WARNING: This article contains topics of sexual harassment and sexual violence. Those in need of support can call the Sexual Assault Support Center of Ottawa Crisis Line: 613-234-2266, the Mental Health Crisis Line: 613-722-6914 (within Ottawa) and 1-866-996-0991 (outside Ottawa), the Ottawa Distress Centre Crisis Line: 613-238-3311, or the Youth Services Bureau 24/7 Crisis Line: 613-260-2360 or 1-877-377-7775 (toll).
With Carleton University’s sexual violence policy (SVP) under review this year for the first time since 2022, students and campus organizations are raising concerns about the current policy’s lack of trauma-informed and survivor-centric approaches. Students interviewed by the Charlatan have identified a lack of communication and care as core issues they hope the SVP review will address.
Every three years, Carleton reviews its SVP to “ensure it is as responsive and supportive to the community as possible,” according to the policy’s website.
The policy’s last review was completed in June 2022. It addressed systemic forms of oppression, clarified the conflict of interest process during investigations, added a new section disallowing “irrelevant questions” asked to survivors and implemented general language adjustments.
Despite these additions, students at the time said the reviewed policy didn’t go far enough to protect Carleton’s vulnerable communities. No policy changes were made for sexual education or violence prevention.
The university began this year’s SVP review process in September 2024. In October and November, Carleton held a “listening phase,” where it sought feedback on the policy by reaching out to staff, students and campus organizations. In December, the university compiled the feedback into possible revisions to the policy that were released in a draft to the community on Jan. 22.
Following the draft, the university will hold another round of community consultations in February. Carleton will then review the draft in March and April, releasing the final reviewed policy for Board of Governors approval on June 4.
Under the current policy, the Sexual Violence Review Committee (SVRC) is responsible for assessing formal complaints and determining whether they fall under the scope of the SVP. The committee is also responsible for reviewing the implementation of interim safety measures for survivors, which can include no-contact orders and changes to class enrolments.
The committee is composed of:
- The university’s vice-president of students and enrolment;
- The associate vice-president of student affairs, when the complainant or respondent is a student;
- The director of labour relations (human resources), when the complainant or respondent is a professional services employee;
- The director of labour relations (academic) or office of the deputy provost, when the complainant or respondent is an academic employee;
- The director of health and counselling services;
- The director of Campus Safety Services.
Carleton’s department of equity and inclusive communities (EIC) is responsible for handling disclosures of sexual violence within the university. It provides support and counselling services, including information about interim safety measures.
Consultation phase
From October to November 2024, the university hosted “information and feedback sessions” for students, staff members and faculty to provide input and on regarding the policy’s previous functions, as part of the “listening phase” of the policy review.
Fifteen sessions were scheduled to be held over a two-month period. The Charlatan monitored 11 of these sessions without engaging in them, and found that, in total, only a couple of people attended any given consultation session.
Some sessions were hosted over the fall reading week and were cancelled with no notice or planned rescheduling. Others were added after the consultation phase began with no advertisement.
In a Dec. 20 email statement to the Charlatan, university media relations officer Steven Reid said sessions were cancelled when “there were no registrations within 24 hours of the session occurring.”
Nine consultation sessions were held in total, he wrote.
The event listings on the website provided notice of the cancellations, he wrote, as well as information for requesting a new consultation meeting or session. He added that an anonymous feedback form was open online throughout the consultation process and remains open for submissions from the Carleton community.
“The university continues to encourage members of the Carleton community to provide feedback by email or the anonymous form on the Sexual Violence Policy review website,” the statement reads.
Labour unions, student governments and student groups were also emailed in early October 2024 to arrange consultation meetings with the university, according to the statement.
“The university looks forward to continuing to work collaboratively with the entire community in this important policy review process and thanks the community for their continued engagement,” the statement reads.
Students express concerns with review committee following personal experiences
Students sharing their experiences with the sexual violence policy and review committee in this article have asked to be identified under pseudonyms due to a desire for privacy and fear of repercussions.
Students who spoke with the Charlatan said their main concerns with the current SVP include a lack of trauma-informed approaches and communication with survivors. They said they feel the SVRC prioritizes procedural fairness over survivors’ comfort, concerns and safety.
Charlie, an exchange student identified in this story by a pseudonym, said she was sexually harassed by a Carleton community member over text messages in June 2024. The Charlatan obtained copies of these texts.
Shortly after, Charlie made her initial complaint to Carleton through her home university.
Charlie said her home university contacted Carleton with the initial complaint, but Carleton did not immediately respond. Her home university had to follow up twice within the month to get an answer after the complaint was first made, Charlie said.
“My biggest issue has been the lack of communication around everything,” Charlie said. “When I first made the complaint, no one reached out to me. I had to keep emailing them to follow things up.”
Charlie said she felt she was discouraged from filing her formal complaint to the SVRC because of constant email correspondence reminders that a formal complaint was only an “option” for her and that she was not obligated to formally report her experience. When she did file a formal complaint, Charlie said she was given the opportunity to withdraw at any moment.
Charlie said when Carleton began to pursue the complaint, a third-party private investigator was hired by the SVRC to determine several factors, including whether Charlie fit under Carleton’s criteria for a complainant under the policy, given she was an exchange student.
The investigator was also hired to get both Charlie and her alleged perpetrator’s perspectives on the situation. Charlie said she found it “strange” the investigator was a man and expressed concerns about how “uncomfortable” the situation could be for a woman who was assaulted or harassed by a man.
“The only grounds you could take issue with [the investigator] is if you personally knew them or you thought they would be biased,” Charlie said. “So, if someone takes issue with … feeling uncomfortable that there’s a man investigating, there’s no grounds for you to oppose that person being an investigator.”
The current SVP is unclear whether either complainants or respondents can object to the choice of investigator for their case.
The Charlatan posed Charlie’s concerns regarding choice of investigator to the SVRC in a Jan. 12 email and followed up on Jan. 17. No members of the SVRC responded in time for publication.
Additionally, Charlie expressed concerns that the SVRC setup is not survivor-centric in terms of accommodating unique student needs. Throughout her investigation, Charlie said the SVRC and the investigator would set meeting times that weren’t considerate of time-zone differences when she was back in her home country. She was told that if she couldn’t make the meeting, it would proceed without her and she would lose the opportunity to participate.
“Everytime I’ve met with them, it feels like … they couldn’t care less,” Charlie said.
For nearly two months, Charlie said she dealt with the private investigator alone with no communication from Carleton or the SVRC. The Charlatan reviewed the investigator’s final report delivered in October 2024, which concluded that Charlie fit under the SVP’s criteria and that there was evidence of sexual harassment.
In a Jan. 19 statement to the Charlatan, Reid wrote that all formal complaints are investigated by a third-party investigator to “ensure a thorough, unbiased review and investigation.”
“The intention is always to use a reasonable time period and to act as expeditiously as possible, considering the nature and complexity of a complaint and mitigate uncontrollable factors that may arise to ensure the integrity and accuracy of the process and the reliability of the outcome,” the statement reads.
Another concern Charlie outlined with the SVP is a double-standard in representation. Charlie said she was not allowed to have a representative speak on her behalf during the process.
While section 8.4 of Carleton’s current SVP states that a complainant or respondent can be accompanied by a “support person,” which could be a friend, family member or advisor, support people can not act or speak on behalf of those involved in the investigation.
However, section 9.4 states that when the respondent is a “unionized employee,” such as the alleged perpetrator in Charlie’s case, they have “all applicable rights to union representation during any investigatory meetings.”
“I found it to be strange that I wasn’t allowed to have anybody that could speak on my behalf or assist me in making submissions, considering that he was able to have someone that spoke completely on his behalf,” Charlie said.
The Charlatan posed Charlie’s concerns to the SVRC in a Jan. 12 email and followed up on Jan. 17. No members of the SVRC responded in time for publication.
In a December 2024 meeting, months into the investigation of her complaint, Charlie said she met with nine individuals, six of which were SVRC members.
After Charlie asked the committee if the investigation would end before the start of the winter semester, she says a committee member asked her if she was planning on returning to Carleton in January 2025. When Charlie said no, she claims the member asked why there was “any rush” to conclude the investigation. Charlie replied that she was uncomfortable with the fact that her alleged perpetrator was still in a classroom with students during the fall term.
Charlie said the review committee member said they would “try their best” to complete the investigation by the end of the fall semester but that it wouldn’t conclude until 2025.
Despite repeated requests by the Charlatan for comment on this meeting, no members of the SVRC responded in time for publication.
Charlie also said she is upset that she was not informed of any disciplinary action against her alleged perpetrator due to privacy reasons, in accordance with section 9.7 (b) of the current SVP. Charlie received a final report in late December 2024, before the winter semester began, with any information on disciplinary action against her alleged perpetrator redacted.
The SVRC investigation ran for seven months. Charlie said she was provided little updates and felt it was up to her to reach out and understand what was going on with her investigation.
“It just felt like I was constantly having to prove that something had happened,” Charlie said.
“It is just such a bad system and Carleton has handled it so poorly,” she added. “There’s been no transparency, no communication. I’ve had to reach out to them every single time to ask what the next step is, what’s going to happen.”
Charlie said it felt like the process was “entirely unnecessary,” especially when there was evidence of harassment. As instructed by the SVRC, the alleged perpetrator wrote Charlie an apology, where he took full responsibility and admitted that his behaviour towards Charlie was inappropriate.
Charlie said she feels like the university does not prioritize students when dealing with sexual harassment cases involving employees.
“The policy is definitely the bare minimum. It doesn’t have enough detail for people to understand it,” Charlie said. “They just have no trauma-informed approaches. It just seems like you’re being interrogated when you’re the one who has come forward.”
Charlie’s concerns with the SVP and SVRC do not exist in isolation.
Jane Doe, another Carleton student identified by a pseudonym in this article, was receiving support services from Kristina Epifano following an assault allegedly committed against her by another Carleton community member. Epifano is an education and services co-ordinator from Carleton’s department of equity and inclusive communities.
Jane Doe said she was contacted by Epifano on Aug. 30, 2024, and asked to submit a letter about her alleged assault in order to access interim safety measures. Jane Doe was told this letter would go to Carleton’s labour relations department.
Jane Doe said she was not informed or aware that when she submitted the letter the following afternoon, it would initiate a formal sexual violence complaint process.
In a Sept. 4, 2024 letter, Jane Doe was informed that because her case was being separately investigated by the Ottawa Police Service, her letter to the labour relations department, considered a formal complaint, would not be investigated by Carleton’s SVRC.
Section 9.1 (c) of the policy states that “jurisdictional or legal considerations may arise (such as an active police investigation) where the formal complaint process in this Policy may be suspended.”
“Regardless of the status of any external or internal process the support, accommodations, and interim and safety measures … will continue to be provided as is detailed in the university’s policy,” Reid wrote in his Jan. 19 statement. This includes class and schedule changes, residence changes, no-contact orders and non-disciplinary leave.
Jane Doe said she only realized she had submitted a formal complaint to Carleton after receiving the Sept. 4, 2024 letter from the university — after her alleged perpetrator was notified of the complaint filed against them. When she became aware of this, Jane Doe said she threw up.
Section 8.11 of the current SVP highlights the university’s “duty” for procedural fairness to all parties involved.
“The basic requirements of procedural fairness is that a person against whom allegations are made, must know the allegations and evidence against them, and must be given the opportunity to answer prior to a decision being made,” the policy reads.
On Sept. 10, 2024, Jane Doe met with Epifano and Monique Lavergne, the case management support officer in Carleton’s office of student affairs, to discuss her concerns with the complaint process.
The Charlatan obtained transcripts of several meetings between Jane Doe and members of the SVRC and EIC.
“I thought I was writing a letter to labour relations, not to the SVRC, not triggering a formal complaint process,” Jane Doe told Lavergne and Epifano. “I feel like I was the last to know.”
Jane Doe said she didn’t understand why her alleged perpetrator was notified of the complaint if she did not intentionally submit an official complaint. She also questioned why they needed to be notified at all if the investigation was going to be quickly paused due to an ongoing police investigation.
“I don’t know why the respondent had to be notified … let alone before me,” Jane Doe told the Charlatan.
Jane Doe shared her concern with university officials that her alleged perpetrator would become more dangerous with the initiation of an investigation at Carleton.
“He’s going to get aggravated because he has to get notified because of procedural fairness,” Jane Doe told Lavergne and Epifano.
Section 8.12 of the current SVP says temporary safety measures may be put in place to protect complainants, respondents and the Carleton community during the process. “When Interim measures are necessary, the University will seek to implement the least disruptive measures that still promote safety and security,” the section reads.
Despite repeated requests by the Charlatan for comment, Lavergne, Epifano and Carleton’s labour relations department did not respond in time for publication.
Jane Doe said she felt like the SVRC prioritized procedural fairness and had no consideration for the consequences of filing a formal complaint without her explicit consent.
“I’ve pored through every sexual violence policy in all of Ontario [universities],” Jane Doe told the Charlatan. “[Carleton] pretty much has the most vague policy from what I’ve read.”
Concerns, recommendations from CUPE 4600 and CUSA
CUPE 4600 and the Carleton University Students’ Association (CUSA) were two of the campus bodies that met with the university in the fall semester to share their recommendations for the SVP review. CUPE 4600 is the largest union on campus, representing teaching assistants, internally-funded research assistants and contract instructors. CUSA is the student government representing undergraduate students at Carleton.
During an interview with the Charlatan, CUPE 4600 president Esther Post said the SVP must become more survivor-centric.
“A survivor needs to have autonomy in the way they tell their story and have a sense of agency over the way their story is told,” Post said. “Because this policy, we felt, was really lacking in that, [adopting a survivor-centric approach] was a major concern for us.”
The University of Ottawa, Western University and the University of British Columbia include the terminology of a trauma-informed approach in their sexual violence policies. In Carleton’s current policy, the words “trauma” or “trauma-informed” do not appear at all. The term “survivor-centered approach” appears only once.
Post recommended the university include paragraph definitions of those terms in the new policy and apply the concepts throughout the policy and sexual violence investigation process.
Carleton’s policy is currently lacking this implementation, Post added. She gave the example of filing a written report, which is the first step in reporting sexual violence on campus to the university. She said the requirement for a written report can be a barrier to reporting sexual violence, as it expects complainants to tell a linear and detailed story of their experience in a coherent, organized manner.
“As a survivor, I can tell you that you don’t remember every detail in the minutes, days, even weeks after [experiencing sexual violence]. That’s how trauma works. Your brain protects you,” Post said.
A trauma-informed approach would recognize that people who recently experienced sexual violence may not be able to provide the linear story that a written report requires, Post said. She suggested the first step of the reporting process be changed to an in-person or virtual informal discussion between the complainant and a sexual violence and trauma counselor in a comfortable setting.
Post also said article 10.1 of the current SVP requires a more trauma-informed approach. The article states that an appeal to a final decision made by the SVRC will not be accepted if it “raises new arguments that were not made, but could have been made” during the original reporting and investigation process.
Dissociation, which can cause memory loss, is a hallmark of a traumatic experience related to sexual assault, Post said.
“If someone is sexually assaulted, there might be a detail that they don’t remember until a month later,” Post said. “The idea that information is not allowed to be given is a bit troubling.”
During a consultation meeting with the university where Post shared these concerns and recommendations on behalf of CUPE 4600, she said she “truly felt heard” and was “greatly appreciative of the response” from the university. Post said she is “cautiously optimistic” the university will consider the feedback CUPE 4600 provided.
Post said other concerns and recommendations CUPE 4600 issued to the university include:
- Revising section 9.1 (a), which states that reports of sexual violence made by academic staff are received by the director of labour relations and the office of the deputy provost. Post said it was “beyond appalling” that sexual violence reports are received by labour relations, which is the same department that disciplines and issues dismissals for teaching staff.;
- More clarification on the type and extent of training in trauma-informed care and survivor-centric approaches received by members of the Sexual Violence Review Committee;
- Disallowing respondents to initiate alternative resolution processes;
- More provisions about maintaining no contact from the respondent to the complainant.
- More information about the timeline for the process of reporting sexual violence or the university’s investigations of sexual violence allegations;
- Centring women’s support groups instead of the Ottawa Police Service or Campus Safety Services on resource lists of community supports and services available to people who experienced sexual violence;
- Additions to the policy’s definition of sexual assault to cover “non-consensual condom removing (stealthing), distribution of sexual images or video of a person, non-censual exposure to material or content of a sexually suggestive or pornographic nature, and cyber stalking of a sexual nature,” Post wrote in a Dec. 15 email to the Charlatan.
Making the policy survivor-centric and easier to navigate for students were the “two key pillars” CUSA hoped to address through its recommendations, according to Artur Estrela da Silva, CUSA’s vice-president of student issues.
“A key concern that we have with the policy and the way it was structured [is] that it was … not clear to students what they can expect out of the process and how they can actually navigate it,” Estrela da Silva said. “These are things that seemed a little counter-intuitive.”
Reviewing the policy to make it easier to navigate will inherently make it more survivor-centric, he added.
In November 2024, the Charlatan published an investigation into difficulties encountered by CUSA-certified clubs when attempting to remove members on grounds of sexual harassment or violence. Some club members said CUSA decisions and university policies resulted in situations where club members were potentially endangered and where it was unclear how campus clubs could remove members on these grounds.
To inform its advocacy for the SVP review, Estrela da Silva said the association sought feedback from CUSA councillors and students at large, who were invited on Oct. 31, 2024 to provide feedback on the policy through an anonymous form.
“We had some councillors that were very vocal about this being something of a big concern of theirs,” Estrela da Silva said.
He said the form received a “somewhat limited” number of responses, but he said the feedback received framed much of CUSA’s agenda when issuing recommendations on the policy.
“Most students [didn’t feel] like the policy strongly addresses some of the concerns,” he said.
In addition to councillors’ feedback, Estrela da Silva said student input also shaped CUSA’s set of recommendations, some of which are unique to CUSA and some of which endorse recommendations made by the Sexual Violence Prevention and Education Committee responsible for the policy’s review.
CUSA’s recommendations highlight the need for equal access to legal support for complainants and respondents and accountability from the university in its handling of sexual violence reports, Estrela da Silva said.
The timeliness of the reporting process and investigations also needs to be clarified, he said.
“The policy as of now says the process will be timely, but that can mean a range of things,” he said. “For a survivor that’s just simply not good enough of an answer.”
On Dec. 21, 2024, CUSA released its full list of recommendations to the Sexual Violence Prevention and Education Committee, which is responsible for the policy’s review.
“Sexual Violence Prevention is one of CUSA’s 10 advocacy priorities for this academic year,” reads the Dec. 21 statement, prepared by CUSA’s associate vice-president of research and advocacy Ana Clara Miranda Guimaraes. “CUSA is a strong advocate for addressing sexual violence at Carleton and in assuring students’ safety on campus.”
The statement lists 13 recommendations, including:
- Outlining concrete examples of the university’s initiatives to address sexual violence on campus to provide “transparency and accountability to the university community”;
- Mechanisms for ensuring accountability from the university in handling cases of sexual violence, including a “clear obligation for the university to adhere to its stated procedures” and consequences for failures to do so’
- A “step-by-step description” of what happens after reports of sexual violence are made, who is involved, timelines and the complainant’s options at each stage;
- More clarity about the academic accommodations available to complainants and the steps to requesting these accommodations;
- Allowing equal access to legal support for complainants and respondents. Under section 8.4 of the current policy, complainants may only have an advisor from EIC, while student respondents may seek support from both Ombuds Services and the manager of student conduct and harm reduction;
- Making the option of initiating an alternative resolution process available only to complainants;
- Defining “clear and specific timeframes” for the university’s investigations into allegations of sexual violence.
Estrela da Silva said he hopes the reviewed policy will make the process of reporting sexual violence clearer in a way that is fair and “attends better to students.”
“I hope students feel a little bit more confident in not only reporting [sexual violence], but navigating the circumstances of the policy,” Estrela da Silva said.
CUPE 4600 president Esther Post said the SVP’s ramifications are very important.
“I think sexual assault goes very unreported, particularly on university campuses,” Post said. “I truly do hope they make the changes recommended so that more survivors are willing to come forward.”
Release of revised policy draft
On Jan. 22, the university released a draft of its revised sexual violence policy to the Carleton community for feedback.
The revised draft now includes four references to trauma-informed practices. It outlines that investigators, members of the SVRC and members of the appeal board will now receive “sexual violence and procedural fairness training that is trauma-informed.”
According to section 6.5 (c) of the revised draft policy, the trauma-informed training received by members of the SVRC will be directed by the chairperson of the committee, who is the university’s vice-president of students and enrolment.
The term “trauma-informed” is not defined in the draft. The revised draft also does not outline what implementing a trauma-informed approach would look like and still only includes one reference to using a “survivor-centred approach.”
A definition of sexual misconduct was also added to the revised draft. According to this definition, “sexual misconduct” encompasses sexual relations, touching and remarks from an employee towards a student. It also refers to any conduct by an employee that is retaliation or a threat of retaliation for a student’s rejection of sexual advances.
The revised draft also added to its definition of sexual harassment. The definition now includes and covers the “production and distribution of intimate images including generative artificial intelligence (AI) that is of or meant to depict the Complainant.”
With the support of the Sexual Violence Prevention and Education Committee, EIC will be responsible for developing Carleton’s educational training programs. This includes educational initiatives related to sexual violence and the policy.
Student complainants can now also access Ombuds Services or an EIC advisor for help navigating the SVP. This was previously only offered to student respondents, who can also access care and support case managers.
The revised draft has also shortened the timeframe in which complainants or respondents can request reviews or appeals of their cases.
Where complainants previously had 14 business days to request a review of the SVRC’s initial assessment, the window has now been shortened to 14 calendar days. Appeals have also been shortened to 15 calendar days after the final decision has been released.
The draft also states that respondents can no longer initiate an alternative resolution process and can no longer serve as members of Sexual Violence Prevention and Education Committee. It also included minor updates to the policy’s language, including references to gender identity and expression and updating titles and place names.
Community members have been invited to share digital feedback on the policy’s new draft. A new round of consultation meetings and feedback sessions will be held on Feb. 4, Feb. 11 and Feb. 18.
Featured graphic by Alisha Velji/the Charlatan.
