FAQ: Jurisdiction to Investigate Case Scenarios

The determination of whether there is Jurisdiction to Investigate is the DOI’s, including consideration and application of different factors when coming to that determination. The case scenarios presented below are intended to provide a general understanding of how Jurisdiction to Investigate may be determined when a Report of Sexual Misconduct is received by the UBC IO under the Sexual Misconduct Policy. They are simplified case scenarios, based on actual Reports received by the UBC IO (changed slightly to ensure anonymity) and are for information only.

Jurisdiction to Investigate a Report under the Sexual Misconduct Policy is determined on a case-by-case basis.

Case Scenario 1

The person who made the Report to the UBC IO is a faculty member at UBC. He alleges that he is being sexually harassed and stalked by one of his part-time assistants, who is also a UBC international student. He states that the assistant has made persistent, unwelcome and uninvited invitations and advances of a sexual nature on numerous occasions. In addition to sending him inappropriate texts, the assistant has made suggestive sexual comments to him at work. He has told the assistant repeatedly to leave him alone and that her behaviour is unwanted. The assistant has since shown up in his classroom and at his home, and she texts him constantly. He says he is afraid her behaviour is escalating and that she “will do something bad”.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

Yes. The Respondent was both a student and an employee at UBC at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted.

(2) Does the alleged conduct fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct?

Yes. The alleged conduct constitutes sexual harassment and stalking under the Sexual Misconduct Policy. Sexual harassment and stalking both fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct under the Policy.

(3) Does the alleged conduct have a real and substantial connection to UBC?

Yes. He and the assistant are Members of the UBC Community. The alleged Sexual Misconduct occurred in his classroom, on-campus (on premises controlled by UBC and used for university purposes). While some of the alleged behaviour occurred at his home, off-campus, the behaviour is a continuation of the same uninvited behaviour and it is alleged to negatively impact a safe and supportive learning and working environment at UBC. The alleged Sexual Misconduct occurred partly during or associated with UBC work. There is a real and substantial connection between the alleged Sexual Misconduct and the complainant’s work at UBC.

A: Based on the facts above, it is likely that the UBC IIO will have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report.

Case Scenario 2

The person who made a report to the UBC IO is an undergraduate student at UBC. She has been in a sexual relationship with another student, for over one year, but now she no longer wants to be with him. She feels like he pressures her to continue having sex with him, which she no longer wants. On two separate occasions, she revoked her consent to the sexual activity in question, but he ignored her and continued to engage in the sexual activity. They both live in residence at UBC.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

Yes. He was a student enrolled at UBC at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted.

(2) Does the alleged conduct fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct?

Yes. Sexual assault is defined under the Sexual Misconduct Policy as any form of sexual touching or the threat of sexual touching without the individual’s consent. Under the Policy, consent is defined as “the voluntary agreement to the act or acts in question”. Consenting to one kind of sexual activity does not mean that consent is given for another sexual activity, and consent can be revoked at any time during the act or acts in question. The complainant said that she expressly revoked her consent on two occasions. The alleged conduct therefore falls within the definition of Sexual Misconduct.

(3) Does the alleged conduct have a real and substantial connection to UBC?

Yes. There is a real and substantial connection between the alleged Sexual Misconduct and UBC. Both the complainant and the respondent are Members of the UBC Community. The alleged Sexual Misconduct occurred in UBC’s student residence, which are premises controlled by UBC and used for university purposes (student housing). A goal of UBC is to provide a safe and supportive learning, working and living environment for its Members.

A: Based on the facts above, it is likely that the UBC IO will have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report.

Case Scenario 3

The complainant is a nursing student at UBC. She alleges that a provincial health authority oncologist has been making inappropriate sexual comments to her during her practicum placement at a public hospital that is located off campus. The oncologist is not a clinical instructor or supervisor and is not an employee of UBC.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

No. The oncologist is not a Member of the UBC Community as it is defined under the Sexual Misconduct Policy. The oncologist is employed by the provincial health authority as a medical staff member at the public hospital and is not affiliated with UBC as a clinical instructor or supervisor in the Faculty of Nursing or the Faculty of Medicine.

A: Based on the facts above, the UBC IO would not have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report. However, the complainant may choose to report the Sexual Misconduct to the Post-Secondary Institution Educator for support and follow-up with the Health Care Organization.  The Practice Education Guidelines for BC has clear guidelines around Negative Behaviour in the Practice Setting.  The complainant may also obtain support from the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Office, the AMS Sexual Assault Support Centre or the UBC Student Health Service. The complainant may also pursue other processes external to UBC against the individual alleged to have committed the Sexual Misconduct.

Case Scenario 4

The complainant and the respondent are both UBC students. They dated for six months before ending their relationship. The complainant claims that following their break-up, the respondent sent her a series of private messages on Facebook in which he called her a “skank” and a “slut”. She alleges that the conduct has harmed her dignity and self-worth.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

Yes. The respondent was a student enrolled at UBC at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted.

(2) Does the alleged conduct fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct?

No. Name-calling, without evidence of further Sexual Misconduct, does not fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct under the Sexual Misconduct Policy.

A: Based on the facts above, it is unlikely that the UBC IO will have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report.

Case Scenario 5

The complainant and the respondent are both staff members at UBC.  They entered into a sexual relationship and began sending each other nude photographs using their personal cell phones. The complainant later discovered that the respondent was sending the complainant’s photographs to her co-workers, without his consent. He asked her to stop doing so, but she just laughed and said: “Who cares!” He now feels embarrassed and humiliated around his co-workers.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

Yes. The respondent was an employee at UBC at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted.

(2) Does the alleged conduct fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct?

Yes. Under the Sexual Misconduct Policy, Sexual Misconduct includes “the distribution of a sexually explicit photograph or recording of an individual to one or more individuals other than the individual in the photograph or recording without the consent of the individual in the photograph or recording.” The alleged conduct falls within the definition of Sexual Misconduct.

(3) Does the alleged conduct have a real and substantial connection to UBC?

Yes. There is a real and substantial connection between the alleged Sexual Misconduct and UBC. The complainant and the respondent are both employees at UBC. The respondent shared sexually explicit photographs of the complainant with other UBC employees (his co-workers at UBC), which is alleged to have detrimentally affected the complainant’s working environment. A real and substantial connection exists through those factors and UBC’s goal to provide a safe and respectful work environment, free from any form of Sexual Misconduct.

A: Based on the facts above, it is likely that the UBC IO will have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report.

Case Scenario 6

The complainant and the respondent are both residents of the UBC Faculty of Medicine residency program. The complainant says that during the first few weeks of residency training, the respondent often visited the complainant at her apartment off campus. One evening, while watching a movie, the complainant says that the respondent removed his pants, exposed his penis, and attempted to force his penis into her mouth. The complainant pushed the respondent away and ordered him to leave. She filed a Report with the UBC IO the next day.

Q: Does the UBC IO have the jurisdiction to investigate?

(1) Were the allegations made against an individual who was a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted?

Yes. Residents of the Faculty of Medicine have a contract with UBC that requires them to abide by UBC policies, including the Sexual Misconduct Policy. The respondent was therefore a Member of the UBC Community at the time of the alleged Sexual Misconduct and at the time the Report was submitted.

(2) Does the alleged conduct fall within the definition of Sexual Misconduct?

Yes. Under the Sexual Misconduct Policy, sexual assault is defined as any form of sexual touching or the threat of sexual touching without the individual’s consent. Indecent exposure is defined as the act of exposing one’s body to another individual for a sexual purpose without their consent. The respondent’s alleged conduct fits within the definition of Sexual Misconduct set out under the Policy.

(3)Does the alleged conduct have a real and substantial connection to UBC?

Yes. There is a real and substantial connection between the alleged Sexual Misconduct and UBC. The complainant and the respondent are both Members of the UBC Community and are both residents in the same residency program at UBC. The alleged Sexual Misconduct would have a significant negative impact on the complainant’s learning environment. It would also adversely affect the confidence of UBC Community Members and would undermine UBC’s ability to fulfill its obligations to maintain a respectful environment where its members can study, work, and live free from Sexual Misconduct.

A: Based on the facts above, it is likely that the UBC IO will have the jurisdiction to investigate the Report.