Report: Academic Board - November 13, 2025

To the Governing Council,
University of Toronto,

Your Board reports that it held a meeting on November 13, 2025 at 3:10 p.m. with the following members present:

PRESENT: Donald Ainslie (Chair), Laurent Bozec (Vice Chair), Trevor Young (Vice President and Provost), Nicholas Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Robert Austin*, Mahdi Azarmi, Joshua Barker, Amanda Bartley, Sheila Batacharya, Jordan Bear, Zoraida Beekhoo*, Susan Bondy, Pier Bryden, Lisa Dolovich, Paul Downes, Monique Flaccavento, Robert Gazzale, Sandeep Gill, William Gough, Ankita Goyat, Ania Harlick, Zachary Hawes, Thomas Hofmann, Walid Houry, Aiyun Huang, Hibah Hussain, Sarosh Jamal*, Yuyan Jiang*, Rita Kandel, Gretchen Kerr, Nazanin Khazra, Elaine Khoo, Hang-Sun Kim, Joshua Kirk, Tys Klumpenhouwer*, Robert Kyle*, Eden Lavallee*, Marcus Law, Ron Levi*, Ben Liu*, Pedro Marinho, Ryan McClelland, Henrjeta Mece, Eha Naylor, John Oesch*, Albert Pan*, Yajan Pancholi, Jesse Pasternak, Reena Pattani, Karen Reid, Dina Reiss, Lisa Robinson, Rosa Saverino, Kimberly Seaman, Naomi Steenhof, Adam Stinchcombe, Robyn Stremler, Alison Syme*, Sali Tagliamonte, Luc Tremblay, Sera Tulk, Erica Walker, Andrea Williams, Charmaine Williams, Stephen Wright, Colleen Zimmerman

*participated remotely via Zoom

REGRETS: Ramona Alaggia, Larry Alford, Jay-Daniel Baghbanan, Shakhriyor Bakhtiyorov, Bensiyon Benhabib, Gabriella Brasileiro Santos, Natalia Breuss, Adalsteinn (Steini) Brown, Jutta Brunnée, Christian Caron, Evan Chan, Catherine Chandler-Crichlow, Dinesh Christendat, Susan Christoffersen, Shai Cohen, Robert Cooper, Tarun Dewan, Stanley Doyle-Wood, Markus Dubber, Ramy Elitzur, Maureen Harquail, Alex Hernandez, Charles Jia, Charlie Keil, Anil Kishen, Robert Levit, Libbie Mills, Irene Morra, Javed Mostafa, Kevin O’Neill, James Orbinski, Anuradha Prakki, Matt Ratto, Karin Ruhlandt, Ali Salahpour, Rob Simon, Suresh Sivanandam, Markus Stock, Kevin Temple, Sergio Tenenbaum, Christopher Yip,

NON-VOTING ASSESSORS: Heather Boon (Vice-Provost, Faculty and Academic Life)*, Linda Johnston (Vice-President and Principal, UTSC), Mike Snowdon (Acting Assistant Vice-President, Planning and Budget), Susan McCahan (Associate Vice-President and Vice Provost, Digital Strategies and Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education, Joseph Wong (Vice-President, International)

SECRETARIAT: Tracey Gameiro (Secretary), Miranda Edwards (Assistant Secretary), Lauren Turner (Deputy Secretary of the Governing Council).

IN ATTENDANCE: Karen Bellinger (Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances), Elizabeth Church (Director, Communications & Strategic Projects), Meg Connell (Senior Strategist, Office of the Vice-President & Provost), Emma del Junco (Academic Reviews & Planning Specialist, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Christopher Lang (Director, Appeals Discipline & Faculty Grievances), Katie Larson (Vice-Dean, Teaching. Learning and Undergraduate Programs, UTSC), Ann Perry (Senior Issues and Media Relations Strategist), Angelique Saweczko (University Registrar), Angela Treglia (Executive Director, Sexual Violence Strategy, Prevention & Support), Alexandra Varela (Coordinator, Academic Programs, Office of the VIce-Provost, Academic Programs), Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students).

OPEN SESSION

1. Chair’s Remarks
   
   The Chair shared information about the upcoming elections for Governing Council and its bodies, and invited those ending their terms on June 30th and not planning on seeking re-election to encourage their peers to consider submitting a nomination.
2. Report of the Vice-President and Provost
   
   The Chair invited Vice-President and Provost, Professor Trevor Young to deliver his report as Senior Assessor to the Academic Board.  The Provost provided updates on several key areas.
   
   Federal Budget
   
   The recent federal budget was broadly positive for research-intensive universities.  Funding for tri-council agencies remained intact, and universities were eligible for support under the new Build Communities Strong Fund and the dedicated Health Infrastructure Fund. The Health Infrastructure Fund would provide $5 billion over three years for health infrastructure and could provide an opportunity for U of T to access funding for infrastructure, including the new Temerty Faculty of Medicine building and Schwartz Reisman Innovation Campus (SRIC II) projects. 
   
   While initial details of the Immigration Levels Plan indicated reduced targets for new international students, it was expected there would be a sufficient number of permits available for international students at universities and colleges. Importantly for the University, master’s and doctoral students were exempted from provincial attestation letters, and doctoral-student permits would receive expedited processing.
   
   The budget also included a $1.65 billion commitment to recruit top research talent through accelerated research chairs, recruitment of doctoral students and post docs, and funding for research infrastructure. Related to this, the University had recently appointed three leading scholars - two from MIT (astrophysicist and U of T alumna, Sara Seager and business and innovation scholar, Jacquelyn Pless); and one from Stanford (economist Mark Duggan, who would become the Director of the Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy). 
   
   New U of T Post-Doctoral Fellowships
   
   A new Research Excellence Postdoctoral Fellows Program aimed at attracting early career researchers was announced. The program would fund up to 100 two-year fellowships, supported by a $20.9 million investment over five years.  Fellows would receive $80,000 in annual salary plus $10,000 in research funding, offering more support than the current top federally funded post-doctoral program.  Complementing this was a new Postdoctoral Competitive Research Awards, which totaled $3 million over three years.  These awards, valued at $10,000 or $30,000 were designed to recognize current post-doctoral scholars and support the launch their independent research careers. 
   
   Enrolment and Budget
   
   Undergraduate intake numbers were comparable to the prior year with roughly 17,000 students, but with a shift in composition.  There were approximately 300 fewer international students (1,100 below target) and 200 more domestic students (900 above target).  Relative to other institutions, the University remained in a favourable position.  Nonetheless, this shift in composition did have budgetary implications.  The University forecasted a revenue shortfall of approximately 1.6% (about $60 million), which would be managed through contingencies and reserves.  Work was underway to recalibrate enrolment targets to align with the current recruitment market, and enhance cross-divisional collaboration and efficiencies, while continuing to prioritize excellence in teaching and research. 
   
   There were no questions from members.
   
   AI Literacy Initiatives for Faculty
   
   Professor Susan McCahan (Associate Vice-President and Vice-Provost Digital Strategies and Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education), then delivered a presentation on current University initiatives supporting faculty in adapting to generative AI.  She noted that the University continued to take a measured and thoughtful approach to emerging technologies, consistent with the principles outlined in the AI Task Force Report, which emphasized both the opportunities and risks associated with AI.
   
   Professor McCahan highlighted the growing focus on redesigning assessments to strengthen human critical thinking skills in light of AI’s capabilities.  She outlined a range of instructional supports available through the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation (CTSI) and divisional partners, including teaching examples, workshops, and the Fall Series on adapting teaching and assessment with generative AI.  Parallel offerings at UTM were also noted.
   
   In addressing AI literacy, Professor McCahan referenced the Task Force’s recommendation to provide foundational understanding of AI and its ethical and societal implications.  Current offerings included the CTSI GenAI Reading Group and events through the Schwartz Reisman Institute.
   
   Professor McCahan also spoke to supports for faculty conducting research involving AI, referencing the Research Working Groups Report’s call for skill development and appropriate research infrastructure.  She noted available resources such as CRIS’s materials on generative AI for researchers, guidance from the School of Graduate Studies on the appropriate use of AI in graduate milestones, libraries’ resources on copyright considerations, and CTSI materials on AI tools. 
   
   Discussion 
   
   A member expressed appreciation for the range of AI resources available and asked how to obtain a licence, noting limitations encountered when using public tools. 
   
   Professor McCahan explained that licenses for ChatGPT-EDU, a protected version of the platform, were available through the library’s licencing office.  She noted that the University had also secured a set of licences for a protected version of Claude, which were being deployed to groups interested in testing the tool collaboratively.  She added that the University expected to expand access, with additional protected models to become available to faculty, staff, and students.  
   
   A member raised concerns about the difficulty faculty faced keeping pace with rapidly evolving norms around the use of generative AI in student work and scholarly activities.  The member noted inconsistent expectations across disciplines, journals, and institutions, and asked how the University planned to support faculty staying informed. 
   
   Professor McCahan acknowledged these challenges and noted that practices varied across journals and funding bodies, including recent federal guidance permitting the use of generative AI in grant applications.  Professor Joshua Barker (Vice-Provost, Graduate Research and Education, and Dean of the School of Graduate Studies (SGS)), provided additional context regarding graduate education, outlining two initiatives led by SGS.  The first involved a survey and ongoing discussions with all graduate units to clarify expectations for AI use within each discipline and to initiate broader conversations among faculty.  The second, developed in partnership with a graduate student group, was an “AI Anonymous” initiative which operated like structured focus-group sessions where students could confidentially share how AI was being used in their academic work.  An anonymized report would be produced to inform faculty about student practices and emerging trends.
   
   A member asked whether AI licences would be made available to students in the future.  Professor McCahan confirmed that students already had access to Microsoft Copilot, though not through individual licences.  She noted that the University was working towards launching a multi-model platform, allowing students, staff and faculty to select from multiple protected AI models.
   
   Professor Barker added that the aim was to make access available by the end of the academic year. He encouraged students engaged in research to seek support from their supervisors for interim access.
   
   A member asked whether the University could make the ethical and societal considerations surrounding AI more visible to the community, suggesting the possibility of dashboards.
   
   Professor McCahan agreed that this was an important area and confirmed that such considerations were actively informing the design of the forthcoming multi-model platform.  She added that the University was deliberately taking a measured approach to the platform’s rollout to allow sufficient time to evaluate these issues.
   
   A member submitted several questions in advance of the meeting regarding the University’s use of Salesforce Student Success Hub for Higher Education in its new student advising services. 
   
   In response to the question about outsourcing advising, Professor McCahan clarified that Salesforce did not advise students.  She explained that all academic advising continued to be performed by U of T advisors, and that Salesforce functioned solely as the underlying information platform.  The system enabled advisors to consolidate student information, record advising notes, and coordinate support without requiring students to repeat their circumstances.
   
   In response to a question about Salesforce’s recent use of “AgentForce” customer-service bots following staff reductions, Professor McCahan confirmed that the University did not use this service.  She noted that, if ever considered, the tool would only generate draft responses to common inquiries and any message would require review and approval by a U of T advisor. 
   
   When asked about security concerns following reports of cyber criminals accessing Salesforce customer records, Professor McCahan stated that the University’s Salesforce environment had undergone all required privacy and security assessments.  She emphasized that student data was stored on Canadian servers under strict contractual protections and that Salesforce was prohibited from sharing or selling University information.  She noted that the reported incident involved attacks on customers rather than a break of Salesforce systems and reaffirmed confidence in the security of the University’s data.
   
   Professor McCahan concluded her remarks regarding Salesforce by stressing that political considerations did not form part of the University’s assessment when selecting the platform.  The decision had been based on whether the system could provide a more seamless, coordinated, and higher-quality advising experience for students.
3. Agreement between the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association regarding proposed revisions to the Policy and Procedures on Employment Conditions of Part-Time Faculty, 2021
   
   The Provost presented changes to the Policy and Procedures on Employment Conditions of Part-Time Faculty. The revisions allowed academic units to offer longer initial and renewal appointments, with terms of up to three years. Additionally, a new appeal process had been introduced for unsuccessful continuing appointment reviews. Academic leadership was consulted and expressed support for the added flexibility these changes provided. The updates affected approximately 430 part-time faculty members and carried no financial implications, as units could choose, but are not required, to offer longer appointments.
   
   The Provost concluded his presentation by emphasizing that the changes were intended to provide academic units with greater flexibility in making appointments and to acknowledge the important contributions of part-time faculty to the institution.
   
   There were no questions from members.
   
   On motion duly made, seconded, and carried,
   
   YOUR BOARD RECOMMENDED:
   
   THAT the amendments to Policy and Procedures on Employment Conditions of Part-Time Faculty, as agreed to by the University of Toronto and the University of Toronto Faculty Association, on October 9, 2025, be approved, effective January 1, 2026.

4. Amendments to the Policy on the Replacement and Reissuance of Diplomas
   
   Ms. Angelique Saweczko (University Registrar), outlined the proposed amendments to the Policy on the Replacement and Reissuance of Diplomas.  She noted that revisions to the Policy were last considered in 1985, and that two revisions were now being considered.
   
   The first proposed change was in response to the evolving needs of a global student and alumni population by allowing declarations to be commissioned remotely, offering greater flexibility for those residing abroad.  The second change reflected internal restructuring, with the Convocation Office now integrated into the Office of the University Registrar.  As a result, diploma reissuance could be tracked directly through the Repository Student Information (ROSI) system, eliminating the need for a separate tracking system.
   
   There were no questions from members.
   
   On motion duly made, seconded, and carried,
   
   YOUR BOARD APPROVED:
   
   THAT the proposed amendment to the Policy on the Replacement and Reissuance of Diplomas, 1985, be approved, effective immediately.

5. Review of Academic Programs and Units
   1. Semi-Annual Report on the review of Academic Units and Programs
      
      Professor Nick Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs) introduced the item, providing an overview of the University of Toronto’s Quality Assurance Process (UTQAP).  He explained that all academic programs undergo a comprehensive review at least once every eight years, in alignment with the provincial Quality Assurance Framework.  These reviews assessed program quality, student learning outcomes, faculty expertise, and the resources that supported academic delivery, and applied to all programs, including joint offerings with partner institutions.
      
      Professor Rule outlined the major components of each review: a unit-led self study, a site visit by external disciplinary experts, a formal review report, and written responses from divisional and unit leadership.  He emphasized that the purpose of these reviews was formative, focused on continuous improvement rather than meeting minimum thresholds, and that they allowed the University to benchmark its programs against leading international standards while drawing on expert advise from peers in the field. He noted that reviews were brought through University governance to reinforce accountability and transparency, and that, following the governance cycle, a Final Assessment Report and Implementation Plan was publicly posted on the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs website.
      
      At the invitation of the Chair, Professor Walid Houry, Chair of the Committee on Academic Policy & Programs (AP&P), then reported on the eight Decanal reviews of units and programs considered by the AP&P at its October 21, 2025 meeting. 
      
      Professor Houry noted that strengths highlighted by the external reviewers included the strong quality and reputation of the programs, the high caliber of students, faculty contributions, integration of theory and practice, commitment to equity, diversity, and inclusion, and the fostering of intellectual and social communities.
      
      Areas for development noted in the reviews included enhancing coordination across related programs, improving mentorship and support for students and faculty, addressing enrolment pressures, strengthening experiential and career supports, and ensuring diversity and accessibility were reflected in curricula, hiring, and student opportunities.
      
      The eight external reviews covered academic units across the Faculty of Arts & Science, University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM), and University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC). 
      
      The reviews considered were:

Faculty of Arts and Science:

• Centre for Industrial Relations and Human Resources
• Department of Statistical Sciences
• Digital Humanities Program
• International Relations Program
• Mark S. Bonham Centre for Sexual Diversity Studies

UTM

• Department of Management
• Department of Mathematical and Computational Sciences

UTSC

• Department of Philosophy

• Discussion

Professor Houry shared that the Committee engaged in thorough discussion of each review and found that the summaries accurately reflected the evaluations and that administrative responses were appropriate.  A summary of the Committee’s discussion was contained in the AP&P report of that date.  No follow-up reports were requested.

The Chair then provided an overview of the Agenda Committee’s discussion of the reviews.  The Committee considered the composition of external reviewers, noting that across the eight units reviewed there were 17 reviewers: seven from U.S. private institutions, six from U.S. public institutions, and four from Canadian institutions.  The Committee also discussed the importance of consultation with cognate units, including relevant graduate units, during review site visits, and encouraged more detail in the draft Final Assessment Reports to clearly outline these consultations.  Professor Rule had clarified for the Committee that Deans, as commissioning officers, were responsible for determining the composition of review teams and developing the site visit schedules for reviews within their divisions, taking multiple factors into account.

Discussion

A member raised concerns noted in several reviews regarding programs with experiential components such as internships.  Comments indicated that students were sometimes left to manage placements on their own, that staff was inadequate, and that opportunities tended to favour students with greater social capital.  The member asked how the University monitored programs to ensure adequate resources for experiential learning.

Professor Rule responded that resource assurance was a rigorous part of the program development process, involving the Planning and Budget Office and other shared services divisions. He noted that while some students may have experienced challenges, these cases were not necessarily representative, and implementation plans would address issues identified by external reviewers.

6. Review of the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment
   
   The Chair invited the Provost to provide an overview of the review of the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment (the “Statement”).
   
   The Provost reported that the Final Report on the Review of the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment had been received from Co-Chairs Professor Brenda Cossman (Professor & Associate Dean of Research, Faculty of Law) and Caroline Rabbat (former Director of High Risk, Faculty Support & Mental Health, Faculty of Arts and Science), following extensive consultations across all three campuses.  The Report contained 13 recommendations.  Key recommendations included converting the Statement into a policy to enable enforcement and better alignment with related policies, integrating content from the University’s Statement on Human Rights, and addressing complaints pathways.  The Report noted that current pathways were confusing, particularly for students, and recommended creating a Human Rights Office as a single point of entry for complaints.  Additional recommendations focused on training, communications, and implementing a shared system to track complaints and standardize intake, processing, and reporting, supporting compliance with Bill 166.  The Provost advised that policy drafting was underway and further consultations would occur, with the goal of presenting the new policy in Cycle 5 of governance.  He noted that the full report and a consultation site would be released shortly.
   
   Discussion
   
   In response to questions received in advance of the meeting regarding threshold assessments and investigations, and supports for respondents, the Provost explained that for employee respondents, Workplace Investigations staff conducted the threshold assessment and investigations were carried out by trained internal or external investigators. For student respondents, the academic Division Head conducted the threshold assessment under the Code of Student Conduct, and investigations were handled by a Divisional Investigating Officer or an investigator from a central pool.  The Provost advised that options to centralize this process were being explored.  Regarding supports for respondents, the Provost acknowledged that while supports existed for both students and employees, improvements were needed and would be considered during policy development and consultation.
   
   There were no further questions from members during the meeting.
7. Revisions to the Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
   
   Professor Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students) presented the final version of proposed revisions to the Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment.  The review, launched in January 2025 and chaired by Professor Emeritus Faye Mishna, had included consultations with students, staff, faculty, and librarians, as well as input from legal expert Gillian Hnatiw.  A second round of consultations was held from September 23 to October 8, generating approximately 150 items of feedback, most of which were positive and focused on clarity within definitions, procedural fairness, reprisals, intimate partner violence, confidentiality, timelines, respondent supports, mandatory training, and interim measures.
   
   In response to the feedback, further revisions were made to the Policy, including clarifying six definitions (e.g. consent, procedural fairness, reprisal, gender-based violence), specifying the 12-month timeline for concluding processes, adding details on respondent supports, and clarifying that interim measures are not disciplinary.  Language was also added regarding mandatory training and the ability of the Office of Safety and High Risk to refer reprisal allegations under other policies.  Additional improvements were planned through policy navigation guides and operational updates.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member asked how comments received during consultations that were not directly related to the policy would be addressed.
   
   Professor Welsh explained that these comments had been tracked and would inform improvements to navigation guides, which would include practical examples and explanations.  She also noted that some feedback was received related to training and how it was delivered, and that that would be considered in future planning.
8. Provost’s Annual Report on Cases of Academic Discipline, 2024-2025
   
   The Provost presented the Annual Report on Cases of Academic Discipline, 2024-2025 and summarized key observations.  Academic offence numbers continued to decline from pandemic highs, with significant decreases at UTM and UTSC.  Timeliness of case resolution had improved, with most cases resolved within three months.  The impact of the revised Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (CBAM) which came into effect on July 1, 2025, was expected to be assessed in next year’s report. Offence types showed a decrease in unauthorized aids and an increase in concoction, possibly linked to AI use.  The Provost clarified that concoction referred to fabrication of references or facts.
   
   At the tribunal level, the total number of resolved cases increased slightly, while cases proceeding to hearings nearly doubled, with more expulsions and suspensions.  Fewer cases were returned to divisions, likely due to early resolution efforts.  Despite an increase in complex hearings, timeliness had improved.  This improvement was attributed in part to the Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances (ADFG) Office maintaining the current number of Chairs and developing a new case management system to track internal metrics and improve efficiency.
   
   In summary, the Provost noted that efforts to strengthen academic integrity were yielding results, with fewer cases, faster resolution, and ongoing process improvements.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member asked whether the increase in cases of concoction was related to AI use and how such offences were detected.  
   
   Professor Susan McCahan explained that concoction, such as fabricated references, was typically identified by faculty or teaching assistants during review of assignments, often through manual checks and internet searches. Currently, there were no automated tools to detect this offence, like there were for detecting plagiarism. 
   
   The Provost added that the reported numbers were likely an underestimation and emphasized the need for greater AI literacy, expressing confidence that the University would address this challenge as it had with plagiarism.

CONSENT AGENDA

The Board proceeded with the Consent Agenda.

On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried

YOUR COMMITTEE APPROVED

THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item #9, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.

9. Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 258 – October 9, 2025
   
   Report Number 258, from the meeting of October 9, 2025 was approved.
10. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
    
    There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
11. Items for Information
    
    Members received the following items for information:
    1. Semi-Annual Report: Academic Appeals Committee, Individual Cases, Fall 2025
    2. Semi-Annual Report: University Tribunal, Individual Cases, Fall 2025
    3. Report Number 231 of the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs – October 21, 2025
    4. Report Number 319 of the Agenda Committee – November 4, 2025
    5. Membership of the Advisory Committee on the University of Toronto Library System for 2025-2026

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

12. Date of the Next Meeting: February 26, 2026, 3:10-5:10 p.m.
    
    The Chair reminded members that the next meeting of the Board would be in the new year on February 26, 2026 at 3:10p.m.
13. Other Business
    
    
    There were no items of other business.