REPORT NUMBER 252 OF THE UNIVERSITY AFFAIRS BOARD
Wednesday, May 27, 2026
To the Governing Council,
University of Toronto,
Your Board reports that it held a meeting in the Council Chamber, Simcoe Hall on May 27, 2026 with the following members present:
PRESENT: Geeta Yadav (Chair), Professor Ron Levi (Vice-Chair), Professor Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students), David Newman (Executive Director, Student Experience), Sharleen Ahmed, Kate Baggott, Vikram Chadalawada, Susan Froom, Robert Gerlai, Dzhafar Kabidenov, Audrey Karlinksy, David Kim, Dina Reiss, Alice Wright
REGRETS: Amanda Bartley, Fatima Faruq, David Gren, Brian Harrington, Syeda Hasan, Gretchen Kerr, Dulce Martinez, Dina Reiss, Efe Sahinoglu, Lynn Shen, Nadia Rosemond (Executive Director, Office of the Vice-Provost, Students)
NON-VOTING ASSESSORS: Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Vice-President, People, Strategy, Equity, and Culture), Tim Fricker (Dean, Student Experience and Wellbeing, UTM), Tim Tang (Dean, Student Experience and Wellbeing, UTSC), Christine Burke (Assistant Vice-President, University Planning)
SECRETARIAT: Miranda Edwards (Secretary), Amanda Grant (Governance Coordinator)
GUESTS:
Ferdinand Reke Avikpa, Allison Burgess, Ivan Canete, Carlos Carillo Duran, Jimmy Cheung, Camille de Loney, Danielle Duninzic, Britney Glasgow-Usment, Jodie Glean-Mitchell, Josh Haas, Chris Ibell, Ahi Jeyasangar, Janice Johnson, Cara Kadzim, Robert Katsalves, Friedemann Krannich, Sherry Kulmen, Angie Law, Susan McCahan, Mike Munroe, Jen Newcombe, Therese Perucho, Tanya Poppleton, Peter Shipley, Nicholas Silver, Shannon Simpson
OPEN SESSION
- Chair’s Remarks
The Chair welcomed members and guests to the Board’s cycle 5 meeting. As it was the last meeting of the governance year, the Chair thanked the Senior Assessor for her leadership, staff in the Office of the Vice-Provost Students, the Board’s assessors, Vice-Chair, Board Secretary, and Board Coordinator. She also thanked Board members and acknowledged their significant volunteer time commitment and diligence in undertaking their roles.
The Chair noted that, before the meeting, Board members had taken part in a tour of Hart House facilities. She thanked Hart House for hosting and providing the informative experience and thanked member Ms. Audrey Karlinsky for sharing the initial suggestion. -
Report of the Senior Assessor
Professor Sandy Welsh, Vice-Provost, Students began by congratulating all graduates this Convocation season and wished them the best in their future endeavours.
Professor Welsh provided a summary of the recent consultations undertaken for the review of the Supportive Leaves Policy which was launched in February and concluded in April. The consultation team met with over 130 individuals through open sessions and stakeholder meetings, received approximately 25 online submissions, and met with student unions and the University Ombudsperson.
Feedback received indicated that the Policy was functioning as intended, with almost-universal praise for the Policy’s administration in practice. Professor Welsh noted the small number of cases administered under the Policy indicated that it was being applied in only the most extreme cases where all other available measures had been exhausted. Feedback identified that some areas for improvement included improved clarity and transparency of some aspects of the Policy; more details about supports, timelines, and where the Policy intersected with the Code of Student Conduct and other policies; and improved accessibility in student communications. The consultation team also heard concerns about the significant impact of problematic student behaviour on the physical and psychological safety of the University community, including calls for administrators and educators to have more tools at the undergraduate level to support students dealing with serious mental health issues.
Professor Welsh concluded by informing the Board that her office would draft a revised Policy over the summer months and provide the next update to the Board in Fall 2026. -
Proposal for a Referendum to Establish the Hart House Capital Levy
The Chair introduced this item by noting that a referendum proposal was a rare governance procedure that had not been brought forward to central governance for about the last two decades. As background, the Chair reminded members that, at its Cycle 1 meeting in October 2025, the Board heard a presentation about the Hart House Building Renewal Project, which would implement critical building infrastructure upgrades. The Chair noted that Hart House had determined that a student levy (“Hart House Capital Fee Levy”) was required in order to fully fund this project. In accordance with University policy, the proposal for the levy was brought to the Council on Student Service for approval. In February 2026, the Council heard the proposal and the vote did not pass. The Board of Stewards received feedback from COSS that a student-wide referendum should be held so that students would have the opportunity to vote on this issue directly. Hart House was now requesting approval from the Board to hold this referendum,
The Chair explained that members were only being requested to approve that the referendum take place as described in their meeting materials and to provisionally approve operating plans for the expenditure of the levy. She advised members not to deliberate on whether or not the levy should be implemented, nor to deliberate on referendum procedures, as these questions were not within the Board’s jurisdiction. She then invited questions and discussion from members regarding the motion and the Board’s role.
Discussion
A member asked what votes calculation method would be used to determine a “yes” outcome. The Chair re-iterated that this question was outside the Board’s jurisdiction and would be determined by the Referendum Conduct Committee (RCC). Professor Welsh confirmed this but noted that, for most referendums, a simple majority was needed.
A member asked if any other governance bodies would review the referendum. The Chair confirmed that the Board was the only governing body to consider this approval request but that other reporting might take place at this Board or other bodies in future, for information purposes.
In response to a member’s question about the referendum timeline, the Chair confirmed that this would be determined by the Chief Returning Officer and the RCC. She noted that the RCC would only be established if the Board voted to approve the referendum. The member recommended that the referendum should be held in the Winter term to maximize student engagement.
After discussion, the Chair asked members to informally confirm that they understood the governance context.
Presentation
Mr. David Kim, Warden of Hart House gave a presentation to members. He began by thanking members who attended the tour of Hart House prior to the meeting for taking the time to visit the facilities. He provided an overview of the Hart House Building Renewal Project, which was currently underway to implement critical building infrastructure upgrades such as HVAC systems, roof rehabilitation, accessibility, mechanical and electrical systems. Mr. Kim noted that, as of 2018, over 50% of critical building infrastructure was past its intended lifespan. Mr. Kim stated that his staff had reached the limit of possible work-arounds for certain issues and, for example, could no longer add any additional electrical capacity. Water damage was extensive and buckets and caution signs were visible throughout Hart House’s facilities. The cost magnitude of required repairs now exceeded Hart House’s operating budget and other allocated funds. As a result, Hart House has proposed that a new student levy (Hart House Capital Fee Levy) be implemented.
The time-limited levy was proposed to begin in 2026-27 and continue for 20 years. The fee would be assessed to all undergraduate and graduate students registered at St. George campus, at $60 per term for full-time students, and $12 per term for part-time students, with a 2% annual increase.
Mr. Kim provided an overview of the student engagement and assessment processes that had been ongoing since 2012. He emphasized that students were heavily involved in every stage. In Fall 2025, the student consultation process reached well over 1,000 students across the tri-campus.
On January 15, 2026, the Hart House Board of Stewards approved a motion to bring this proposed levy to the Council on Student Services (COSS) for approval. On February 10, 2026, COSS heard the proposal and the vote did not pass. The Board of Stewards received feedback that, although there was support for the levy, COSS members felt that a student-wide referendum should be held so that students would have the opportunity to vote on this issue directly. COSS also noted concerns about the implementation of the levy during a cost of living crisis in Toronto. As a result, Hart House narrowed the project scope, revised the overall project phasing, and lowered the initially proposed levy amount by 73%. As such, the fee being proposed through the referendum would be assessed to all undergraduate and graduate students registered at St. George campus over 15 years and in 2 phases: At $15 per term for full-time students, and $12 per term for part-time students, with a 2% annual increase for the first 5 years (Phase 1); and at $25 per term for full-time students, and $5 per term for part-time students, with a 2% annual increase for the next 10 years (Phase 2).
Student Speaker
The Chair told members that she had approved an advance speaking request from Mr. Nicholas Silver, Vice-President, External of the Graduate Students’ Union (GSU). She invited Mr. Silver to address the Board.
Mr. Silver told members that the GSU supported the referendum taking place and was happy to see student feedback incorporated. He expressed GSU’s concern that the referendum proposal presented at today’s meeting was not shared at this year’s Board of Stewards or COSS meetings. He also expressed GSU’s concern that Appendix D of the Protocol on the Increase or Introduction of Compulsory Non-tuition Related Fees, which lays out student referendum requirements, required updates. The GSU recommended that the Protocol be updated and that student consultations on Appendix D take place in advance of the referendum.
Mr. Silver also shared concerns that budget rules and regulations might be inequitable between the “Yes Committee” and the “No Committee,” while acknowledging that these concerns were outside the scope of the motion before the Board. The Chair clarified for members that the referendum regulations had not yet been established. She noted that the Chief Returning Officer and Professor Welsh were both present to receive these comments.
In advance of discussion, the Chair noted that that Mr. Friedemann Krannich, Chair of COSS had provided an advice memo to members in the meeting materials and was present to take questions from members.
Discussion
A member asked what actions could be taken to address Mr. Silver’s comments regarding budget equity between “Yes” and “No” committees. Ms Lauren Turner, Deputy Secretary of the Governing Council and Chief Returning Officer said that she had noted the speaker’s comments and confirmed that these were matters to be considered by the RCC when it drafted the referendum regulations.
The Chair and Professor Welsh both reminded members that a discussion of the referendum regulations was outside the scope of the Board because such regulations could only be drafted by the RCC and the RCC could not be established or begin drafting regulations without the prior approval of the Board for a referendum to occur.
In response to a member’s question, Mr. Kim confirmed that Hart House had consulted with other University divisions that had undergone similar infrastructure issues and noted that Professor Donald Ainslie and Professor Markus Stock, former and current Principals of University College, respectively, had been of great help.
In response to a member’s question, Mr. Kim confirmed that Hart House had maximized the use of user fees, such as fitness memberships, in funding the renewal project and that keeping user fees affordable was also a key consideration.
In response to a series of questions from members about referendum operations, such as communications and voting methods, the Chair reminded the Board that such discussion was outside the scope of the motion.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT the proposal to hold a referendum to establish a Hart House Capital Fee Levy, as described in this cover sheet, be approved; and
THAT the operating plan for the expenditure of the Hart House Capital Fee Levy be provisionally approved. - St. George Campus Plan 2040
Professor Scott Mabury, Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships introduced the new Campus Plan, which would replace the “Master Plan” from 2011 and the “Outdoor Space Master Plan” from 1999. Both UTSC and UTM campuses also updated their campus plans over the last decade. The goal was to substantially “raise the game” for the University, inspired by large recent successes such as the Landmark Project.
Ms Christine Burke, Assistant Vice-President, University Planning told members that the St. George Campus Plan 2040 was a 3-part compendium with a vision for a vibrant and connected campus where urban ecology met public life by addressing sustainable campus growth and development on a 15-year horizon.
The process was led by the University Planning office and began in Fall 2024. External experts and University community members were consulted through online surveys, open houses, and pop-ups. Ms Burke provided highlights of feedback received, as provided in the materials, and noted that this feedback was incorporated. A key foundation of the Plan was also the first-ever Public Space Public Life Study. The Study revealed three guiding priorities: transforming society, modelling an urban future, and leading in research and education. Driving values included sustainability, health and wellbeing, indigeneity, heritage stewardship, urban campus, mobility and connection, inclusion and belonging, and a vibrant campus life. In looking ahead to the future, the Plan identified projected shortfalls in academic spaces, student housing, student family and faculty housing, and innovation spaces. In conclusion, Ms Burke provided brief highlights from each of the three volumes of the Plan.
Discussion
A member asked about the proposed University Park Project which had envisioned future pedestrianization of the area around Queen’s Park. Ms Burke replied that a significant donation from the Weston Family for the revitalization of the Queen’s Park North area on campus was now proceeding. The “ecological corridor” laid out in the Plan was integrated with and complementary to this project.
A member asked about the pedestrianization of Devonshire Place. Ms Burke replied that the streets shared between the University and the City of Toronto on the West Campus and around Devonshire Place were the subject of current discussions taking place between the University and the City.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RECOMMENDED,
THAT the University of Toronto St. George Campus Plan, dated Summer 2026, be approved in principle. - Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees: UTSC Student Societies – Proposals for Fee Increases
Tim Tang, Dean of Student Experience and Wellbeing, UTSC reported that, on May 25, 2026, UTSC Campus Council approved a request to increase the WUSC Student Refugee Program fee. The fee was used to support refugees to attend UTSC as students. The program provided students with transition and financial support and was delivered through the International Student Centre. The proposed fee increase was approved via a student referendum held in March 2026 and the process was reviewed by the Office of the Vice-Provost, Students for compliance with University policies. Dean Tang confirmed there were no financial implications for the University as this program would be funded through the student society fee.
This item was received for information.
Members had no questions. -
Compulsory Non-Academic Incidental Fees: St. George Student Societies – Proposals for Fee Increases
Professor Welsh presented a proposal for a new student society fee for a newly established student society: the Oak House Residents’ Council, which was founded in tandem with the opening of the new Oak House residence this year.
Professor Welsh provided an overview of policy requirements, and the consultative and governance processes under which requests for student society fee increases were received and noted that her office had reviewed this request for compliance. Her office did not receive any complaints from residents of Oak House.
A member noted the low voter turn-out for the student referendum that had been held to approve support for the proposed new fee. The member asked if there was a minimum participation threshold for a referendum to be considered valid. Professor Welsh responded that she appreciated the question and noted that the Board had had lengthy discussions about this topic over the years. She confirmed that the parameters of a fair referendum were established by the student societies themselves, which were autonomous from the University and that her office provided neutral advice and resources. In a follow-up question, the member asked if there was any precedent where the Board had decided not to approve a student society fee increase due to unacceptably low participation in the referendum. Professor Welsh stated that, to her recollection during her time on the Board, this had not happened.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT beginning in the Fall 2026 session, the Oak House Residence Council society fee be established at $12.00 per fall and winter session and charged to all residents of Oak House. -
Annual Report: Code of Conduct for Trademark Licensees
Ms Angie Law, Director of Integrated Marketing and Communications in Office of Spaces & Experiences, provided this report for information. Ms Law provided an overview of the role of the University’s Trademark Office, which remained a fully self-funded unit. The Office’s three principle goals were to: 1) increase relevance and visibility of University-branded merchandise, 2) support academic units and students, and 3) sustain financial capacity to re-invest in campus life.
A defining pillar of the Office’s work continued to be ethical procurement. Licensees were monitored by the University in partnership with two NGOs – the Workers’ Rights Consortium and the Fair Labour Association. This monitoring program positioned the University as a national leader in responsible collegiate licensing. This year, the Office continued its efforts to encourage student groups to use approved vendors. These efforts were showing early signs of success. In 2024-25, zero student groups used approved vendors while in 2025-26, six groups used approved vendors.
Ms Law presented an overview of highlights from the past year including the re-launch of the Roots x UofT collaboration, Lunar New Year merchandise, Pride-related merchandise, event-driven merchandise, and the University Bookstore refresh, the introduction of premium graduation frame departments and Convocation-related merchandise, and the Cherry Blossom collection. Ms Law emphasized that student consultations were a key pillar in the development of the Office’s initiatives.
Looking ahead to 2026-27, the Office planned to continue its support for student-led brands and entrepreneurial initiatives, expand major brand collaborations, and begin development of University Bicentennial merchandise.
Members had no questions. -
Annual Report: Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion
Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Vice-President, People Strategy, Equity & Culture introduced this item for information. Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat told members that the report represented the collective efforts of staff, students, faculty and librarians at the University. She thanked Ms Jodie Glean-Mitchell, Executive Director, Equity, Diversity & Inclusion for her leadership. She also thanked and acknowledged all those in the University community who were advancing EDI principles through their work in ways that were not led by the EDI Office or captured in the Report.
Ms Glean-Mitchell reported highlights of some of the innovative work that had taken place over the past reporting year. She noted that this was the first year that the Report was produced in a digital format, which enhanced accessibility and reader engagement. She thanked the Communications team in the Office of People Strategy, Equity & Culture for their work on this significant initiative.
Ms Glean-Mitchell then provided an overview of statistics in the report, including over 30 website accessibility reviews conducted, over 185 complaints and complaints-related consultations undertaken, over 73 training sessions delivered, and over 575 events. Some key initiatives included the Multi-Year Accessibility Plan, the Report on the Review of the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment, Addressing Antisemitism Web Resource, and the work of the Muslim, Arab, and Palestinian Discrimination Working Group.
Looking forward, Ms Glean-Mitchell told members that the ability of her office to nurture a sentiment of hope regarding EDI principles across the campus, relied on the ongoing commitment and leadership of institutional people leaders. She urged members to support the focus of EDI goals: that all members of the University community be treated with respect no matter their beliefs, appearances, or origins. She thanked Professor Hannah-Moffat for her exemplary, and unmatched, leadership in this field. Members gave a round of applause.
Members had no questions. A member thanked Ms Glean-Mitchell and Professor Hannah-Moffat for their work on EDI. -
Annual Report: Office of Indigenous Initiatives
Ms Shannon Simpson, Senior Director, Office of Indigenous Initiatives reported that, over the past year, the Office of Indigenous Initiatives continued to build momentum in advancing indigenous priorities and relationships grounded in answering the call of Truth and Reconciliation.
Highlights of work that took place over the past year included:- Development of the Indigenous Substantiation Framework, which would ensure that all indigenous-designated material and reputational benefit of the University went directly to indigenous people;
- Establishment of the UTM Indigenous Advisory Council, an important mechanism for community-informed decision making;
- Establishment of the Big-Canoe Chair in Indigenous Health;
- Expanded support for Indigenous scholars through the Provost’s Postdoctoral Fellowship Program.
The creation and enhancement of Indigenous spaces remained a key priority across all three campuses. New meaningful additions launched this year included the UTM Library Indigenous Art Installation, the Indigenous Space at the Department of Family and Community Medicine, the Indigenous Healing Garden at Emmanuel College, and the Daniels First Peoples Library at the Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design.
Several new Indigenous-related positions were created at the University over the past year and continued progress in Indigenous faculty and staff recruitment, curriculum development, and student supports remained a key priority for the Office.
Looking forward to next year, the Office’s work would focus on the development of Campus Builds across all three campuses, advocating for the designation of Indigenous Peoples Day as a presidential holiday for the University, and working with the new Director of Indigenous Initiatives at UTSC. Ms Simpson noted the official opening of Indigenous House that week and described importance of this space to the indigenous community.
Members had no questions.
- Annual Reports: Campus Safety
- UTM
- UTSC
- St. George
Professor Welsh reported that Campus Safety services on all three campuses were committed to supporting safe, secure, and equitable campus communities. Reportable incidents on all three campuses were comparable to the previous year. Additional training and operational measures had been implemented regarding cybersecurity, protest management, de-escalation, autism spectrum disorder and mental health awareness, and trauma-informed transfer of care. In addition, Campus Safety had increased campus patrols and hired additional staff.
Professor Welsh noted that the Campus Safety Reports for UTM and UTSC campuses had been reported on in detail to the UTM and UTSC Campus Affairs Committees, respectively. Regarding St. George campus, she reported that the campus had expanded its Community Crisis Response Program to better respond to mental health-related calls and had implemented measures to better respond to toxic drug overdoses. Falcon, the campus’ emotional support dog, who was introduced in 2024, has continued to be an active and valued presence.
Discussion
A member asked if, among the 27 hate crimes that occurred in the past year, there was one minority group which had been particularly targeted. Mr. Mike Munroe, Director of Campus Safety (St. George) stated that this information was not available. He noted that the 27 incidents included a variety of actions, including postering.
A member asked if UTSC’s Risk Assessment Committee, which was comprised of students and administrators, and met in advance of each major campus event, was also a practice at the other two campuses and if not, if there was a reason for that. Professor Welsh confirmed there were similar practices at all three campuses, but those details were not included in the report and noted it for potential inclusion next year. Ms Tanya Poppleton, Director of Campus Safety at UTSC shared that the UTSC Risk Assessment Committee met monthly and on an ad hoc basis to review all risk scenarios in advance of campus events.
A member asked if the number of training hours for Campus Safety staff as listed in the report was sufficient. Professor Hannah-Moffat noted that Special Constables working in Campus Safety were highly trained professionals who kept themselves current on the latest trainings available and that the report was not a comprehensive list of the training they had received that year or that they had accumulated over the course of their careers. Mr. Monroe confirmed this and agreed with Professor Hannah-Moffat.
- Annual Reports: Recognized Student Groups
- UTM
- UTSC
- St. George
Professor Welsh welcomed Thérèse Perucho, Student Life Officer, Clubs & Leadership Development and Camille de Lacy, Lead Coordinator, Clubs & Leadership Development to the meeting. She reported that, across the three campuses, there were 1,438 recognized campus groups, with a break-down as follows:
- 254 UTM [up from 213 last year/2024-25]
- 307 UTSC [up from 281 last year/2024-25]
- 877 St. George [up from 745 last year/2024-25]
From 2024-25 to 2025-26, there was an overall year-over-year increase of 16% in the number of groups (1,438 in 2025-26 vs. 1,239 in 2024-25) and an increase of 15% in the number of student members engaged in these groups.
Professor Welsh noted that the campus groups listed in the three reports sought recognition based on the Policy on the Recognition of Student Groups. The Policy required the administration to report to the Board all decisions regarding the granting, denying, or withdrawing of recognition each year.
The lists were a reflection of the diversity of the many ways that students chose to become involved in campus life. Membership in all groups was voluntary. She noted that, in addition to the lists provided, there were hundreds of additional student groups on campus, including student athletics and Hart House clubs and committees, which significantly enhanced the educational, intellectual, recreational, social, and cultural life on campus.
Discussion
A member asked if defunct student groups, with no active membership or activities, were included in the lists. Professor Welsh confirmed that recognized student groups were confirmed every year and did not automatically stay on the list from one year to the next. The Policy was recently updated to require certain minimum thresholds for a group’s eligibility to become a “recognized student group.” She noted that every year, there are new groups added and old groups removed from the list.
- Capital Project (Level 3): Report of the Project Planning Committee for the Build More Housing Initiative Site A & B
Professor Mabury presented a proposal to build two new student residences at 167-171 College Street and 40-56 Harbord Street, with a development partner, creating 1,200 new units of housing. This project would address a significant shortfall in availability of on-campus housing amidst strong demand. He noted that, currently, campus housing was only available for 15% of undergraduate students and 2.4% of the graduate students
Professor Mabury noted that he would provide more details during the in camera session.
Speaking Request
The Chair told members that she had approved an advance speaking request from Mr. Silver regarding this item. She invited Mr. Silver to address the Board.
Mr. Silver told members that the GSU supported this project in principle as a means of addressing the significant shortfall in housing availability for graduate students. However, the GSU was concerned that the unit lay-outs would not serve the graduate student population, that affordability would be too high given the University’s partnership with a for-profit corporate development partner, and that the GSU was not sufficiently consulted on the project and earlier engagement would have been preferred. Mr Silver told members that GSU would be submitting two formal requests to the University: 1) that GSU and Grad House Council be given consultative roles formalized within a framework and 2) that an affordability guarantee be formalized within a framework.
Members had no questions.
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RECOMMENDED,
THAT the project scope of the Build More Housing Initiative: On-Campus Housing - Real Estate Partnership , described in the “Build More Housing Initiative Project Development report On-Campus Housing dated April 22, 2026” for Student Residence Projects at 40-56 Harbord Street and 167-171 College Street, be approved in principle; and,
THAT the project totaling approximately 37,165 square metres (sm) of gross floor area of student residence and amenity space with a total project gross construction area of 40,684 sm be approved in principle, to be funded by the Joint Venture Partnership.
CONSENT AGENDA
On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item 14, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.
- Spaces & Experiences Annual Report 2025-26 and Budget 2026-2027
The report was received for information. - Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 251 – April 23, 2026
The report of the previous meeting was approved. - Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
END OF CONSENT AGENDA
- Date of Next Meeting – Thursday, October 22, 2026, 4:30 – 6:30 p.m.
The Chair confirmed that the Board would next meet on Thursday, October 22, 2026, 4:30 – 6:30 p.m. - Other Business
There was no other business.
IN CAMERA SESSION
- Capital Project (Level 3): Project Development Report for the Build More Housing Initiative: On-Campus Housing – Real Estate Partnership – Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding
On a motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RECOMMENDED,
THAT the recommendation of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships, as outlined in the memorandum dated May 21, 2026, regarding the Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding for the Build More Housing Initiative, be approved in principle. - Appointments: Chair, Council on Student Services (COSS)
On a motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT Annie Antonenko be appointed Chair of the Council on Student Services, effective immediately and until April 30, 2027 - Appointments: Recommendations from the Striking Committee
On a motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
IT WAS RESOLVED,
THAT the following be appointed to the University Affairs Board for a one-year term from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027; and
Administrative Staff:
Ms Alice Wright
Mr. Lars Fonteyne
Mr. Permjit Mann
Students:
Ms Sophie Erenberg
Mr. Might Gouta
Mr. Ziyad Khatab
Mr. Andres Van Maanen
Ms Ellie Wan
THAT the following be appointed to the Discipline Appeals Board for a one-year term from July 1, 2026 to June 30, 2027.
Staff:
Mr. Sarosh Jamal*
Professor Mark Lautens*
Students:
Mr. Dylan Archer Dingwell*
Ms Susan Froom*
Ms Ankita Goyat
Mr. Konrad Samsel
The meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m.
May 29, 2026