Students for Barrier-Free Access (SBA) expresses deep concerns regarding the direct and indirect impact of the University-mandated leave of absence Policy on the student population.

The Policy has a chilling effect on students seeking mental health support. Students are deterred from seeking care for fear of the Policy being applied to them.

The Policy assumes the provision of adequate accommodations which the University’s own Presidential & Provostial Task Force on Student Mental Health found to be inaccessible. This is further supported by student testimonials.

The Policy denies student autonomy by excluding students from the process of selecting a Student Case Manager and Student Support Team. Instead, the Vice Provost, Students, with no mandatory training with respect to mental health crises, is tasked with this selection. Autonomy is further compromised by the fact that students cannot determine the terms and conditions of their own leave.

The time limits defined in the Policy are not procedurally fair. They are inaccessible to a student in crisis. 10 days is not enough time to file an appeal when in crisis, either to the Provost or to the Discipline Appeals Board. The extension period is inadequate, as the student must still make the request within 10 days.

Students are expected to seek their own legal counsel with no assistance from the university. Students face serious financial barriers and may lack the requisite knowledge to seek counsel on their own. Downtown Legal Services will only represent students on final appeal to the Tribunal.

When there is an“Urgent Situation” (per s.46), the student’s support is immediately removed. They are forced to wait an excruciating five days for the Vice Provost, Students to review their case. This time period of no support could be lethal for a student in crisis.

The language of the Policy itself is inaccessible to students and there has been little attempt by the administration to make Policy more accessible. The town halls and feedback forms have been poorly advertised and have been planned last-minute,  either taking place during class hours,  in the middle of the school day, or during students’ preparation for the end-of-term.

The consultation process lacked transparency. Students were uninformed of how and who the data is being analyzed by. The report of the data analysis were not publicized.


We the undersigned call on the Vice Provost Students’ Office to do their due diligence by:

1.      Hosting information sessions that accommodates students’ schedule, and releasing a companion guide for the most current version of the Policy;

2. Publicize the data and report generated from all the consultations regarding the Policy with details of how the data was analyzed. This includes detailed information on how the consultations were conducted, and who organized the consultations. All participants of the consultations must be informed with the data and the report will be made publicly available.

3.      Providing an honorarium to those who attended the information sessions and consultations.

 4.     Student unions are provided with resources to consult with their own memberships, including honorarium and DIY consultation kits.

5.      Documentation of the information sessions and consultations must have documentation of the process be made available, including minutes of the sessions and recordings of the entire session.

6.      Explaining how the feedback of the Ontario Human Rights Commission was taken up in the current version of the Policy.

7.      Informing students of how their past feedback, as well as the feedback provided by the wider disability community on the Policy was taken up in the current version of the policy.

8.  Explaining to students how their feedback on the current version of the Policy will be used in the future

9.  The number of students reached at each consultation and the demographics that were reached must be publicized for transparency.

10.  Updates of the status of the consultations must be made public for transparency. This includes updating students as to how the report is being used, which committees within the Governing Council will read the report, and when.

We do not support a policy which targets students with disabilities or students experiencing distress in order to place them on mandatory leave. In its current form, the policy disproportionately impacts already-marginalized students located at the intersections of multiple identities by removing them from their campus communities and leaving their access to funding and essential services at the discretion of the university.