Skip to Main Content
You are now in the main content area

Administrative Policies Framework Procedure

 

I.   Policy Development and Review Process

The Administrative Policies Framework Procedure establishes the procedure by which policies are reviewed, updated, approved, consolidated and retired.

Step 1: Notification 

1.   The Owner shall:

(a)   initiate policy development or review; and

(b)   notify the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors, the Approver, and relevant community stakeholders.

Step 2: Initial Draft and Review 

2.   The Owner shall:

(a)   gather feedback from the Approver and relevant community stakeholders on policy gaps or needs;

(b)   draft or review the policy; and

(c)   provide the draft policy to the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors.

3.   The Owner may:

(a)   request policy support as described in the Administrative Policy Framework, including but not limited to:

(i)   coordinating the legal review of the policy; 

(ii)   drafting and research assistance; and

(iii)   consultation with the Office of Equity, Diversity and Inclusion as required.

Step 3: The Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors Review

4.   The Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors may:

(a) conduct research and identify policy gaps;

(b) assist with drafting;

(c) coordinate legal review

(d) ensure all links to associated documents, such as procedures, are functional and follows established formatting expectations; and

(e) provide other recommendations.

Step 4: Consultation 

5.   The Owner shall submit the policy to the Approver for review.

6.   The Approver should bring the policy and substance of any relevant community stakeholder consultations to the Executive Group for additional consultation, particularly where there are significant changes to the policy under review.

7.   The Approver provides this feedback to the Owner.

8.   The Owner:

(a)   revises the policy; 

 (b)   may undertake additional consultations with relevant community stakeholders regarding the feedback from the Approver; and   

(c)   re-submits the policy to the Approver, who may recirculate the policy to the Executive Group. 

9.   Repeat paragraphs 5 to 8 until the Approver is satisfied with the policy.

10.  The Approver then seeks the President’s approval.  Only then is the policy approved. 

Step 5: Board of Governors’ Approval, If Necessary

11.  There may be circumstances where a policy requires approval by the Board of Governors, including, but not limited to:

(a) upon recommendation of the Executive Group;

(b) as required by the Ryerson University Act; or

(c) as required by law. 

12.  Where the Owner believes the Board of Governors’ is the Approver:

(a) the Owner shall notify the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors; and 

(b) the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors shall explicitly state that Board of Governors’ approval is required.

Step 6: Communication of Approved Policy

13.  Once the Approver has approved the policy:

(a) the Owner sends the approved policy and written evidence of the Approver’s approval to the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors; and

(b) the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors posts the approved Policy to the University Administrative Policies website.   

II.  Policy Review Period

14.   The Owner is responsible to review each policy every five years:

(a)   unless otherwise required by legislation; or 

(b)   at the Owner’s discretion to review more frequently than every five years.  

In circumstances when a review period exceeds five years, the Owner is responsible for providing the rationale in writing to the Approver and the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors.  

15.  The General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors shall notify the Owner one year prior to the policy review.

III.  Policy Retirement

Step 1: Notification and Consultation

16.   When the Owner determines a policy is no longer required due to operational, statutory, regulatory, or other types of changes the Owner shall:

(a)   provide notice to the Approver, relevant community stakeholders, and the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors in writing;  

(b)   include rationale for retiring the policy in the notice; 

(c)   address relevant community stakeholder concerns; and

(d)   bring any unresolved concerns to the Approver’s attention.

Step 2: Approval

17.   A policy is retired when:

(a)   the Approver accepts, in writing, the Owner’s notice; and

(b)   the Owner provides a written copy of the Approver’s acceptance to the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors. 

Step 3: Communication

18.   The Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors shall:

(a)   remove the retired policy from the University Administrative Policies website; and 

(b)   coordinate appropriate communications with the Owner.

IV.  Policy Reconciliation and Consolidation

Step 1: Reconciliation

19.   The Owner may:

(a) undertake policy reconciliation as part of the regular policy review process; and

(b) consider policy consolidation when the Owner determines there is duplication among a group of policies.

Step 2: Consolidation Notification

20.   The Owner shall:

(a)   initiate consolidation by providing notice to the Approver, relevant community stakeholders, and the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors in writing, which includes the rationale for consolidating a group of named policies; and

(b)   shall also notify other affected Approvers and Owners, where the Owner does not own all of the policies under consideration for consolidation.

Step 3:  Consolidation Consultation

21.   The consultation process shall follow in accordance with Step 4 (Consultation) of this Procedure, in the Policy Development and Review Process section.

Step 4: Consolidation Approval

22.   A group of policies are consolidated when:

(a)   the Approver accepts, in writing, the Owner’s notice; and

(b)   the Owner provides a written copy of the Approver’s acceptance to the Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors. 

23.   The consolidated policy is a new policy. 

24.   The former group of policies will be retired as a result of consolidation.

Step 5: Consolidation Communications:

25.   The Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors shall:

(a)   remove the retired policies from the University Administrative Policies website;

(b)   post the new consolidated policy to the University Administrative Policies website; and 

(c)   coordinate appropriate communications with the Owner.

V.   Distribution and Communication  

The Office of the General Counsel and Secretary of the Board of Governors shall use the University Administrative Policies website to communicate policy updates and reviews. 

To ensure the Owner communicates the official copy of a policy, the Owner may post a copy of a policy to the Owner’s website by linking to the University Administrative Policies website.

APPENDIX A

The Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Lens for Policy Development and Policy Management

Introduction

Policies may inadvertently create barriers for individuals or groups. The following worksheets are intended to provide a lens that will engage policymakers to consider the potential impact of Policies and procedures for diverse peoples. Policies should not have unequal impact, services provided should be accessible and decisions should be fair and flexible.

Ryerson Academic Plan – Community and Inclusion Values

Community: The university sustains its commitment to ensuring a strong sense of belonging and engagement for students, alumni, faculty and staff, and values mutual and reciprocal relationships with the broader community.

Inclusion: The university values the equitable, intentional and ongoing engagement of diversity within every facet of university life. It is the shared responsibility of all community members to foster a welcoming, supportive and respectful learning, teaching, research and work environment.

Equity: The university values the fair and just treatment of all community members through the creation of opportunities and the removal of barriers to address historic and current disadvantages for under-represented and marginalized groups.

Diversity: The university values and respects diversity of knowledge, worldviews and experiences that come from membership in different groups, and the contribution that diversity makes to the learning, teaching, research and work environment.

Respect for Aboriginal Perspectives: The university will continue to cultivate and develop relationships with Aboriginal communities, both within and outside the university. The campus environment will embrace and support Aboriginal learners, faculty and staff, and ensure Aboriginal people take a leading role in the advancement of Aboriginal education at Ryerson.

Access: The university is committed to providing access to education and employment opportunities at Ryerson for students, faculty and staff of all backgrounds, in particular those from marginalized and under-represented groups.

EDI Considerations

SYSTEMIC BARRIERS

Consider how the Policy and procedures reflect Ryerson’s values and might be inclusive or exclusive for women, Aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities and LGBTQ and racialized people. Also consider impacts based on religion and socio-economic status, and for those who are new to Canada.

Consider including EDI principles and values in the Policy. For example, in a section about principles or values that are the foundation of the Policy.

Consider power imbalances and attempt to address them in the Policy and associated procedures. Those with power, because they are in leadership roles and/or because they are in the dominant social group, often have advantages over those who are not in leadership roles and/or are not in the dominant social group. Those with power often get to determine what is acceptable and appropriate in a given set of circumstances.

Recommended Actions and Examples

  • Consult broadly with individuals and groups who are interested or active in advancing equity, diversity and inclusion for the aforementioned groups and can consult with individuals from those groups (e.g. Chairs of Access Ryerson working groups and Positive Space).

  • Ensure processes address power differentials, such as when student makes a complaint about an instructor or an employee disagrees with the decision of their manager or supervisor. For example, provide for a third party decision maker or advisor role to be involved in the process.

  • Obtain demographic data to be informed about how specific Policies and procedures may have a disproportionate impact on some groups (e.g. higher percentage of smokers amongst Aboriginal peoples and immigrants from some countries compared to the general population).

  • Review academic research articles, relevant to the subject matter, from an equity, diversity and inclusion perspective (e.g. when developing security and safety related Policies, review literature related to how those Policies might create barriers for racialized people).

Resources

Policy Considerations

(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed.)

INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

Consider whether the language of the Policy reflects the values of equity, diversity and inclusion, particularly in examples and guidelines.

Specifically, consider whether the language is gender neutral, refrains from reflecting stereotypes and biases, and acknowledges differences.

Recommended Actions and Examples

  • Use language that promotes inclusion and avoids bias (e.g., use the term ‘mental well-being’ or ‘mental health condition,’ which is more inclusive compared with the term ‘mental illness.’ Use the term person who ‘uses a wheelchair’ or ‘wheelchair user’ instead of person ‘confined to a wheelchair’).
  • Use plain language and avoid idiomatic expressions (e.g. ‘waiting in the wings’) or colloquialisms (e.g. ‘blacklist’) that may have negative connotations for some groups and/or may not be understood by people from different ethnic backgrounds or for whom English is not a first language.

  • Avoid terminology such as ‘man-made’ or ‘man hours’ (can use ‘machine made’ or ‘synthetic’, and ‘hours of work’ or ‘person hours’).

  • Use gender inclusive language such as ‘they’ instead of ‘he/she’ and use ‘spouse’ or ‘partner’ instead of ‘husband/wife’. When providing examples that involve relationships include same sex relationship examples.

  • Use ‘person(s) with a disability’ instead of ‘disabled person or people’

  • Avoid terminology such as ‘suffers from’ when referring to a person with a particular type of condition.

  • Capitalize the proper names of peoples such as First Nations, South Asian, Trans, etc.

Resources

Policy Considerations

(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)

FAIRNESS AND FLEXIBILITY

Consider whether the Policy and associated processes support fair decision making and provide a flexible framework, in which decisions are made based on specific facts and circumstances.

The focus should be on fair outcomes and not on having everyone necessarily follow the same process. Consider whether the Policy reflects the principle that treating people fairly does not necessarily mean treating them the same.

Processes under the Policy should be transparent and allow for individuals to participate in the decisions that impact them. Further, providing alternatives and acknowledging different paths or processes will increase a Policy’s transparency and accessibility for all individuals.

Recommended Actions and Examples

  • Ensure the Policy informs individuals of the basis for making decisions that impact them.
  • Allow for the consideration of specific circumstances when making decisions and avoid rigid rules that do not permit discretion to be applied in different situations. For example, a person relying on Wheeltrans to get to work may need flexibility to accommodate the unpredictability of arrival times that others who have more transportation options do not.
  • Ensure forms and documents are in accessible formats (see link to Access Ryerson resources below).
  • Outline how the Policy provides for: a) input into decisions by the person(s) affected by the decision; and b) appeals of decisions that impact individual(s).
  • Include provisions for individual needs to be accommodated.

Resources

Policy Considerations

(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)

Human Rights And Competing Interests

Consider whether the Policy is consistent with Human Rights principles, treats individuals with dignity and respect and does not have an inequitable impact based on protected grounds under the Ontario Human Rights Code (the Code).

The Code prohibits discrimination against people based on protected grounds in protected social areas. Protected grounds include:

  • Age
  • Ancestry
  • Colour
  • Race
  • Citizenship
  • Ethnic Origin
  • Place of Origin
  • Creed
  • Disability
  • Family Status
  • Marital Status (including single status)
  • Gender Identity
  • Gender Expression
  • Receipt of Public Assistance (housing only)
  • Record of Offences (employment only)
  • Sex (including pregnancy and breastfeeding)
  • Sexual Orientation

Protected Social areas include accommodation (housing), contracts, employment, goods, services and facilities (including education), and membership in unions, trade or professional associations.

Consider whether the Policy recognizes, and provides mechanisms, to resolve potential competing interests.

An example of competing rights can be seen in cases involving rights based on sex and based on religion. Some people in Western society consider wearing a niqab or veil to cover one’s face to be oppression of women. In some countries, such as France, niqabs are completely banned in public.

Recommended Actions and Examples

  • Include a process for situations where there are competing rights, which allows for the parties to determine appropriate action through discussion or negotiation before more formal resolution processes take place;
  • Consult broadly with constituents who will likely have different points of view about a Policy, such as those who use service animals and those who have concerns about animals on campus, those who want all gender washrooms and those who want separate washrooms for men and women, and people from different faith/creed groups.

Resources

Policy Considerations Related to Human Rights and Competing Interests

(Note any considerations specific to the Policy under review or being developed)