Report: Academic Board - October 09, 2025

To the Governing Council,

University of Toronto,

Your Board reports that it held a meeting on October 9, 2025 at 1:10 p.m. with the following members present:

PRESENT: Donald Ainslie (Chair), Laurent Bozec (Vice Chair), Melanie Woodin (President), Trevor Young (Vice President and Provost), Scott Mabury (Vice President, Operations & Real Estate Partnerships), Nicholas Rule (Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Mahdi Azarmi, Sheila Batacharya, Susan Bondy, Natalia Breuss, Pier Bryden, Evan Chan*, Catherine Chandler-Crichlow, Carol Chin, Dinesh Christendat, Shai Cohen, Robert Cooper, Lisa Dolovich, Paul Downes, Stanley Doyle-Wood, Ramy Elitzur, Monique Flaccavento, Robert Gazzale, Sandeep Gill, William Gough, Ankita Goyat, Ania Harlick, Maureen Harquail*, Alex Hernandez, Thomas Hofmann, Walid Houry, Aiyun Huang, Hibah Hussain, Sarosh Jamal*, Charles Jia*, Rita Kandel, Gretchen Kerr, Nazanin Khazra*, Elaine Khoo*, Hang-Sun Kim, Tys Klumpenhouwer, Robert Kyle, Eden Lavallee*, Ron Levi, Robert Levit, Ben Liu, Pedro Marinho, Ryan McClelland, Henrjeta Mece, Libbie Mills, Eha Naylor, John Oesch*, Albert Pan, Matt Ratto, Karen Reid, Dina Reiss, Lisa Robinson, Rosa Saverino, Kimberly Seaman, Suresh Sivanandam, Naomi Steenhof, Adam Stinchcombe, Alison Syme, Sali Tagliamonte, Kevin Temple, Luc Tremblay, Sera Tulk, Erica Walker, Stephen Wright, Colleen Zimmerman

*participated remotely via Zoom

REGRETS: Ramona Alaggia, Larry Alford, Robert Austin, Jay-Daniel Baghbanan, Shakhriyor Bakhtiyorov, Joshua Barker, Amanda Bartley, Jordan Bear, Zoraida Beekhoo, Bensiyon Benhabib, Gabriella Brasileiro Santos, Adalsteinn (Steini) Brown, Jutta Brunnée, Christian Caron, Susan Christoffersen, Tarun Dewan, Markus Dubber, Martina Gouda, Zachary Hawes, Yuyan Jiang, Charlie Keil, Anil Kishen, Marcus Law, Irene Morra, Javed Mostafa, Kevin O’Neill, James Orbinski, Yajan Pancholi, Jesse Pasternak, Anuradha Prakki, Karin Ruhlandt, Rob Simon, Markus Stock, Robyn Stremler, Sergio Tenenbaum, Charmaine Williams, Christopher Yip

NON-VOTING ASSESSORS: Heather Boon (Vice-Provost, Faculty and Academic Life), Alexandra Gillespie (Vice-President and Principal, UTM), Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Vice-President, People Strategy, Equity and Culture), Linda Johnston (Vice-President and Principal, UTSC), Dave Lehto (Chief of University Planning, Design and Construction), Jeff Lennon (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), Samantha Frost (Governance and Projects Coordinator)

IN ATTENDANCE: Karen Bellinger (Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances), Dwayne Benjamin (Vice-Provost, Strategic Enrolment Management), Gwen Burrows (Assistant Vice-President, International Engagement and Impact), Elizabeth Church (Director, Communications & Strategic Projects), Meg Connell (Senior Projects Officer), Emma del Junco (Academic Reviews & Planning Specialist, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Andrew Ebejer (Senior Legal Counsel People Legal Services), Leora Jackson (Legal Counsel, People Legal Services), Christopher Lang (Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances), Susan Mazza (Senior Projects Manager, Office of the President), Ann Perry (Senior Issues and Media Relations Strategist), Mariana Prado (Associate Vice-President & Vice-Provost, International Student Experience), Lachmi Singh (Director, Academic Programs, Planning & Quality Assurance, Office of the Vice-Provost, Academic Programs), Archana Sridhar (Assistant Provost, Office of the Vice-President & Provost), Angela Treglia (Executive Director, Sexual Violence Strategy, Prevention & Support), Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students).

Pursuant to section 38 of By-Law Number 2,
consideration of items 13 and 14 took place in camera. 

OPEN SESSION

1. Chair’s Remarks
   
   The Chair, Professor Donald Ainslie, opened the meeting by welcoming new and returning members. He introduced himself and Vice-Chair Professor Laurent Bozec. He also introduced the Board’s assessors, explaining that they were senior members of the administration who had been appointed by the President to advise the Board.
   
   The Chair provided an overview of committee procedures including voting, questions and discussion, remote participation protocols, and meeting room technology. The Chair also referred members to the Academic Board orientation videos and resources available online and advised both new and returning members to make use of these resources throughout the year.
   
   The Chair encouraged members to participate in meetings, and to actively and respectfully share their views on items of business under discussion. He noted the importance of reviewing all documentation in advance and encouraged members to submit complex questions to the Board Secretary in advance of meetings so that fulsome responses could be presented to the Board.
2. Report of the Vice President and Provost
   
   Professor Trevor Young, Vice-President and Provost, delivered his report to the Board, providing updates on the following key areas:
   
   University Rankings
   
   Professor Young began his report by sharing the latest results from the Times Higher Education global rankings, announcing that the University of Toronto had been ranked 21st in the world. He emphasized that this recognition was a testament to the exceptional work of the University’s faculty, its groundbreaking research, and its commitment to excellence in teaching and learning.
   
   Return to Campus Plans
   
   The Provost then addressed the University’s plans to increase the on-campus presence of administrative staff further to the President’s message of October 3, 2025. Starting in January 2026, or earlier in some divisions, administrative teams would begin transitioning back to an increased on-campus presence. Professor Young noted that this shift could take several months to fully implement and would be supported by human resources and operations teams to ensure a smooth process. Managers of administrative staff were encouraged to consult the Division of People Strategy, Equity & Culture for guidance.
   
   Fall Enrolment
   
   The Provost also provided an update on fall enrolment, noting its importance in shaping the University’s budgetary outlook. To begin the presentation, Professor Dwayne Benjamin, Vice-Provost, Strategic Enrolment Management, shared the latest data on undergraduate enrolment figures and trends. Approximately 17,000 new undergraduate students were enrolled, comprised of 12,000 new domestic and 5,000 new international students. While the total number of students was similar to last year, the composition had shifted. Professor Benjamin noted a growing trend of domestic students choosing the University of Toronto as a preferred destination, while interest from international students had declined. Compared to the previous year, there were roughly 300 fewer international students and 200 more domestic students. Professor Benjamin explained that this shift had budgetary implications, as the University was admitting approximately 1,000 more domestic students than were funded by government grants. At the same time, the decline in international enrolment represented a loss in higher tuition revenue. The impact of these changes varied across divisions, with UTSC’s Scarborough Academic of Medicine and Integrated Health (“SAMIH”) program performing particularly well in attracting domestic students. In terms of fields of study, there had been a notable drop in enrolment in computer science—down by approximately 25–30% across the province—while other disciplines had remained relatively stable. Social sciences had seen a gentle decline, undergraduate business programs remained popular, and engineering had performed strongly. Specialized programs such as kinesiology, architecture, and music continued to maintain steady enrolment. Overall, Professor Benjamin emphasized that, relative to other institutions in the sector, the University of Toronto remained in a favourable position.
   
   Budgetary Impacts
   
   The Provost then discussed the financial implications of current enrolment trends. He reported that the University experienced a year-over-year decline of approximately 5% in international undergraduate enrolment, which negatively impacted forecasted revenue, as the budget had anticipated growth in this area. Domestic undergraduate enrolment was 8% above target. While this increase contributed to tuition revenue, it did not generate additional operating grant funding from the government. As a result, the University anticipated that operating revenues would be approximately 1.5% lower than planned for the fiscal year, representing a shortfall of between $50M and $60M. This gap was considered manageable through the use of existing contingencies and reserves built into the budget plan. However, longer-term financial concerns remained due to the softening international student market. In response, the University was considering recalibrating enrolment targets for the next academic year to better reflect these emerging trends.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member inquired whether the University would be able to sustain the practice of admitting domestic undergraduate students beyond the established enrolment corridor over the long term.
   
   In response, Professor Benjamin noted that if the University were enrolling only domestic students, it would likely have reduced intake to align with the funded enrolment corridor. However, both application volumes and yield rates among domestic students had been increasing, while international student numbers had declined. Ideally, the University would have preferred to be more selective and admit domestic students within the limits of funded enrolment; however, it needed to be responsive to prevailing trends and market conditions.
   
   A member asked whether there was a long-term solution to addressing budget shortfalls beyond relying on reserves.
   
   In response, the Provost acknowledged that relying on reserves was not a long-term solution for addressing budget deficits. He explained that the University had begun adjusting budget projections and recalibrating enrolment targets as part of its strategy to manage financial pressures. While there were no plans to cut academic programs or student services, he noted that the University would need to explore other operational efficiencies. Drawing on reserves was considered a short-term measure.
   
   A member asked whether any progress had been made in advocacy efforts with the provincial government regarding tuition freezes or adjustments to funding levels.
   
   In response, the Provost noted that the President was actively engaged with the provincial government on issues related to tuition and operating grants. These advocacy efforts had been a major focus for the President and formed the core of the government relations strategy. The University remained optimistic, believing that the case for investment in post-secondary education had become increasingly compelling, particularly in light of economic shifts and increased interest in pursuing post-secondary education.
   
   AI Task Force Update
   
   Professor Susan McCahan (Associate Vice-President and Vice-Provost Digital Strategies and Vice-Provost, Innovations in Undergraduate Education), then presented an update on the University’s AI Task Force’s current initiatives and strategic direction. The Task Force had been established in Spring 2024 to develop a strategic vision for the integration of artificial intelligence across the institution. The Task Force comprised six working groups: Teaching & Learning, Research, Student Services, People Strategy & Administration, Operations & Planning, and Technology, Data Governance & Digital Trust, with additional representation from Libraries, Legal Services, and Graduate Education. These groups conducted extensive consultations throughout 2024 and delivered their reports in June 2025.
   
   The Task Force adopted a set of guiding principles emphasizing responsible, transparent, and equitable use of AI, aligned with the University’s mission and values. The focus was not on promoting AI use, but on anticipating its impact and ensuring that any adoption would support human development, community well-being, and institutional integrity.
   
   Key recommendations included enhancing AI literacy across the University, ensuring access to secure AI tools, preparing institutional data for AI use, and developing guidelines for responsible implementation. Progress to date included the launch of open educational resources (OERs), monthly AI Roundup sessions, and pilot projects such as virtual tutors using Cogniti. Secure AI tools like Microsoft Copilot and ChatGPT.Edu had been made available, with over 500 licenses sold and 71 instructors onboarded across 10 divisions.
   
   The presentation also highlighted ongoing initiatives, including the development of divisional guidelines for AI use in assessment, the establishment of the AI Adoption Table (AIAT) to guide decision-making and risk assessment, and the pre-launch of the “AI Kitchen,” a secure multi-model platform designed to support scalable AI integration.
   
   Professor McCahan concluded by addressing questions from members that had been submitted in advance of the meeting. One of the key topics was academic integrity in the context of AI. She acknowledged that this remained a pressing issue. Professor McCahan highlighted the work of the Centre for Learning Strategy and Support, which had been actively helping students understand the distinction between using AI for ‘upskilling’ (motivating and supporting them to tackle challenging tasks), and ‘downskilling’ (where the work was completely delegated to AI). The focus had been on guiding students to make informed and responsible decisions about AI use. The University continued to lead discussions with faculty and collaborate through teaching and writing centres to reimagine assessment practices.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member asked for clarification regarding the statement that the University needed to prepare its data to be AI-ready.
   
   In response, Professor McCahan explained that much of the University’s institutional data was stored within proprietary vendor platforms that were not easily accessible. She cited the example of ROSI, the University’s student information system developed in the 1980s, which relied on flat table data structures that were difficult to access and use for advanced analytics. The University had been exploring ways to modernize and redevelop these systems to enhance functionality and enable more effective use of AI. This included efforts to make ROSI capable of producing data that could be integrated with other institutional sources. Professor McCahan emphasized that historically, the University had not treated data as a strategic asset, but recognized that it would be critically important for operational effectiveness in an AI-ready institution.
   
   A member asked whether consideration had been given to offering broader access to other AI tools, beyond Claude, Co-Pilot and ChatGPT.
   
   In response, Professor McCahan explained that the University had prioritized access to AI tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, and Claude because these were the platforms most commonly used by members of the University community. She noted that it was important to begin by integrating the tools already in use into a secure and protected environment. As the University moved toward a more multimodal AI infrastructure, it planned to evaluate and potentially incorporate a broader range of AI platforms to support diverse needs across teaching, research, and administration.
   
   The Provost added that the University was in line with peer institutions in terms of the AI platforms it made available to community members.
   
   A member inquired whether, should the AI Task Force’s recommendations be accepted by the administration, the Academic Board would receive updates on the progress of their implementation. The Provost confirmed that periodic updates would be provided.
   
   A member asked whether the financial impact of the AI Task Force’s recommendations would be addressed in the 2026 budget.
   
   The Provost responded that he anticipated the recommendations would align with the President’s priorities and that the 2026 budget would likely reflect some level of investment.
   
   A member asked how success of the recommendations would be measured.
   
   In response, Professor McCahan noted that one metric for evaluating the success of the recommendations was uptake in the AI Kitchen, including demand for some large anchor projects related to teaching and learning. She also emphasized the importance of assessing progress in areas such as operational excellence and the integration of AI into administrative processes. Acknowledging that many of these measures would be qualitative rather than quantitative, Professor McCahan highlighted the fundamental question of whether the University was moving closer to becoming AI-ready, and doing so in a way that prioritized human development
   
   The Provost added that initiatives aimed at ensuring access to appropriate tools within a safe environment were expected to yield quantitative metrics. He noted that the Centre for Teaching Support & Innovation had made resources available to support faculty, and that the Learning Centre was preparing to release AI-related learning modules for staff. For students, open educational resources continued to be updated, with ongoing efforts to build and monitor uptake of these materials.
   
   Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to Divestment
   
   In response to a question submitted in advance, regarding the University’s Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to Divestment, the Provost explained that the Policy and its procedures provided a structured process for considering divestment requests, grounded in institutional values such as freedom of inquiry and open debate. He noted that any member of the University community could initiate the process by submitting a fully documented written brief and collecting at least 300 signatures in designated categories. Upon receipt, an ad hoc committee would be formed to study the request and make a recommendation to the President. The Provost confirmed that no such request had been received in relation to the conflict in Gaza. He emphasized that the University did not consider proposals that would require it to take sides on issues subject to ongoing academic inquiry and debate, and that it would be inappropriate for the administration to deviate from Governing Council policy by taking a position outside the established process. In response to a follow-up question, the Provost stated that the University has only acted on divestment when a formal proposal was submitted, citing the example of divestment from South Africa, which began with a brief in 1984 and culminated in full divestment in 1990 following federal guidance and provincial legislation. He also reaffirmed the University’s longstanding opposition to academic boycotts, underscoring its commitment to academic freedom, freedom of expression, and the global exchange of ideas as essential to the protection of human rights.
   
   Recent Events on Campus & Institutional Approach to Assessing Safety at Controversial Events
   
   Professors Alexandra Gillespie (Vice-President and Principal, UTM), Kelly Hannah-Moffat (Vice-President, People Strategy, Equity and Culture), and Sandy Welsh (Vice-Provost, Students), provided the Board with a report on recent events that had occurred at the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM) campus Tuesday October 7, 2025, that had prompted concern from some members.
   
   Professor Gillespie began by acknowledging the concerns raised and emphasized the importance of maintaining a safe and inclusive campus environment. She noted that the administration was actively engaged in reviewing the situation and reaffirmed the University's commitment to supporting all members of the community. Professor Gillespie also highlighted ongoing efforts to ensure that campus activities aligned with institutional values and policies.
   
   Professor Sandy Welsh reported that the University was aware of an incident that had occurred at UTM, which had affected members of the UTM Jewish Student Association during their tabling event to commemorate October 7. She acknowledged that the day had been difficult for many in the university community and noted the deep impact the incident had on those involved. The matter was under investigation by Campus Safety, in accordance with university procedures. Professor Welsh stated that, in keeping with standard practice, specific details of the case could not be shared to protect individual privacy and preserve the integrity of the investigation. She emphasized that the University’s processes were guided by principles of procedural fairness and required a strong evidentiary basis. If violations of university policies were identified, appropriate action would be taken under the Code of Student Conduct. She explained that for a Code case to proceed, the University must identify the individuals involved, establish clear factual evidence of the behavior, and determine whether it constituted a violation. Any further steps would depend on the outcome of that investigation by Campus Safety.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member asked what the University was doing to ensure a safe and inclusive environment for all students, particularly in response to ongoing concerns about antisemitism on campus.
   
   In response, Professor Hannah-Moffat acknowledged that antisemitism, along with other forms of discrimination, had occurred on campus. She emphasized that the University took safety and discrimination seriously and worked to ensure that events were conducted in a safe manner, including through coordination with Campus Safety, engagement with event organizers, and responsiveness to incidents. She noted that educational efforts were underway, including training modules on antisemitism and broader initiatives to raise awareness and foster inclusive spaces. The University had also collaborated with Jewish community partners and launched a dedicated web resource on antisemitism, along with a complaints page on the Equity, Diversity & Inclusion (EDI) website outlining how to file formal complaints of discrimination and harassment. Professor Hannah-Moffat stressed that the University’s complaint processes were guided by principles of procedural fairness and required a strong evidentiary basis. She acknowledged that the complaints process could be burdensome, particularly for students, and that efforts were underway to review the Statement on Prohibited Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment and related policies. She highlighted the extensive work being done across EDI and divisional offices to educate the community and develop further training. While recognizing that differing views and opinions existed, she underscored the importance of respectful dialogue and a commitment to human dignity.
   
   A member referenced a recent motion in the Senate of Canada concerning the situation in Gaza and proposed that University leadership examine potential risks of complicity in violations of international law, including war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide, and submit a report of its findings.
   
   In response, the Provost indicated that he was not aware of the motion referenced and undertook to review it and report back to the Board as appropriate.
   
   Members expressed concern regarding the UTMSU (University of Toronto Mississauga Student Union) event titled “Honoring Our Martyrs,” which they believed conflicted with the University’s core values of inclusivity and safety.
   
   In response, Professor Welsh stated that the University had written to the UTMSU and continued to follow up regarding the event in question. She noted that this engagement was being conducted in the context of University policies related to autonomous student societies and their rights to freedom of expression.
   
   The Provost thanked members and colleagues for their comments and feedback.
3. Report on Capital Projects
   
   In accordance with the Policy on Capital Projects and Capital Planning, 2021, Professor Scott Mabury, Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships, highlighted the following 10 capital projects prioritized to come forward to governance over the coming year:
   1. MacMillan Theatre Remediation
   2. Temerty Faculty of Medicine, West Wing
   3. Academic Wood Tower
   4. Department of Computer Science at Schwartz Reisman Innovation Campus Floors 3 & 4
   5. Dentistry Clinic (phase 7 of 9)
   6. LEAP 2.0
   7. Astronomy & Astrophysics Research Labs Renovation
   8. 215 Huron demolition
   9. UTSC Field House
   10. St George Campus Master Plan 2050

Discussion 

A member asked what lessons had been learned from the delay of the opening of the Oak House Student Residence project.

Professor Mabury explained that the opening of the Oak House Student Residence had experienced a brief delay of nine days, primarily due to challenges with the private sector partner. The University had learned that future joint venture agreements must include provisions for occupancy to be achieved at least three months prior to opening. Professor Mabury acknowledged that the University had communicated the delay to students late in the process, and while the situation was difficult, staff worked diligently to support affected students, including validating expenses and assisting with the transition. He concluded by stating that the University continued to gather lessons from the experience and was applying them to future residence projects.

In response to feedback from members, Professor Mabury stated he would be happy to present the Student Residence Plan at a future Board meeting.

4. Capital Project (Level 2): Report of the Project Planning Committee for the MacMillan Theatre Remediation – Project Scope & Sources of Funding
   
   The MacMillan Theatre Remediation project was recommended to Academic Board by the Planning and Budget Committee at its meeting on September 18, 2025.
   
   Professor Mabury provided an overview of the project, emphasizing its importance to the University of Toronto community. The MacMillan Theatre, a vital cultural and academic venue on the St. George campus, was closed in December 2023 due to health and safety issues. The remediation project would address those concerns through extensive back-of-house upgrades and introduce front-of-house improvements to support its dual use as a performance space and a 600+ seat lecture theatre. 
   
   The project was fully funded by Provostial funds, with construction scheduled to begin in December 2025 and completion targeted for July 2026
   
   Professor Sali Tagliamonte, Chair of the Planning & Budget Committee, then reported on the Committee’s discussion of the project.
   
   Discussion
   
   Members expressed support for the project, describing it as an excellent example of rethinking life cycle replacement.
   
   In response to a member’s question about the MacMillan Theatre’s commercial uses and potential for cost-recovery, Professor Mabury confirmed that the theatre did generate income in a limited capacity, with those funds flowing to the Faculty of Music for reinvestment.
   
   A member asked whether any additional future maintenance costs were anticipated with the new use of the space, such as the potential need to hire a venue manager or similar roles.
   
   Professor Mabury responded that the University, more broadly, would take on management of the space. 
   
   On a motion duly moved, seconded, and carried
   
   YOUR BOARD APPROVED
   
   THAT subject to confirmation by the Executive Committee
   
   THAT the project scope of the MacMillan Theatre Remediation project as identified in the “Report of the Project Planning Committee for the MacMillan Theatre Remediation”, dated July 30, 2025 be approved in principle; and, 
   
   THAT the project totaling approximately 1,200 gross square metres (gsm), and 440 net assignable square metres (nasm) theatre space (main level), be approved in principle, to be funded by Provostial Funds.
5. Proposed Revisions: Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment
   
   Professor Sandy Welsh provided an update on the University of Toronto’s ongoing review of its Policy on Sexual Violence and Sexual Harassment, which had been in effect since January 1, 2017. The review aimed to assess the impact of changes made following the 2022 review and to identify further opportunities for improvement. The process included extensive consultations with over 200 members of the University community and an external expert review conducted by Toronto-based lawyer Gillian Hnatiw, specializing in gender-based violence.
   
   Key themes from the consultations included the need for greater clarity and transparency, improved processes and communication, the inclusion of timelines, expanded scope of the Policy, and enhanced education and training. Ms. Hnatiw’s recommendations aligned closely with community feedback and focused on updating definitions, expanding reporting options, clarifying non-adjudicative processes, and broadening decision-making authority.
   
   Discussion
   
   A member’s question submitted in advance queried the absence of a definition for ‘coercive control’ in the proposed revisions, as recommended by the external expert, Ms. Gillian Hnatiw. Professor Welsh noted that while the proposed revised Policy incorporated ‘sexual coercion’ into an updated definition of ‘intimate partner violence’; it did not include ‘coercive control’ as a standalone term. The rationale provided was that ‘coercive control’ was a broad concept encompassing various forms of control, some which might fall outside the scope of the Policy. However, the University recognized the importance of the issue and committed to addressing it through supplementary educational materials to ensure the concept was meaningfully incorporated into broader support and awareness efforts.
   
   There were no further questions from members.

CONSENT AGENDA

On motion duly moved, seconded, and carried

YOUR BOARD APPROVED

THAT the consent agenda be adopted and that Item 7, the Report of the Previous Meeting, be approved.

6. Approvals Under Summer Executive Authority
   
   The Chair reported that there were no approvals under summer executive authority within the purview of the Academic Board.
7. Report of the Previous Meeting: Report Number 257 – May 29, 2025
   
   Report Number 257, from the meeting of May 29, 2025 was approved.
8. Business Arising from the Report of the Previous Meeting
   
   There was no business arising from the report of the previous meeting.
9. Items for Information
   
   Members received the following items for information:
   1. 2025-2026 Calendar of Business
   2. Report Number 316 of the Agenda Committee – June 4, 2025
   3. Report Number 317 of the Agenda Committee – June 25, 2025
   4. Report Number 318 of the Agenda Committee – September 30, 2025
   5. Report Number 218 of the Planning and Budget Committee – September 18, 2025
   6. Report Number 230 of the Committee on Academic Policy and Programs – September 16, 2025
10. Quarterly Report on Donations of $250,000 or more to the University of Toronto, May 1 to July 31, 2025
    
    Members received the Quarterly Report on Donations for information.

END OF CONSENT AGENDA

11. Date of the Next Meeting: November 13, 2025, 3:10-5:10 p.m.
    
    The Chair reminded members that the next meeting of the Board would be on November 13, 2025 at 3:10p.m.
12. Other Business
    
    No items of other business were raised.
    
    A member took the opportunity to pose a question submitted in advance but not addressed during the presentation on AI Task Force Update. The question pertained to the new Student Advising Service delivered through the Salesforce Student Success Hub for Higher Education.
    
    In response, Professor McCahan explained that the University of Toronto had acquired the platform through a standard Request for Proposals (RFP) process. The initiative was driven by interest from several academic divisions, notably the Faculty of Arts & Science, with the goal of enhancing student academic advising. 
    
    As of the meeting date, the system was serving approximately 43,500 students. The cost of the service was covered by the University as part of its broader investment in student services, with no direct costs to students. Professor McCahan also clarified that student data was stored locally and not transmitted to the service provider.

THE BOARD MOVED IN CAMERA.

IN CAMERA AGENDA

13. Appointments: Assistant Secretary to the University Tribunal
    
    On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
    
    YOUR BOARD APPROVED
    
    THAT Ms. Itzel Rendon be appointed Assistant Secretary of the University Tribunal effective October 9, 2025.
14. Capital Project (Level 2): Report of the Project Planning Committee for the MacMillan Theatre Remediation - Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding
    
    On motion duly moved, seconded and carried
    
    YOUR BOARD APPROVED
    
    THAT subject to confirmation by the Executive Committee,
    
    THAT the recommendation of the Vice-President, Operations and Real Estate Partnerships, as outlined in the memorandum dated October 2, 2025, regarding the Total Project Cost and Sources of Funding for the MacMillan Theatre Remediation be approved in principle.
     

The Board returned to Open Session.