Guidelines for Natural Justice   

  1. The burden of proof is preponderance of evidence or balance of probabilities rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”. The burden of proof will be established by an analysis of “what is most likely to have happened.”
      
  2. The process should ensure as speedy a resolution of cases as is consistent with due process.
      
  3. Each party must be given sufficient notice (normally five calendar days) of an investigative process or Academic Appeals hearing, in writing, to allow for preparation of the case.
      
  4. The student must be informed of the allegations forming the basis of the report of academic misconduct against them.
      
  5. The student has the right to hear and to respond to evidence presented against them.
      
  6. Each party may have an advisor who shall be a member of the University community (i.e. students or current employees of the University). Students are encouraged to consult a MASU representative, who will advise upon request. (refer also to the definition of an Advisor under section 2 of the Academic Integrity Policy)
      
  7. Accused students and persons initiating a complaint may call witnesses at the initial investigative meeting. Witnesses must appear. It is the responsibility of both parties to notify their own willing witnesses of the time and place of the meeting. The relevant authority may compel witnesses to attend.
      
  8. Students may be accompanied by an advisor at both the initial meeting(s) and any appeal hearing(s) (as appropriate). Students must inform the relevant authority, in writing, at least 3 days prior to the review/hearing or appeals hearing if they plan to bring witnesses or an advisor.
      
  9. Both sides of the case have the right to be heard.
      
  10. Accused students who request access to the case against them and to the names of witnesses are entitled to such access provided that a request is made in a reasonable amount of time in advance.
      
  11. Hearsay evidence may be presented at the discretion of the relevant authority.
      
  12. Evidence of guilt or innocence is to be heard, and the decision made, without reference to previous record, except where appropriate and relevant to the case at hand. If academic misconduct is determined, the previous record may be considered in determining the academic sanction.
      
  13. Any record of the process will not be maintained in the student’s academic or personal files if no charges are laid, although the relevant authority shall maintain official records for University purposes.
      
  14. At all levels of the process, decisions must be given promptly in writing. Reasons for the decisions must be provided.
      
  15. No one should hear a case if he or she is biased in any way. In particular, no one who is involved in the investigation of the initial complaint may sit on the Appeals Committee.