1

The Case for Restorative Justice (RJ) in Post-Secondary Institutions as
a Viable Response to Incidences of Sexual Violence and Misconduct (SVM)
Literature Review

Jennifer Jordan
Humanitarian Studies, Royal Roads University
HUMS 551: Foundations of Research
Dr. Robert Hanlon
August 9, 2020

2
Restorative Justice (RJ) in Post-Secondary Institutions as
a Viable Response to Incidences of Sexual Violence and Misconduct (SVM)

List of Acronyms:
ADR – Alternative Dispute Resolution
EVA-BC – Ending Violence Association of BC
KPU – Kwantlen Polytechnic University
MAEST – Ministry of Advanced Education Skills and Training
PSIs – post-secondary institutions
RJ – restorative justice
SVM – sexual violence and misconduct

3
On May 19, 2016, the Government of British Columbia passed the Sexual Violence and
Misconduct Policy Act in an effort to make campuses safer and more responsive to the needs of
victims/survivors of sexualized violence and sexual misconduct. The Act requires BC PSIs to
establish, implement and make publicly available a policy, with associated procedures, that
addresses its prevention, and responses to sexual misconduct (Government of British Columbia,
2016).
Post-secondary institutions (PSI)s were tasked with developing and implementing a
stand-alone policy and associated procedures to address Sexual Violence and Misconduct
(SVM). Although institutional autonomy was respected, both MAEST and EVA-BC developed
guidelines for Institutions to follow. The Ministry guidelines were more prescriptive, indicating
what needed to be addressed in such a policy and provided sample definitions and elements to
consider for inclusion. In discussing institutional response to SVM, RJ is not mentioned
(Ministry of Advanced Education, 2017). On the other hand, EVA-BC actively discouraged the
use of RJ in their guidelines:
“We strongly discourage the use of restorative justice processes, including mediation, in
lieu of sanctions in cases of sexual violence, as sexual assault is a power-based crime
(that is, a crime where there is an imbalance of power, or an abuse of power by the
perpetrator, and the victim/survivor feels powerless to stop it and/or come forward). In
these cases, it has been argued that restorative justice processes may be used by
perpetrators to manipulate and maintain their power over victims/survivors, and thus the
application of these processes to gender-based violence remains controversial

4
(Randall, 2013). If the victim/survivor specifically requests a restorative justice process,
great care should be taken to identify community-based sexual assault experts and
restorative justice experts who deal with sexual assault cases, as expertise in both
restorative justice and sexual assault will be critical for this process to be empowering
for the victim/survivor. Managing restorative justice processes in cases of sexual
violence should not be promoted or taken on by the institution alone but in partnership
with community-based anti-violence workers” (Ending Violence Association of BC,
2016, p.37).
As such, the author speculated whether PSIs SVM policies and related procedures mentioned RJ
as an option and if not, the lack of mention from MAEST and the discouragement by EVA-BC
may have contributed to this outcome.
Despite this admonishment by EVA-BC, there is growing interest in whether RJ may be
an effective response to complaints of SVM, driven in part by victims / survivors themselves
asking for this to be an option. There is a prominent Canadian example of RJ being used to
address a case of sexual misconduct at Dalhousie in 2014 and despite intense public scrutiny and
pressure, it was the victims that held firm in their desire for RJ to be employed to address the
situation (Llewellyn, Mackay & MacIsaac, 2015).
The Campus PRISM Project which stands for Promoting Restorative Initiatives for
Sexual Misconduct is a report and ongoing project to make space for exploring RJ as a viable
response to sexual violence and misconduct on post-secondary campuses. The authors Karp,
Shackford-Bradley, Wilson and Williamsen (2016) stated that “the goals of a campus

5
adjudication process—utilizing fundamentally fair and unbiased approaches to determine what
happened, whether what happened entailed a policy violation, and if so, what outcome should be
assigned—can be incompatible with the needs of survivors” (p. 8). Additionally, proponents of
RJ are not advocating that RJ be the only response; rather, that it is an option that makes up a
suite of potential ways to respond to SVM (Karp, 2015; Karp et al., 2016). Finally, there is a
small but growing body of research recommending RJ as a viable option (Barone, 2018;
Boutilier & Wells, 2018; Karp et al., 2016; Llewellyn, Mackay & MacIsaac, 2015; Martin, 2018;
Zinsstag, Keenan, Mercer & Madsen, 2018).
A literature review was conducted to explore the hypothesis that principles of RJ can
serve as effective tools in responding to incidences of sexual misconduct in post-secondary
institutions. This review starts with a theoretical overview of RJ and its role in PSIs. Next, the
limitations of RJ are discussed and the results of the author’s scan of 23 PSIs are outlined to
determine how explicit PSIs are in mentioning RJ as an option. Finally, a case is made for
employing RJ in PSIs as an option for addressing incidences of SVM. My research informed
two broad recommendations:
1. That PSIs include language about RJ in their SVM policies and procedures in order to
be explicit that this is an option victims-survivors can choose.
2. That PSIs be prepared to provide RJ processes that indirectly involve or not even
involve the person responsible. RJ options such as indirect dialogue, exchange of
letters / videos, or employing a surrogate stand-in for a direct dialogue approach may
widen the range of methods available to allow PSIs to be more responsive to the
needs of victims-survivors.
Methodology

6
A scan was conducted of the SVM policies and procedures of 23 PSIs in BC to discover
the following:
1. Is the PSI’s SVM policy and related procedures in one document?
2. Does the PSI have a separate policy and a separate procedures document?
3. Are complaints about students addressed under the SVM policy and related procedures or
under another policy or policies and their related procedures?
4. Is there language incorporating the word “restorative” or mention of alternative dispute
resolution used in the SVM policy?
5. Is there language incorporating the word “restorative” or mention of alternative dispute
resolution used in the SVM procedures?
The 25 PSIs available to be scanned are listed in Appendix A. Two institutions (indicated in
both appendices A&B) were excluded from the scan; one because it is not commonly associated
with the other public PSIs listed and the other because their SVM policy and procedures were not
readily accessible online. The answers to the five questions are noted in Appendix B. Further
research should include a policy and procedures scan of the intersecting policies for handling a
complaint to see if, at a minimum, alternative dispute resolution is mentioned and/or if language
using the word “restorative” is used as an option for resolving the complaint.
The purpose of the proposed study is to conduct an exploratory survey to ascertain if any
PSIs have used RJ to address incidents of SVM since the implementation of their SVM policies
and procedures, regardless of whether their policies have RJ (or “restorative” or alternative
dispute resolution) explicitly mentioned. These open-ended survey questions (see Appendix C)
will be emailed to the Administrator responsible for handling complaints under their Institution’s
SVM policy. A qualitative research method was chosen to elicit more comprehensive data on

7
whether any RJ practices have been employed since these policies have been implemented, in
what types of scenarios and to what effect. It is expected that further research questions could be
developed after this initial survey.
Literature Review
The Role of RJ in PSIs
In exploring whether RJ principles would be effective in addressing incidents of SVM, a
working definition of RJ is needed. Zehr (2015) stated that RJ is “an approach to achieving
justice that involves, to the extent possible, those who have a stake in a specific offence or harm
to collectively identify and address harms, needs, and obligations in order to heal and put things
as right as possible” (p. 48). Zehr proposed the three pillars of RJ to be:
1.

About the harm caused and the needs of the victim – a victim-oriented approach,

2.

The harm(s) caused result in obligations by the person responsible; and,

3.

It encouragers stakeholder engagement – the stakeholders being the victim, the
person responsible and community members.

From these three pillars stem five principles of RJ, practiced with an attitude of respect
for all: “1. Putting right wrongs and harms; 2. Focusing on harms and needs; 3. Addressing
obligations; 4. Involving stakeholders; and, 5. Using collaborative processes” (Zehr, 2015, p.
44). Outside of the criminal justice system, schools have been adopters of restorative approaches
to misconduct. Zehr stated that “schools have become an important area of restorative practices”
(p. 54). Goldblum stated that she “enjoyed codeveloping one of the first university RJ programs
in the late 1990s at the University of Colorado at Boulder” (p. 141); which indicates RJ has been
employed to various degrees in PSIs since then.

8
RJ is not new to PSIs; however, using it to address SVM is. The principles of RJ
theoretically should make this a viable option. At its heart, RJ is about relationships and because
many incidents of SVM have a relational aspect to them, this may be a more satisfying
alternative to offer victim-survivors. Furthermore, SVM policies are grounded in a victimcentered, trauma-informed approach (Ending Violence Association of BC, 2016, pp. 23-23).
This approach aligns nicely with the pillars and principles of RJ. Finally, the RJ pillar of
engagement promotes involvement of the community and ultimately PSI’s are a community. As
posited by Llewellyn, Mackay and MacIsaac “punitive measures such as expulsion do not
change attitudes or positively influence future behaviour, nor do they address underlying
systemic problems” (p. 13). Karp (2015) stated that “college campuses are using restorative
practices to respond to larger social justice issues such as sexual misconduct, abuses of power
and privilege, and bias incidents” (p. 52). Therefore, the very nature of SVM may make it more
conducive to be effectively addressed using RJ principles.
Limitations of RJ
There are limits to an RJ approach. According to Karp (2015), RJ doesn’t always work
and that is why it is recommended to compliment, not replace, other approaches. Also, RJ may
not be appropriate for very serious SVM cases and conversely, RJ is very time-intensive and may
not be the best use of resources for minor SVM cases (Goldblum, 2009, p. 149). Further, it is
commonly agreed that in order for RJ to be successful, the person responsible must accept
responsibility (Busby & Birenbaum, 2020, p. 106; Goldblum, 2009, p. 142; Karp, 2015, p. 11).
Another limitation to RJ then, according to Busby and Birenbaum (2020), is that there is “a
serious disincentive to respondent participation… they cannot be promised that admissions made
in the course of an alternative process will never be used against the in any other legal process,

9
and in particular, will not be ordered produced to the Crown in any parallel or subsequent
criminal proceeding” (p. 104). As such the person responsible may be willing to take
responsibility and even participate in an RJ process but choose not to as a defensive measure in
any current or potential future litigation. When might RJ be most applicable? Goldblum (2009)
posited that RJ in post-secondary may more effectively address “normative violations”, when
community standards or social justice norms have been violated and there has been an impact to
the community (p. 149).
The guideline to be “cautious about the use of restorative justice processes, including
mediation” (Ending Violence Association of BC, 2016, p. 8) may be addressed by PSIs being
more explicit about the difference between mediation and RJ. Criticism of using mediation in
particular in response to SVM include concerns of leniency for the offenders, perceptions that
this is condoning and perpetuating systemic violence, and because sexual violence often is about
power, such processes can be manipulated by the perpetrator to further victimize the individual
that has come forward. There is a growing understanding that RJ is different than mediation.
Although RJ and mediation share some features, there are also important distinctions that may
overrule the concerns expressed about mediation (Karp et al., 2016, p. 29). Barone (2018)
explained “mediation and restorative justice can often be confused as being the same approach.
They both require trained facilitator(s) and share similar terminology. However, there are key
differences. RJ requires the responsible person (RP) to take ownership of their harm causing
actions ahead of the process, while mediation does not” (p. 6). To help foster this change in
perception, PSIs should be explicit about what RJ is and what it is not.

10
Are PSIs Explicit that RJ is an Option?
In conducting a scan of 23 PSIs SVM policy and procedures (see Appendix B), 9 linked
to student conduct or other policies for the handling of formal complaints about students. As
such, further research is required to review those institutions’ other policies to see if RJ or at
least ADR is an option in those policies. Looking specifically at KPU as an example, the formal
adjudication of an SVM complaint when a student is the Respondent is handled under the
Student Conduct (Non-Academic) policy ST7 which has a section that talks about ADR. This
allows for the flexibility to offer RJ options as part of the institutional response to SVM even
though RJ is not specifically mentioned in either policy. Of the 9 institutions that linked to other
policies, two of them (Langara and NVIT) mentioned “alternative resolution” and “restorative
processes” in their SVM policy/procedures. For those 14 institutions where their sexual violence
and misconduct policies do address how formal complaints about students will be addressed, 5
mentioned “alternative resolution” or “restorative justice”. That is a total of 7 institutions who
explicitly state some form of restorative option in their SVM policy and/or procedures.
Interestingly, Busby & Birenbaum (2018) asserted that “most if not all sexual violence
policies already have provisions that allow alternative processes to be used to resolve sexual
violence complaints outside of an investigation stream, that is, before a formal complaint has
been filed or as a side process following a formal complaint” (p. 105). The few examples they
cited were institutions from provinces other than British Columbia. An alternative explanation
for their assertion that appears to contradict this literature review is my use of a narrower search
category; i.e., expecting RJ to be mentioned explicitly in the SVM policy. It is important to note
that SVM reports are often handled without conducting a formal investigation and RJ may be
employed at this informal stage. Alternatively, or perhaps concurrently, as in the KPU example,

11
RJ may be an option under another policy. Therefore, it is unclear how many BC PSIs are using
restorative measures to handle incidences of misconduct, regardless of whether their
policies/procedures allow for it, which is why the qualitative exploratory survey proposed is
needed. Based on the results of that survey, if it is found that restorative options are being
employed, I would argue that PSIs could address some of the limitations of RJ and be more
transparent about whether this is a viable option for victim-survivors by explicitly mentioning RJ
in their SVM policies and procedures.
The Case for RJ
Proponents of RJ stress the opportunity it may provide to address relational dilemmas,
allow victim-survivors to reclaim their voice and transform their experience of shame (Zinsstag
et al., 2018). There are books, guides and reports detailing various RJ options, including
template curriculum and scripts for processes such as: restorative conferences, circles (of varying
types), CoSAs (Circles of Support and Accountability) and accountability boards (Goldblum,
2009; Karp, 2015; Karp et al., 2016; Zehr, 2015). Busby and Birenbaum (2020) provide wording
examples of alternative processes for inclusion in sexual violence and misconduct policies. Case
study examples can be found in the Campus PRISM Project Report and the Report from the
Restorative Justice Process at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry (Karp et al., 2016;
Llewellyn et al., 2015). The Campus PRISM Report also provides recommended next steps for
institutions interested in incorporating a restorative approach (Karp et al., 2016). Zinstaag et al.
(2018) created a Guide “on how to engage with the parties to RJ in SV cases safely and in a
manner that meets the psychological and emotional needs of all, most especially of the victims
and offenders” (p. 12). This recent and relevant information of RJ specific to SVM is laying the
foundation for more to come. Recent research has proposed recommendations such as:

12
1. PSIs offer an alternative dispute resolution process for SVM in the form of RJ by
partnering with a community restorative justice centre (Barone, 2018). This
recommendation aligns with EVA-BC where they urged PSIs not to undertake
restorative justice processes in cases of SVM alone; but rather in partnership with
community-based anti-violence workers” (Ending Violence Association of BC, 2016,
p.37).
2. Build interest and acceptance of RJ in PSIs for handling incidences of SVM by
engaging with community partners and involving them in training facilitators and
creating opportunities for their participation in RJ processes. PSIs to develop context
specific RJ options (Martin, 2018).
3. Boutilier and Wells (2018) go even further, using language of “reparative and
transformative justice” and calling for government funding to develop, in part, a
reparative and transformative justice response to sexual violence in the postsecondary context.
Current academic literature outlines several potential benefits of restorative
practices for victim-survivors of sexualized violence namely their capacity to provide
opportunities for choice and empowerment, to provide victim-survivors the opportunity to share
what happened in their own voices, to flexibly respond to their self-determined needs and finally
to have their experiences recognized without dispute of fact (Martin, 2018, p. 39). These
findings and recommendations support my hypothesis that principles of RJ may serve as
effective tools in responding to incidences of sexual misconduct in post-secondary institutions.

13
Recommendations
Building on this, the study’s fundings propose that:
1. PSIs include language about RJ in their SVM policies and procedures in order to be
explicit that this is an option victims-survivors can choose.
2. PSIs be prepared to provide RJ processes that indirectly involve or not even involve
the person responsible. RJ options such as indirect dialogue, exchange of letters /
videos, or employing a surrogate stand-in for a direct dialogue approach may widen
the range of methods available to allow PSIs to be more responsive to the needs of
victims-survivors.
Language is important. Informal resolution is not equivalent terminology to ADR as
there is no formal accountability tied to informal resolution. With ADR, should the Respondent
not uphold their obligations, disciplinary measures may then be applied. Even if ADR is
mentioned, I propose it is important to provide specific examples of what falls under this
overarching category and whether this includes RJ or restorative options. The reason being that
mediation is a form of ADR and criticisms indicate that mediation is not considered an effective
response whereas the accountability tied to RJ may make it effective. Using specific
terminology that more accurately reflects there is accountability within an ADR process not only
aids in legitimizing such an approach; being explicit is transparent about providing more options
which may be empowering for victims-survivors.
Another consideration that informs the second recommendation is that according to Martin
(2018):

14
“In some cases, processes that involve both the victim and offender are not possible; for
example, if the offender will not accept responsibility, there are safety concerns that
cannot be sufficiently addressed, or if one party is no longer living. However, the absence
of a direct encounter does not preclude a restorative response. Restorative processes are
possible and even beneficial in cases where only one party is able to participate [Walker,
2013, p. 35]. Walker (2013) refers to these as “partially restorative processes”, (p. 36),
which is aligned with Zehr’s (2002) continuum of restorative responses [p. 55] (Martin,
2018, p. 34).”
In PSIs there are instances where a student may make a complaint about SVM but the person
responsible is not a community member of that institution so there is no jurisdiction in which to
hold that person accountable. According to policy, the institution still has a duty to support the
Complainant and it is very forward-thinking to consider how RJ may still be an option in such
cases.
Conclusion
SVM is a serious societal issue and PSIs are not immune. Results from the 2014 General
Social Survey on Canadians’ Safety show that students, and especially women who were
students, reported relatively high rates of sexual assault. Overall, approximately 261,000
incidents of sexual assault—41% of all incidents—were reported by students. This represented a
rate of 73 incidents of sexual assault per 1,000 population” (Statistics Canada, 2014). The
seriousness of this issue led to legislation being enacted in BC, and according to the Guide that
accompanied the legislation, “with the aim of making campuses safer and more responsive to the
needs of victims/survivors” (Ministry of Advanced Education, 2017, p. 4). The Ending Violence
Association of BC (2016) stated “the challenge for institutions, in developing and implementing

15
sexual violence policies and protocols, is in balancing the rights of victims/survivors, the rights
of the accused to due process and privacy, and the safety of the campus community as a whole”
(p. 13).
The question my research poses is whether PSIs could be doing more to be responsive to
the needs of victims-survivors and to the campus community as a whole. I would suggest that
this is the case and propose that by explicitly incorporating RJ as an option for handling
incidences of SVM in the SVM policy and procedures, PSIs would be signaling an important
message to victims-survivors and the campus community that RJ is a viable option. Further
research should be conducted to determine if RJ is an option in PSIs that link to another policy to
handle complaints about students where a student is the Respondent. My proposed study will
provide clarity around whether RJ is being practiced even if not explicitly named as an option in
policy and to what effect. Finally, a bold, new direction would be to conduct research into if,
where and how, restorative practices are being carried out that only involve the victim-survivor’s
participation and to what effect the victim-survivor finds this a satisfying process to engage in.

16
References
Barone, A. C. (2018). An alternative response: Developing restorative justice for sexual
violence on BC university campuses [Capstone, The University of Western Ontario].
https://summit.sfu.ca/item/17932.
Boutilier, S. & Wells, L. (2018). The case for reparative and transformative justice approaches
to sexual violence in Canada: A proposal to pilot and test new approaches. Calgary, AB:
The University of Calgary, Shift: The Project to End Domestic Violence.
https://prism.ucalgary.ca/handle/1880/109349
Busby, K. & Birenbaum, J. (2020). Chapter 6: Alternative or parallel process. In Achieving
fairness: A guide to campus sexual violence complaints (pp. 103-108). Thomson
Reuters Canada Limited.
Ending Violence Association BC. (2016). Campus sexual violence: Guidelines for a
Comprehensive response. Vancouver, BC: Ending Violence Association of BC
https://endingviolence.org/wpcontent/uploads/2016/05/EVABC_CampusSexualViolenceGuidelines_vF.pdf
Goldblum, A. (2009). Chapter 9: Restorative justice from theory to practice. In Schrage, J. M. &
Giacomini, N. G. (Eds.), Reframing campus conflict: Student conduct practice through a
social justice lens (pp. 140-154). Stylus Publishing, LLC.
Karp, D. R. (2015). The little book of restorative justice for colleges and universities: Repairing
harm and rebuilding trust in response to student misconduct. Good Books.
Karp, D., Shackford-Bradley, J., Wilson, R., & Williamsen, K. (2016). Campus PRISM: A
report on promoting initiatives for sexual misconduct on college campuses.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299861268_Campus_PRISM_A_report_on_pro

17
moting_restorative_initiatives_for_sexual_misconduct_on_college_campuses/link/57067
36b08ae0f37fee1de02/download
Kwantlen Polytechnic University Bylaws and Policies. (n.d.). Policy SR14 Sexual Violence and
Misconduct / Procedures.
https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Policies/SR14%20Sexual%20Violence%20and%20
Misconduct%20Procedure.pdf
Kwantlen Polytechnic University Bylaws and Policies. (n.d.). Policy ST7 Student Conduct (Non
Academic) / Procedures.
https://www.kpu.ca/sites/default/files/Policies/ST7%20Student%20Conduct%20Non%20
Academic%20Procedure.pdf
Llewellyn, J.J., MacKay, M. & MacIsaac, J. (2015). Report from the restorative justice process
at the Dalhousie University Faculty of Dentistry. http://works.bepress.com/jenniferllewellyn/23/
Martin, L. (2018). A shifting position: Responding restoratively to sexualized violence at postsecondary institutions in Waterloo Region [Master’s project, University of Victoria]. The
UVIC Digital Archive.
https://dspace.library.uvic.ca/bitstream/handle/1828/10399/Martin_Leah_MA_2018.pdf?
sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Ministry of Advanced Education. (2017). Preventing and responding to sexual violence and
misconduct at British Columbia post-secondary institutions: A guide for developing
policies and actions. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/education/post-secondaryeducation/institution-resourcesadministration/5233_sexual_violence_and_misconduct_policy_guidelines_web.pdf.

18
Statistics Canada. (2014). Self-reported sexual assault in Canada, 2014.
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/pub/85-002-x/2017001/article/14842-eng.htm
Victoria: Government of British Columbia. (2016). Sexual violence and misconduct policy act.
https://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/16023_01
Zehr, H. (2015). The little book of restorative justice. Good Books.
Zinsstag, E., Keenan, M., Mercer, V. & Madsen, K. (2018). Doing restorative justice in cases of
sexual violence: A practice guide.
https://www.law.kuleuven.be/linc/english/research/RJ_sexual_violence_practice_guide_
Sept2015.pdf

19
Appendix A
“The Sexual Violence and Misconduct Policy Act requires all B.C. public post-secondary
institutions in B.C. to have a sexual violence and misconduct policy.” The Ministry of
Advanced Education, Skills and Training (MAEST) created a website where all the SVM
policies would be located in one place to make them more accessible, available at:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/safe-campuses-bc/get-informed.
British Columbia Institute of Technology
Capilano University
Camosun College
Coast Mountain College – excluded from review
College of New Caledonia
College of the Rockies
Douglas College – excluded from review
Emily Carr University of Art and Design
Justice Institute of British Columbia
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
Langara College
North Island College
Northern Lights College
Nicola Valley Institute of Technology
Okanagan College
Royal Roads University
Selkirk College
Simon Fraser University
Thompson Rivers University
University of British Columbia
University of the Fraser Valley
University of Northern British Columbia
University of Victoria
Vancouver Community College
Vancouver Island University

20
Appendix B
Chart 1
Post-Secondary Institution SVM Policy and Procedures Scan: Review whether language such as
restorative justice (RJ) or restorative principles/options/approaches/engagement or alternative
dispute resolution is used specifically in either the policy or procedures.
Institution

SVM Policy
and
Procedures
in one
document?

Is there a
separate
SVM Policy
Document
and a
separate
SVM
Procedures
document?

Complaints
about
students
handled
under
another
policy and
related
procedures?

British
Columbia
Institute of
Technology
(BCIT)
Capilano
University

No

Yes

Yes – to 3
other policies

Language
incorporating
the word
“restorative”
or mention of
alternative
dispute
resolution
used in SVM
Policy?
No

No – the SVM No
procedures
handle
complaints
Camosun
Yes
No
No – the SVM No
College
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
Coast Mountain College – excluded from review
College of
No
Yes
No – the SVM No
New
procedures
Caledonia
handle
(CNC)
complaints
College of
Yes
No
No – the SVM No
the Rockies
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
Douglas College – excluded from review as SVM policy not readily available
No

Yes

Language
incorporating
the word
“restorative”
or mention of
alternative
dispute
resolution
used in SVM
Procedures?
No

No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

21
No – the SVM
procedures
handle
complaints

No

No

No

Yes
*Note there
is one
overarching
policy and
then separate
procedures
documents
for students
and for
employees
and nonstudents.
Yes

No – the SVM
procedures
handle
complaints

No

Kwantlen
Polytechnic
University
(KPU)

No

Yes

No

Langara
College

No

Yes
*Note there
is one
overarching
policy and
then separate
procedures
documents
for students
and for
employees
and nonstudents.

Yes – to the
Student (NonAcademic)
Misconduct
policy
Yes – to the
Student
Conduct
policy

No
*Note, the
procedures
identify
informal
resolution but
this is not an
equivalent
term to
alternative
dispute
resolution.
No

Emily Carr
University
of Art and
Design

No

Justice
Institute of
BC
(JIBC)

No

Yes – an
option of
“alternate
resolution
process” is
noted in the
procedures.

22
Nicola
Valley
Institute of
Technology
(NVIT)

Yes

No

Yes – to the
Human Rights
policy

North
Island
College
(NIC)

Yes

No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

Northern
Lights
College
(NLC)

Yes

No

Okanagan
College

Yes

No

Royal
Roads
University
(RRU)

No

No – the SVM
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
No – the SVM
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
Yes – to the
No
discrimination,
bullying and
harassment
policy.
No – the SVM No
procedures
handle
complaints

Selkirk
College

Yes

No

Simon
Fraser
University
(SFU)

Yes

Yes
*Note there
is one
overarching
policy and
then separate
procedures
documents
for students
and for
employees
and nonstudents.
No
Yes – to the
Student
Conduct
policy
No
Yes – to the
Student
Conduct
policy

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)
N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

Yes. Students
have the
option of
“seeking
restorative
processes”.
Yes. Students
have the
option of
“alternate
resolution”.
No

No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)
N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)
Yes alternative
resolution as
opposed to the
completion of
an
investigation
and decisionmaking
process is an
option.

23
Thompson
Rivers
University
(TRU)

Yes

No

University
of British
Columbia
(UBC)

Yes

No

University
of the
Fraser
Valley
(UFV)
University
of Northern
British
Columbia
(UNBC)
University
of Victoria
(UVIC)

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes – 3
separate
procedures
documents

No – the SVM
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
No – the SVM
policy &
procedures
handle
complaints
Yes – to the
Safe Student
Learning
Community
Policy
No – the SVM
procedures
handle
complaints

No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

Yes – an
alternative
resolution
process is an
option
No

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

No

No

No – SVM
procedures
documents
handle
complaints

No

Yes, in the
procedures
document
called
“Sexualized
Violence –
Investigation,
Adjudication,
and Appeal
Procedures for
Students”.
It’s called a
“community
accountability
agreement
process”

N/A (as policy
and
procedures are
1 document)

“A
community
accountability
agreement
process may
include but is
not limited to:
restorative
justice, etc.

24
Vancouver
Community
College
(VCC)
Vancouver
Island
University
(VIU)

No

Yes

No

Yes

No – the SVM
procedures
handle
complaints
Yes – to the
Student
Conduct Code

No

No

No

Yes – the
Investigation
Manager may,
on their own
initiative or at
the request of
the
Complainant
or the
Respondent,
explore
resolution
through
alternate
dispute
resolution.
This process
may occur
before,
during, or
after an
Investigation

25
Appendix C
Proposed Exploratory Survey Questions
To be emailed to all the institutions listed in Appendix A with a cover sheet providing the
Definitions outlined in Appendix C.
Q.1
Based on the definitions provided, has your institution utilized one of those methods to address
an incident of sexual violence and misconduct perpetrated by a student? Please answer Yes or
No.
Follow-up questions if answered “no” or “yes”:
Q.2 a
If the answer to Q.1 was “no”, would your institution consider doing this in future?
Please answer Yes or No and in the space provided indicate why or why not.
Q.2b
If the answer to Q.1 was “yes”, by the definitions provided, what approach(es) did you take?
Further follow-up questions if answered “yes”:
Q.3
If the answer to Q.1 was “yes”, please indicate what types of incidents were handled this way.
Q.4
Who facilitated the process?
Q.5
Did you conduct an evaluation of the process afterwards? Please answer Yes or No,
Q.6
If the answer to Q.5 was “yes”, by what means did you evaluate? Please explain.

26
Q.7 Based on your experience, would your institution continue utilizing these methods where
appropriate?
Please answer Yes or No and in the space provided indicate why or why not.