Report: Governing Council - May 13, 2026

THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

WEDNESDAY, MAY 13, 2026

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE GOVERNING COUNCIL

PRESENT: Anna Kennedy (Chair), Sandra Hanington (Vice-Chair), Melanie Woodin (President), Sharleen Ahmed, Donald Ainslie, Aarthi Ashok, Laurent Bozec, Vikram Chadalawada, Janet Cloud, Ann Curran, Samuel Elfassy, Ramy Elitzur, Susan Froom, Giovanni Grasselli, Thomas Hofmann, Paul Huyer, Indi Gopinathan, Sarosh Jamal, Kikelomo Lawal, Ron Levi, Brian Madden, Rajiv Mathur, Eha Naylor, Albert Pan, Andrew Petersen, Adam Stinchcombe, Paul Tenenbein, Jeffrey Wendling

REGRETS: Sheree Drummond (Secretary of the Governing Council), Wes Hall (Chancellor), Jay-Daniel Baghbanan, Amanda Bartley, Evan Chan, Robert Cooper, Maureen Harquail, David Jacobs, Linda Johnston, Audrey Karlinsky, Kevin Li, Scott MacKendrick, Angela Pyle, Raed Kadri, Rishi Shah, Dina Reiss, Danielle Skipp, Grace Westcott, Mary Agnes Wilson, Geeta Yadav, Trevor Young

SECRETARIAT: Lauren Turner (Acting Secretary of the Governing Council), Cindy Ferencz Hammond (Recording Secretary), Miranda Edwards, Samantha Frost, Tracey Gameiro, Amanda Grant

IN ATTENDANCE: Samuel Kamalendran (Governor-elect), Alexandra Gillespie (Vice-President and Principal, UTM), Scott Mabury (Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships), Christine Szustaczek (Vice-President, Communications), Kristin Taylor (Vice-President, Legal, Risk & Safety and Chief Legal Officer), Susan McCahan (Vice Provost Digital Strategies and Vice Provost Teaching & Learning), Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students), Joe Wong (Vice-President, International), Meg Connell (Assistant Provost), Archana Sridhar (Assistant Vice-President, Institutional Affairs), Jodie Glean (Director, Anti-Racism & Cultural Diversity Office), Tim Fricker (Interim Dean, Student Experience and Wellbeing, UTM), Melissa Gallo (Assistant Dean, Student Wellness Support & Success, UTM), Felicity Morgan (Director, Career Centre, UTM), Chad Nuttall (Assistant Dean, Students and International Initiatives, UTM), Amanda Pautler (Interim Executive Director, Public Affairs, UTM), Dany Savard (Chief Librarian, UTM), Dan Bowyer (College of Electors), Adam El-Falou (President, UTMSU), Joy Bello-Osagie (student presenter), Jason John (guest presenter, UTM Employer Relations), Anne Milochik (College of Electors), Mayo Moran (presenter, Faculty of Law), Jeff Ollinger (guest presenter, SunLife), Cheryl Regehr (guest presenter, Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work), Shannon Simpson (guest presenter, Senior Director of Indigenous Initiatives), Ron Wener (Member, UTM Campus Council).

IN CAMERA SESSION

1. Report Number 71 of the Committee for Honorary Degrees
   
   On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   IT WAS RESOLVED
   
   THAT the Honorary Degree conferred on Buffy Sainte-Marie by the University of Toronto on June 17, 2019, be rescinded, effective immediately.

OPEN SESSION

2. Chair’s Remarks
   
   The Chair welcomed members to the Cycle 4 meeting of the Governing Council and thanked Vice-President and Principal Alex Gillespie and the UTM team for hosting the meeting and providing a pre-meeting tour highlighting UTM’s place-based learning initiatives, including archaeology, conservation, Indigenous language revitalization, robotics, and Truth and Reconciliation work.
   
   The Chair then addressed the rescindment of an honorary degree previously granted to Buffy Sainte-Marie. The Chair noted that the University had an established process for reviewing requests related to recognition and commemoration, including honorary degrees, and explained that requests were assessed against whether the recognition was fundamentally at odds with the mission and values of the University. Governors had considered the matter earlier in camera as part of Report No. 71 of the Committee for Honorary Degrees. The Chair announced that Governing Council had approved the following motion:

THAT the honorary degree conferred on Buffy Sainte-Marie by the University of Toronto on June 17, 2019 be rescinded effective immediately.

The President thanked the petitioners and the Standing Committee on Recognition for their thoughtful and diligent work and noted that the decision reflected a careful, evidence-based review and the University’s commitment to integrity in University recognitions. The Chair advised that Ms. Sainte-Marie had been informed of the decision and that a public announcement would follow in the coming days.

Finally, the Chair advised that a speaking request regarding the University’s sponsorship of CANSEC, an annual defence and security trade show, had been received and declined as the matter was not on the meeting agenda.

3. President’s Report
   
   The President invited Vice-President and Principal Alex Gillespie to provide introductory remarks regarding UTM and recent developments on the campus.
   
   Principal Gillespie highlighted significant growth and achievements at UTM over the past six years, including record-high research funding, substantial increases in experiential learning participation and co-op enrolment, record summer enrolment levels, increased student financial aid, and improvements in graduation rates. She also noted the progress of a new student residence project, campus sustainability initiatives, and the expansion of Indigenous programming and facilities. Principal Gillespie then introduced Jason John, Associate Director of Employer Relations, to present on UTM’s Skills Accelerator initiative.
   
   Mr. John described the Skills Accelerator as a series of intensive, short-format experiential learning sessions in which employer partners present students with real-world business challenges. Students from a range of academic disciplines are then organized into interdisciplinary teams and asked to develop and pitch solutions. Recent examples included challenges from Sun Life and Bell Canada regarding the responsible integration of artificial intelligence into customer service and operational processes.
   
   Jeff Ollinger, Director of Talent Acquisition, Corporate and Campus at Sun Life, spoke about the value of the partnership from an employer perspective. He noted that the Skills Accelerator provided employers with the opportunity to engage directly with students, observe how they approached unfamiliar and complex challenges, and provide real-time mentorship and feedback. He described Sun Life’s experience with the initiative as highly positive and emphasized the organization’s commitment to continuing its partnership with UTM.  Joy Bello-Osagie, a graduating UTM student and recent Sun Life intern, then shared her experience participating in the Skills Accelerator program. She reflected on how the initiative helped her connect her academic background in biology with new professional opportunities and described how participation in the program ultimately led to her securing an internship with Sun Life prior to graduation.
   
   The President thanked the presenters and congratulated Ms. Bello-Osagie on her success.
   
   The President then provided updates on several institutional priorities and activities.
   
   Addressing Antisemitism
   
   The President began her report by returning to her commitment from the previous Governing Council meeting to continue updating Governors on the University’s efforts to combat antisemitism. She reiterated that the University remained open to constructive ideas and had carefully considered the recommendations contained in the Antisemitism Action Plan, previously shared by a group of Governors.
   
   In that context, the President advised that more than half of the recommendations identified in the Action Plan had already been implemented through existing institutional initiatives arising from the University’s 2021 Antisemitism Working Group. By way of example, she highlighted the expansion of culturally sensitive mental health supports available through Telus Health for students and through the Employee (& Family) Assistance (EFAP) program for faculty and staff. She also noted the introduction of additional education and training within equity, diversity and inclusion offices concerning antisemitism and discrimination based on creed, ethnic origin, and place of origin, as well as the establishment of protocols for the prompt removal of antisemitic, racist, or discriminatory posters, graffiti, and other writings found on campus property. The President further advised that some recommendations contained in the Action Plan were not feasible because they would conflict with provincial regulations, legal standards, University policies, collective agreements, or principles of academic freedom. She cited, as examples, proposals to prohibit last-minute protests, which would conflict with the University’s free expression principles, and recommendations seeking to prescribe or prohibit specific academic content, which would run counter to academic freedom. At the same time, she emphasized that the University continued to take action against activities that were harassing or discriminatory under law and University policy. The President also noted that several recommendations aligned with initiatives already underway at the University and had encouraged the administration to consider where additional efforts might be appropriate. She pointed specifically to recently approved structural changes to campus safety and security operations, the forthcoming campus climate study being undertaken by the Lab for the Global Study of Antisemitism, and the ongoing work to modernize the University’s complaints system through the proposed discrimination and harassment policy and online reporting portal.
   
   The President also provided an update on the work of the Civil Discourse Advisory Group, noting that the group continued to collaborate with divisions and departments across the University to incorporate civil discourse initiatives into teaching workshops, TA training, and faculty development activities. In that context, she highlighted recent events featuring Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, including a discussion at the University’s Teaching and Learning Symposium on fostering productive classroom dialogue and a public conversation with Provostial Advisor Randy Boyagoda focused on free expression and respectful debate on university campuses.
   
   Quercus Cybersecurity Incident
   
   The President next addressed the recent cybersecurity incident involving Quercus, the University’s learning management system provided through Canvas/Instructure. She advised that there was no evidence that other University systems had been compromised and that extensive work was underway to support instructors and students while access to the system was temporarily suspended. She added that the University had taken steps to ensure that graduating students could receive final grades on schedule and expressed appreciation to the University’s IT teams for their rapid response to the incident.
   
   Government Relations and External Engagement
   
   The President also provided updates regarding federal, provincial, and municipal government relations activities. She described recent meetings in Ottawa with senior federal officials and members of the U15 group of Canadian research universities concerning research funding, innovation policy, and national strategic priorities. She noted that universities had been invited to work collaboratively with the federal government as new research and innovation programs were designed and implemented, emphasizing the importance of ensuring that funding frameworks and program structures reflected the realities and strengths of research-intensive institutions such as U of T. The President referenced meetings with senior federal public servants, including officials from national defence and the Privy Council Office, and noted that these discussions focused on opportunities for universities to contribute to emerging national priorities in research, innovation, and talent development.
   
   The President also referenced recent provincial discussions concerning Toronto’s bid to host NATO’s Defence Security and Resilience Bank, observing that the initiative could create significant internship and employment opportunities for students and graduates in finance, technology, and related sectors if the bid were successful. On the municipal front, she highlighted a recent reception hosted with Mayor Olivia Chow and Councillor Dianne Saxe that brought together municipal leaders and senior public servants, many of whom were U of T alumni, further underscoring the University’s strong connections to public service leadership across the region.
   
   Rankings and Advancement
   
   The President reported that U of T continued to rank first in Canada in the QS World University Rankings by Subject and among the top 17 universities globally across all five broad disciplinary fields. She noted that these rankings reflected the University’s continued international strength across teaching, research, and graduate employability and reinforced U of T’s reputation as one of the world’s leading public universities.
   
   The President also provided an update on the Defy Gravity campaign, announcing that the University had surpassed its fundraising targets and achieved a record-setting year with approximately $482 million raised, exceeding the previous institutional and national fundraising record. She noted that many of the most recent commitments supported undergraduate scholarships, graduate student funding, endowed chairs, and strategic academic initiatives, and emphasized that the success of the campaign reflected the strong engagement of alumni, faculty, staff, students, and supporters across the University community.
   
   Faculty Recognition and Bicentennial Planning
   
   The President concluded her remarks by congratulating several faculty members on recent honours and awards, including recipients of Guggenheim Fellowships, Gairdner awards, and Governor General’s Innovation Awards. She also acknowledged the recent election of former Department of Family and Community Medicine Chair Danielle Martin as Member of Parliament for University-Rosedale and noted that the University looked forward to working with her in her new role.
   
   The President also provided an update on preparations for the University’s bicentennial celebrations, noting that planning activities were well underway and involved broad participation from students, faculty, librarians, and staff across all three campuses. She highlighted the recent opening of Bicentennial House on the St. George campus and advised that work continued on developing success metrics and institutional risk management plans to support the bicentennial initiative.
   
   Questions and Discussion
   
   One governor thanked the administration for its work reviewing the antisemitism action plan and asked whether governors could receive additional information regarding which recommendations had already been implemented and which were still under consideration. In response, the President reiterated that the document had not been adopted as a formal Governing Council report and therefore the University would not be issuing a formal point-by-point response but emphasized that the administration had reviewed all recommendations carefully and had incorporated those that aligned with existing institutional initiatives, policies, and priorities.
   
   Several governors raised questions regarding cybersecurity awareness, resilience, and contingency planning following the temporary disruption of Quercus. Members asked about the types of cybersecurity training provided to faculty, staff, students, and student leaders, and whether the University had sufficient backup systems and redundancies in place to preserve access to teaching materials and gradebooks during external system outages. Concerns were also raised about the University’s reliance on third-party vendors and whether additional external assessments or certifications of the University’s cybersecurity response should be considered. One governor further asked about the University’s obligations relating to disclosure of any compromised information and whether affected individuals would be notified appropriately.
   
   Susan McCahan (Vice-Provost, Digital Strategies; Vice-Provost, Teaching and Learning) responded on behalf of the administration regarding cybersecurity training and preparedness. She described the University’s existing cybersecurity training and awareness programs, including cybersecurity modules for staff and faculty, phishing detection and reporting tools integrated into email systems, annual cybersecurity awareness campaigns, and the widespread use of multi-factor authentication. She also noted that the University maintains internal monitoring tools and dashboards to track cybersecurity training compliance and preparedness across the institution. Several governors commented positively on the professionalism and responsiveness of the University’s IT and cybersecurity teams during the Quercus incident, noting both the strong community response across the institution and the sophistication of the University’s cybersecurity infrastructure. The President advised that the University would undertake a thorough review of the incident, including lessons related to resilience, backup practices, disclosure obligations, and future preparedness. She noted that a fuller debrief would be provided to Governing Council at a future meeting.
4. Indigenous Substantiation
   
   The Chair invited Shannon Simpson, Senior Director of Indigenous Initiatives, to present an overview of the University’s Indigenous Substantiation Framework. Ms. Simpson introduced herself as Anishinaabe and Scottish and a member of Alderville First Nation and explained that the framework had been developed in direct response to requests from Indigenous community members seeking safeguards against Indigenous identity fraud and misrepresentation within the University context.
   
   Ms. Simpson described the extensive consultation and development process undertaken to create the framework. An Indigenous-led committee composed of students, staff, and faculty from across the tri-campus community was established to develop recommendations. The process included broad consultations with Indigenous faculty, staff, and students, as well as engagement with neighbouring First Nations, Métis, and Inuit communities and organizations. She also noted that University leadership and legal counsel had been closely involved throughout the process to ensure the framework aligned with institutional responsibilities and legal requirements.
   
   Ms. Simpson explained that the framework was intended to operate prospectively and would apply in situations where Indigenous identity was a determining factor for material benefit, including employment and hiring pathways, Indigenous admissions streams, scholarships and awards, procurement opportunities, commissioned projects, research funding, and honorary distinctions. While the process would not be applied retroactively to current community members, individuals currently affiliated with the University who sought access to Indigenous-specific opportunities would be required to participate in the substantiation process. She emphasized that the framework was designed to be community-led rather than institutionally imposed. Indigenous communities helped determine what forms of documentation and evidence would be accepted, with the goal of ensuring that the process did not position the University itself as determining Indigenous identity. Ms. Simpson noted that some communities wished to be directly involved in confirming community membership claims, while others preferred alternative approaches, and the framework was designed to accommodate those differences respectfully.
   
   Ms. Simpson also provided an overview of implementation plans. She advised that the Office of Indigenous Initiatives would oversee administration of the framework and that implementation would occur in phases, beginning with employment and procurement processes and later extending to admissions and student awards. She noted that the University was developing a secure online portal for the submission and review of substantiation documentation and that the process had already been used on an interim basis in more than 50 cases.
   
   Governors asked about the extent to which Indigenous communities themselves would participate in confirming identity claims and whether communities would receive support where substantiation requests created additional administrative burdens. Ms. Simpson explained that approaches would vary by community and that the University intended to follow the preferences and protocols established by individual communities wherever possible. Governors also asked about the broader context giving rise to the framework and discussed the increasing concern within Indigenous communities regarding high-profile cases of Indigenous identity fraud in academia and other sectors. Ms. Simpson noted that many universities across Canada were developing similar processes and emphasized the importance of maintaining consistency while respecting local community relationships and protocols.  Additional discussion focused on how the framework would apply to honorary degree recipients and other forms of institutional recognition. Ms. Simpson confirmed that conversations were already underway regarding how substantiation could be incorporated into honorary degree processes while recognizing the unique nature of honorary degree nominations and the need to engage nominees appropriately during the process.
   
   Governors commended Ms. Simpson and her colleagues for the thoughtful, collaborative, and community-driven approach taken in developing the framework and noted the significant amount of consultation and care reflected in the work.
5. Update on Consultations on New Discrimination and Harassment Policy
   
   The Chair invited Jodie Glean, Executive Director, Equity, Diversity and Inclusion, to provide an update on consultations regarding the draft Policy on Human Rights Code Discrimination and Harassment. Ms. Glean explained that the draft policy was intended to replace the current Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment and the Statement on Human Rights and was being developed in response to recommendations arising from the Review of the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment report and community consultations. She noted that concerns had been raised about the lack of clarity and consistency in the University’s current complaints resolution processes and the need for stronger accountability mechanisms in responding to complaints related to discrimination and harassment. Ms. Glean advised that the proposed policy was intended to create a more accessible, actionable, and enforceable framework for addressing complaints under the Ontario Human Rights Code. Key features included the establishment of a centralized Human Rights Office as a single point of intake for complaints, clearer definitions and processes, improved complaint tracking and case management, and defined timelines for complaint resolution. She explained that the policy would operate alongside other University policies and procedures, including the Code of Student Conduct, collective agreements, and workplace violence and harassment procedures, depending on the circumstances of each case.
   
   Ms. Glean also described the distinction between formal complaints and informal or alternative resolution pathways. She noted that formal complaints would require specific allegations and, in most cases, identification of the complainant, and that only formal complaints could lead to disciplinary outcomes. At the same time, the policy would provide opportunities for alternative and restorative approaches where appropriate and agreed upon by the parties involved. She further explained that the policy contemplated circumstances in which the University itself might initiate a complaint or investigation where serious concerns were brought forward, even in the absence of a formal complaint from an individual.
   
   Ms. Glean summarized the draft policy consultation process undertaken across the tri-campus community and noted that feedback had generally been supportive of the proposed direction. She highlighted several revisions made in response to community feedback, including refinements to the provisions about University-initiated investigations, expanded definitions relating to discrimination and the inclusion of 2SLGBTQ+ hate, and clarifications regarding the role of various administrative offices. She noted that most of the remaining questions related to operational implementation details that would be addressed through supporting guidelines and procedures rather than through the policy text itself.
   
   Governors asked several questions regarding the proposed alternative resolution pathway, including whether participation would require the agreement of both the complainant and respondent and whether individuals could return to a formal investigation process if an alternative resolution approach proved unsuccessful or inappropriate. Ms. Glean explained that alternative resolutions would only proceed where all parties agreed and where the University determined that such a pathway was appropriate in the circumstances. She further noted that if either party later became uncomfortable with the process, or if the matter could not be satisfactorily resolved, the complaint could proceed through a formal investigation process. Governors also asked about circumstances under which the University itself might independently initiate a complaint or investigation in the absence of a formal complaint from an individual and what threshold or safeguards would apply before the University exercised that authority. Ms. Glean explained that there could be situations where repeated or serious concerns came to the attention of the University through multiple reports or other information, even if no single individual was prepared to file a formal complaint. In such cases, the University would assess whether, if substantiated, the allegations could constitute a violation of policy and, where appropriate, could initiate an investigation in order to protect members of the University community and uphold institutional responsibilities.
   
   Additional discussion focused on the relationship between the proposed Human Rights Office and the Office of the Ombudsperson. Ms. Glean explained that the Office of the Ombudsperson office frequently assisted community members who had concerns about complaint processes or who required support navigating University systems. She noted that consultation with the Ombudsperson’s office had formed part of the policy development process and that ongoing collaboration would continue as implementation proceeded.
   
   The President reinforced the importance of maintaining strong communication and coordination among the relevant offices and administrative units. She emphasized that feedback and concerns raised through the Ombudsperson’s office and other channels during implementation would help identify operational challenges early and allow the University to make timely adjustments and improvements to the new framework as necessary.
6. Report on the Review of the Code of Student Conduct: Summary of Consultation and Feedback
   
   The Chair welcomed Professor Cheryl Regehr, Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work, who led the review of the Code of Student Conduct, to present the findings and recommendations arising from the consultation process. Professor Regehr explained that the review had included extensive consultations across the University community, involving approximately 350 students, staff, faculty members, student leaders, and administrators, as well as a comparative review of student conduct policies at 22 Canadian universities and supporting legal analysis conducted with the Office of University Counsel.
   
   Professor Regehr advised that consultations revealed four principal concerns regarding the current Code of Student Conduct. First, many participants felt that the existing Code was not sufficiently connected to day-to-day community life at the University and was poorly understood by students. Second, concerns were raised regarding behaviours that did not clearly meet the threshold for formal Code violations but nonetheless created disruption or harm within the University community. Third, participants identified significant challenges arising from the current decentralized approach to reporting, case management, and investigation processes, which often resulted in confusion regarding responsibilities and inconsistent handling of cases across divisions and campuses. Finally, consultations highlighted ongoing difficulties in addressing situations where problematic conduct intersected with mental health concerns.
   
   Professor Regehr then outlined several broad recommendations arising from the review. She recommended that the University consider separating the Code into two documents: a shorter, more accessible statement of behavioural expectations and principles, and a separate procedural document outlining reporting, investigation, hearing, and sanctions processes. She also recommended expanding and modernizing the scope of the Code to address emerging issues such as online abuse, repeated harassment, artificial intelligence-related misconduct, and weapons on campus. Additional recommendations included the creation of a centralized Student Conduct Office under the oversight of the Vice-Provost, Students, which would coordinate intake, triage, case management, and guidance across the institution. Professor Regehr explained that minor matters would continue to be addressed locally while more serious cases would be handled centrally to improve consistency and transparency. She also proposed the introduction of more educative and restorative approaches for less serious conduct matters.
   
   Professor Regehr also addressed the intersection between student conduct and mental health concerns. She explained that consultations had revealed situations in which harmful or abusive conduct persisted for extended periods because administrators and community members were uncertain about how to respond when mental health issues were involved. As a result, she recommended that the University explore the creation of a mental health diversion pathway for cases where punitive sanctions might not be appropriate, but where conduct nonetheless required intervention and accountability.
   
   Reports were then provided from UTM Campus Council, UTSC Campus Council, and the University Affairs Board on the discussions that took place when the Code review was presented to those bodies for information.
   
   Governors expressed strong support for the review and commended Professor Regehr and her team for the depth of consultation undertaken. Discussion emphasized the importance of ensuring that students, faculty, and staff clearly understood the Code and the behavioural expectations associated with membership in the University community, while also ensuring that processes remained fair, transparent, and responsive to evolving circumstances and technologies. Members also discussed the importance of clearly defining who constituted a member of the University community and whether students should formally acknowledge the Code at the time of admission.

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried

IT WAS RESOLVED,

THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Items 7 and 8 be approved.

7. Revisions to the UTM Campus Affairs Committee Terms of Reference* (for approval)
   
   On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   IT WAS RESOLVED
   
   THAT the proposed revised UTM Campus Affairs Committee Terms of Reference be approved, effective May 14, 2026, replacing the Terms of Reference previously approved on October 28, 2021.
8. Minutes of the Previous Meeting of the Governing Council – March 26, 2026
   
   The Minutes of the Governing Council meeting of March 26, 2026, were approved.
9. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting 
   
   There was no business arising from the Report of the previous meeting.  

10. Reports for Information
    
    Members received the following reports for information.                       

    1. Reviews of Academic Programs and Units: Follow up Reports from Previous Reviews - Part 2 (Arising from Report Number 261 of the Academic Board (April 16, 2026))
    2. Reviews of Academic Programs and Units: Part 2 (Arising from Report Number 261 of the Academic Board (April 16, 2026))
    3. Report Number 73 of the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus Council (April 14, 2026)
    4. Report Number 76 of the University of Toronto Mississauga Campus Council (April 13, 2026)
    5. Report Number 290 of the Business Board (April 22, 2026)
    6. Report Number 260 of the Academic Board (April 16, 2026)
    7. Report Number 566 of the Executive Committee (March 26, 2026)
    8. Report Number 567 of the Executive Committee (May 4, 2026)
11. Date of Next Meeting – Thursday, June 25, 2026, 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
    
    The Chair advised that the next meeting of the Governing Council would take place on June 25, 2026.   
12. Question Period
    
    Members had no further questions for the administration.
13. Other Business
    
    There were no items of other business.

The Council voted to move in camera.

14. Appointments: Committee for Honorary Degrees Membership, 2026-27
    
    On motion duly made, seconded, and carried 
    
    IT WAS RESOLVED 
    
    THAT the following proposed membership of the 2026-27 Committee for Honorary Degrees be approved, for a term effective July 1, 2026:

Administrative Staff
Ms. Tee Copenace (UTM Director, Indigenous Initiatives)

Lay Members
Dr. Wendy Cecil (Former Chair of the Governing Council)
Mr. Brad Beveridge (Former Vice-Chair of the College of Electors)
Ms. N. Jane Pepino (Former Vice-Chair of the Governing Council)

Students
Mr. Evan Chan (Graduate Student, Faculty of Music)
Mr. Albert Pan (Undergraduate Student, University of Toronto Mississauga)

Teaching Staff
Professor Randy Boyagoda (Department of English, Faculty of Arts & Science)
Professor Janice Gross Stein (Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy and
Department of Political Science, Faculty of Arts & Science)
Professor Mark Lautens (Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Science)
Professor Arthur Ripstein (Faculty of Law and Department of Philosophy, Faculty of Arts & Science)

15. Appointments: Members of the Governing Council to Governance Bodies, 2026-27
    
    On motion duly made, seconded, and carried 
    
    IT WAS RESOLVED 
    
    THAT the proposed Assignments of members of the Governing Council to Boards, Councils and Committees for 2026-27, be approved.

The meeting adjourned at 6:26 p.m.

May 27, 2026