The Office of Student Conduct & Support works to foster a safe and respectful learning community that is animated by the principles of access, diversity and inclusion, mutual respect and accountability.
How can the office help?
We assist any member of the George Brown community (students, staff and faculty) with questions or concerns regarding non-academic student conduct. Our office is available to provide education to community members on student rights and responsibilities. Community members can contact the Office of Student Conduct & Support to register a formal complaint about student behaviours that fall under the Code of Non-Academic Student Behaviour. And we can provide information and consultation support regarding student conduct issues even if you do not wish to register a formal complaint.
All complaints must be provided to the Office of Student Conduct & Support. Other College departments may be advised of complaint to ensure safety: eg. Academic depts., Registrar's Office, Public Safety & Security.
Some of the functions the Office of Student Conduct & Support provides include:
- 1 Case Assessment
- 2 Interim Measures
- 3 Investigation
- 4 Decision-Making
- 5 Written Decision
- 6 Right to Appeal
Case assessment is conducted by the Student Conduct Office. If a complaint or concern is governed by the Sexual Assault and Sexual Violence Policy or the Human Rights Discrimination and Harassment Policy, it will be referred to Anti-Racism, Equity and Human Rights Services (OAREHRS).
The Student Conduct Office may resolve a complaint or concern through strictly non-disciplinary (risk-focussed) means or via informal resolution, all of which will be documented. If however, the Student Conduct Office decides that a disciplinary response is appropriate, they will initiate an investigation and move to the next step in this procedure.
After deciding to initiate an investigation, the Student Conduct Office, in consultation with Public Safety and Security and other stakeholders as deemed necessary, will consider whether to implement interim measures to protect the complainant, the community and the investigation process in the time period before a final decision is made.
Please note that interim measures are not punishment and do not represent a finding of misconduct.
Respondents (students who are alleged to have committed misconduct) will be sent an email that gives notification of the investigation and any interim measures. The notice will advise Respondents of (a) of potential sources of support and (b) that any concerns about the appropriateness of the interim measures should be raised with the Student Conduct Office without delay.
The Student Conduct Office will then conduct an investigation by an internal or external investigator capable of conducting an unbiased investigation who was not involved in the events in issue.
The time required to commence and complete an investigation may vary, but investigations should ordinarily start and finish within 14 calendar days.
The Director of Student Support and Well-being (“the Director”) will make a decision about what happened, whether it constitutes misconduct and, if so, how it should be addressed.
The Director will review the confidential investigation report and give Respondents an opportunity to address the results of the investigation in a meeting before making a decision.
The time required to conduct a meeting may vary, but a meeting should ordinarily be conducted within the 10 calendar day period after the investigation is complete.
The Director will provide Respondents with a written decision that includes reasons. The time required to make a decision may vary, but a decision should ordinarily be made within five calendar days after an investigation is complete.
Right to Appeal
An appeal is not a reconsideration of Director decisions, and no new evidence is admissible on the appeal. The administrator who hears an appeal will affirm the Director’s decision unless (a) the procedure employed by the Director was unfair and reconsideration is warranted or (b) the Director’s decision is unreasonable in light of the evidence put before the Director.