.4 If more than one complaint has been made about a respondent, the Chair of the
Human Rights Policy Board may decide that the complaints will be
investigated together. Each party will have the opportunity to make
submissions on this matter and to comment on the other's submission.
4 0 ?
9.5 The Chair of the Human Rights Policy Board has power to authorize or refuse
to authorize an investigation; this decision will be guided by the criteria stated
in section 9.1. If the Chair of the Human Rights Policy Board refuses to
authorize an investigation, he/she will give reasons for this decision.
9.6 When a request for an investigation has been refused by the Chair of the
Human Rights Policy Board, a direct appeal to the Human Rights Policy Board,
meeting without the Chair, may be made. The appeal must be made within
three weeks of the refusal to authorize an investigation. Each party will have
the opportunity to present submissions on this matter and to comment on each
other's submission. After consideration of the reasons for the request for an
investigation, the decision of the Chair of the Human Rights Policy Board, and
any submissions and comments from the parties, the Human Rights Policy
Board may authorize an investigation.
9.7 When an investigation is authorized, the Chair of the Human Rights Policy
Board will appoint an experienced investigator with expertise in
oadministrative law who is external to the University.
Page 11
December 9, 1997

9.8 The investigation will normally commence within three weeks of its
authorization. The investigator will examine the complainant, respondent,
and such other persons and/or documents that he/she considers may have or
contain relevant information pertaining to the complaint.
9.9 If the complainant or the respondent refuses to cooperate with the investigator,
the investigator may either proceed with the investigation or recommend to
whomever authorized the investigation that the complaint be dismissed. The
person who authorized the investigation will make a decision concerning this
recommendation and may direct that the investigation continue.
9.10 The investigator will prepare a draft report and send it to each party, first to the
complainant, and then to the respondent together with the comments of the
complainant. A copy of the respondent's response will be sent to the
complainant for comment. The investigator will then prepare a final report
that includes an opinion on the facts of the case, disputed and undisputed, and
whether there has been a violation of the Policy. The final report will
normally be completed within four weeks of the receipt of the last response to
the draft report.
9.11 The report of the investigator will be sent to the Chair of the Human Rights
Policy Board who will send it to the parties and the responsible officer for the
party whom the investigator believes has violated the Policy.
9.12 The investigator may recommend that the investigation be adjourned, stayed, or
terminated. The decision on this recommendation will be made by whomever
authorized the investigation after considering submissions, if any, from each
10.1 When the responsible officer for the respondent receives the investigator's
report he/she will give each party an opportunity to respond. Each party may
comment on the other's response. Following this, the responsible officer will
determine whether or not a violation of the Policy has occurred. ?
Page 12
December 9, 1997

10.2 In reaThing a decision on whether the Policy has been violated, the responsible
officer will use a standard of proof corresponding to the civil burden of proof
on a balance of probabilities. Allegations which could result in suspension,
dismissal or expulsion require clear and convincing evidence of misconduct.
10.3 The decision, with reasons, on whether the Policy has been violated will be
communicated to both parties within four weeks of receipt of the last response.
10.4 If the responsible officer for the respondent finds that the allegation was
frivolous, vexatious or malicious, the responsible officer for the complainant
will consider disciplinary action.
10.5 If the responsible officer does not accept the opinion of the investigator about
whether or not the Policy has been violated, either party may request that a
Vice President review the decision. The Chair of the Human Rights Policy
Board will select the Vice President to carry out this review.
11.1 If the Policy has been violated by the respondent, the responsible officer for the
complainant will receive the decision and the investigator's report and will
meet with the complainant.
11.2 The complainant may request that measures be taken to correct damage done to
her/his career development, academic progress, physical or emotional health,
reputation or finances. The range of remedies may include, but is not limited
to: an apology, compensation for professional or academic losses, or
reinstatement. A recommendation for remedy will be sent by the responsible
officer to the appropriate Vice President for decision. The complainant will be
given an opportunity to comment on the proposed remedy before a final
decision is made. Academic remedies must follow normal academic appeal
processes; requests under these processes will be accompanied by information
from the responsible officer.
Page 13
December 9, 1997

11.3 In cases where it is determined that it is the original respondent who has
expefienced a violation of this Policy, the provisions in section 11.2 shall be
applied for the respondent. In addition, the University will, if requested to do
so by the respondent, issue a statement that there was no violation of the Policy
by the respondent.
12.1 If the Policy has been violated by the respondent, the responsible officer for the
respondent will, after meeting with the complainant and respondent together,
decide on appropriate discipline. In making disciplinary decisions or
recommendations, the responsible officer will follow the concept of progressive
discipline and will take these matters into consideration:
a) The severity of the offence;
b) Whether the offence was intentional or unintentional;
Whether the offence was an isolated incident or involved repeated acts;
d) Mitigating or aggravating circumstances affecting either party;
Whether there was an imbalance in power between the parties;
f) The respondent's record at the University; ?
Sanctions applied in similar cases.
12.2 The range of disciplinary sanctions may include, but is not limited to: a letter of
reprimand, suspension, expulsion and dismissal. In addition, the respondent
may be required to participate in a human rights awareness program. It may
also be ordered that one party cease to have any contact with the other party.
This decision will normally be made within six weeks of the final decision that
the policy was violated.
12.3 The application of disciplinary sanctions and any appeals therefrom will utilize
the disciplinary procedures appropriate for the person according to University
policies and/or collective or framework agreements. Where there are no
established procedures, the Vice President, Academic will create procedures
that are analogous to those available for employees.
Page 14 ?
December 9, 1997

12.4 Each party will be informed of the final decision. The final decision and the
report of the investigator will be placed in the appropriate personnel file or
student file of the party found to have violated the Policy.
13.1 The Human Rights Co-ordinator is responsible for preparing and distributing
an annual report which will cover a calendar year and be available no later
than March 31st of the following year. This responsibility requires that
information on activity under this Policy be collected by the Human Rights Co-
ordinator. The annual report will summarize the activities of the Human
Rights Office in administering this Policy and will provide information on the
nature of complaints, problem-solving, mediation activities, investigations,
and decisions involving remedies or discipline. The report will also contain an
assessment of progress towards achieving the objectives of the Policy as
described in the Preamble. This annual report will be reviewed and approved
by the Human Rights Policy Board and distributed widely.
14.1 This Policy will be formally reviewed every three years.
Page 15 ?
December 9, 1997

December 9, 1997
A. Policies and Statements
Formalize role of the Human Rights Office in dealing with difficult
departmental situations.
Consider policy response to recent arbitration decision raising the issue of
breach of trust in supervisor/ subordinate relationships.
Develop a comprehensive prevention of discrimination policy.
Update Faculty Code of Ethics.
Revive dormant conflict of interest policy draft.
Add academic freedom statement to University Calendar.
Add statement requiring student participation in procedures to University
Provide training in human rights matters for Harassment Policy
Provide adequate resources for Human Rights Office.
C. Organization
Consider establishing "student issues co-ordinating committee" to improve
co-ordination and communication between Human Rights Office, Security,
Simon Fraser Student Society, Registrar's, Counselling.
Consider adopting TJBC Equity Office model to include employment equity,
harassment, and related matters.
D. Transition and Implementation
1. Prepare terms of reference for Human Rights Policy Board.

Make new Harassment Policy effective as soon as approved by Board -
deteriñine transition arrangements for cases and administrative organization.
Make Human Rights Co-ordinator position a regular position (not term
contract) and prepare a job description.
Develop an approved Records Management System in Human Rights Office.
E. Other
Include contractors' employees in Policy through amending contracts. Initially,
contractors should be informed of the University's expectations.
Ensure that Co-op students will have protection of the Harassment Policy by
building it into placement agreements with employers.

I ?
A4ed-@ ero
Facsimile Transmission
Fax #:
Phone #:
From: ?
Fax #: ?
Phone #:
No. of Pages
(IncLuding ?
tax communication is intenaea oniy tor tne use ot the addressee and may contain
information which is privileged and confidential. If you are not
intended recipient,
you are hereby notified any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication
is strictly prohibited. If you
received this communication In error, please notify us
immediately by telephone, and return the oriIna1 to us b
mail. Thank you.
S ?
Material Confidential?
\, NO
to follow in mail
to follow by courier
to remain in this office
If total
pages shown above are not received please contact us immediately at

(604) 201 4584 FAX (604) 281 3452
2 January 1998
Dear Senator:
By unanimous decision, the Faculty Association Executive is taking the
extraordinary action of appealing directly to Senate. As you know,
SFU's proposed
Harassment Policy comes before Senate Monday,
January. The proposed policy
is a vast improvement over both the old policy and previous drafts; with a few more
changes, it could be viable, workable and effective
The Faculty Association has been working closely with the Task Force that
produced this policy. In general, the Task Force has been very responsive to our
• ?
concerns, especially when we could point out both a problem and a
current draft is, we think, the most workable yet-or perhaps one should say, the first
workable draft policy.
We would like, nonetheless, to draw
your attention
to three remaining
problems-at least one of them crucial—that we
should be fixed before the
policy is adopted. As we understand it, the Task Force itself agrees with us about at
least two of the three problems-they just have not yet succeeded in finding viable
solutions. We hope you will agree that these problems should be solved before the
policy goes to the Board of Governors.
In this case, as in others, the Academic Senate should be a place for sober
second thought. if it is so, we will emerge with a superior Harassment Policy.
1. The current draft contains sufficient confidentiality to protect
complainant (and perhaps the respondent), but not nearly enough so that
justice will be seen to be done. See especially Section 4, "Use of
Information." Any harassment policy should contain enough confidentiality to
avoid discouraging complainants and to protect
parties, but ills also
crucial that there be enough public information so that both the University
community and, in extreme cases, the public can feel assured that justice has
been done. For justice to be seen to be done, there seems to be a need to

make public resolutions of individual cases, not just an annual report (from
which the particulars of individual cases will likely be deleted;
annual report).
The two most common outcomes for a faculty member accused of
harassment are likely to be a finding, not made public, that there are no
grounds for discipline or a private letter of reprimand-neither of which will be
visible to anyone not directly involved in the case. (A public reprimand is not
possible under the faculty's negotiated disciplinary measures policy.)
In the extreme case, the proposed policy would force the University to
mishandle public relations in approximately the way that occurred this past
summer-that is, faced with a public accusation that justice had not been done,
the University would be unable to release enough information to reassure the
media and the public that justice bad, in fact, been done.
We don't
SFU should adopt an Harassment Policy that puts the
University in such a position. On the contrary, we think a mechanism must
be found, before this proposed policy goes to the Board, that will create
the right balance between (1) confidentiality and (2) making
sure that
justice can be seen to be done.
Although improved since the preceding draft in this respect, the current draft, still
gives too much power and discretion to the responsible officers and the
vp, academic.
After the intricate process described in this policy (through section 9),
what emerges is a report and RECOMMENDATION to the responsible
officer, who has the discretion to make a finding and impose discipline
(within the bounds of norms to be established by future practice). This is
particularly problematic because the proposed level of confidentiality would
prevent the University community from knowing whether findings and
discipline are appropriate. The process and criteria by which the responsible
officer makes these decisions is not specified sufficiently. 10. 1, in particular,
gives a lot of power to the officer.
After consultation (which, depending upon the individuals involved,
may or may not mean anything), the VP, Academic still appoints almost
everyone (or appoints those who appoint them), and almost everything
potentially or eventually gets back to the VP, Academic's desk, including
many appeals and all recommendations for remedies.
As many have pointed out, "Human Rights' Office (and Board, Coordinator,
Advisors) is much to broad a term for those who will carry out this policy.

1:28 PM •0800,Senate / Harassment
involved, may After consultation (which, depending upon the individuals
or may not mean anything), the VP, Academic still appoints almost
(or appoints those who appoint them), and almost everything potentially
eventually gets back to the VP, Academic's desk, including many appeals
all recommendations for remedies.
3. As many have pointed out, "Human Rights' Office (and Board,
Coordinator, Advisors) is much to broad a term for those who will carry
this policy. Human rights include many rights that totally unrelated to
this policy (e.g., rights to natural justice, to an adequate diet, to
organize a union or political party). Eventually, SFtJ will probably have
Human Rights Office to handle not only harassment, but also equity, etc.
In relation to this policy, "Human Rights" is simply inaccurate.
The Task Force has taken the position that the name must
believe that, while a positive-sounding name is desirable, finding an
accurate name, one that names the actual function, is more important.
no one can suggest something equally accurate and more "positive," we
the Policy should create a "Harassment Prevention Office," etc.
There is also a very important matter that has been left out of
Policy. Lots of people working on campus (e.g., daycare workers,
staff, food servers, construction workers) are certainly engaged in
"university-related activities," but employed by contractors or at arms
length. Who is responsible for them? If they harass are harassed, how
does the University deal with it? How do we protect members of the
university community from being harassed by these "outsiders"?
The Task Force has decided that these people should dealt with
not be included in the University's Harassment Policy. We think separate
treatment, presumably through clauses negotiated into contracts, is okay.
But the Board should assert this policy more or less simultaneously with
the new Harassment Policy. It should not be allowed to wait for more
a very few months.
Thank you for reading and considering this message. We urge you
to help
SFU create a superior Harassment Policy, perhaps the best harassment
of any Canadian university, by taking action to effect improvements to
current draft.
Rick Coe, President
Faculty Association
Printed for Michael Wortis <wortis@sfu.ca
> ?

604 2914860
FILE No. '407 01'02
604 2914860
? PAGE 1
11:26 ?
646873545 ?
S ?
càiumbia ?
.. ?
. ?
civil liberties association.
aid W$T HAaTINQS 8TRV.VANCOUVfl, a.C, VeC 154 .TL: (604) 857-2010 - -
RIREcTOa :••
•"••• ?
... ?
.. ?
December 24, 1997
Dam Bsw.tt
ut ?
- -
Thon Bir. 4.
A ?
• . Simon Fraser Univçroity
FAX: 291-460
Mlii. H0ld
Q ??
:. ?
De.ar Dr. Blaney:
W&t.rHiirdk ?
? .
REt Proposed Ilaraumeflt Policy for Senate Coiertio
An Lm
AJtiM0oD0fllPJaQ ?
. ?
. ?
. . ? . ?
. ?
PiCasefind-enclosed a copy of our letter addressed to Scuators of Simon
Dd.n. MzwI •
rascr Univeiiit'. V/e
writing .tp you us Chthr àf the Senate to i'tquest that
• ? . ?
O%X ?
during the
J' . ?
qçoming dehbcrations on the proposed haassment policy. We apà1pgc for
the short notice for our
request. ?
One of our principal
. ?
. ?
for writing
to.Scwtors of SFU is to
• • ?
••. ?
wa* of 1)r. Munro and the Harassment Policy Revision Task Force. They,
have dozic sa ecçllcnt job in their consultations and rcYlsionL They hve
prdduccda sound proposal for consideration by the Senate.
Thank you for your consideration and but wishes for New Year.
• ?
• -:- ? .
• ?
. ?
.. ?
Policy Director
. ?
cc:. ?
Dr. labn Mum'. .
. ?
0 ?
• ?

FILE No. 407 01'02
604 2914860 ?
12/24/1997 11:26
- PAGE 83
0 ?
civil liberties association
425 - 011 WEST HASTINGS STREET, VANCOuVRI D.C. VOC 1B4.- TS (60) 6572019
Decimbor U. 1"7
Members, Simon Fraser
University Scnc
Rurnaby B.C.
Ran BIoid,
act ?
.rta ?
• ?
• I
writing on babiiüe B.C. cju Llbwties Mucistimto ñtt
revision of thO SF1.1 Haraument Policy ("Policy").
- ?
doingsoj would like to commend the woik of Dr. John Mwiro and the members of
theHarassment Policy Revision
teak Foite. Their efforts have resulted In a
Q~ 130
1• H &nent
Policy that is bath Ir and kospectflul of academic freedom, while fwth
cring the
Pti1diO. UI
goal of diacourawng enors1 harassment. *c aPpreciate their efforts to include the'BCCLA
li their consultailons and their consideration of our previous
the jrepo.ed Policy:
• ?
Rev ph" "M
g t
An 600
mmtb0 ?
of the
hpi MevPon.4. c
Po'icy ho ' tsndardlzed to Include "BehaViOur directed towards a specific persop t
• flJ
. ?
persone"- This phase deta in the definition orpezscnil haratament" but
is not pad of the
. ?
other two detln1tioos of harassment.
HasTy ?
. (2) We recommend th5 the "jfl(cføreDco In participation in the Unlversitf clause that is
two definitions of hasaasment be pail of the definition of "personal
• R
8vahtRoONOM MA
40M 8IU
• ?
en.. as well.
Homer Sr,ena ?
(3) The Policy does not have provisions for the retentIOn, use end disposition ofi'ecd$ at
David Sw ?
. ?
harassment complaints. We reccaiimtndihai.Uiid& section 4, Use flntormation, the Policy
e*phcltlY provIde for the retention, use and disposition ofecods m
ludlt w
ho may aced
the records of past complaints and for what purposes. Pursuant to privacy legislation4
individuals should have the right to access their own personsl infonustlon.and the right to.
• •
. ?
request a correction of their p ansI Information regarding records relating
to harassfl3eliL
• • ?
• ?
(4) In order to 1AGIRM6ed
cation, prevention of hsaasment
end the sccointabW
• 0• ?
a.CI$lC% making under the Policy, we recotpmend that case repoitIn$ required In Atticis.
• ?
13.1 should Include sufficient information to make the findings and reasotm)g of decision
• . 0
makrn in particular cases (.ublcct to privacy legL*lation) widerstandable.
. .. 0'
• ?
•, • We have one comment regarding unpiemeritation of the Policy:
• ?
• ?
The Policy should not be broight Into force until the Vice Preaklcnt Academic lisa created.
u1jid in Arficle ?
D2 ?
12.3. This point is cOfltraly to th. timing
•• ?
Thank you
ft considering our comments. ?
0 ?
0 Your sincerely, ?
, • ?
• ? • ?
00 • 0
. ?
• •
• ?
Kay Stóckhólder ?
0 ?
••• ?
•'• ?
'• ?
0 ?
0 ?
. ?

Back to top