The recommendations may become more pressing as a new academic integrity policy expands decision-making responsibilities across the university
Illustration by Sabina Mendoza.
The recently released 2025 Ombudsperson Report made two sets of recommendations surrounding academic misconduct and concession cases, addressing longstanding concerns about unclear decision-making and bringing new issues to light to promote fairness across the university.
Angus Shaw, UVic’s ombudsperson, serves as an impartial, independent, and confidential resource for members of the campus community who wish to raise concerns or injustices. The ombudsperson releases an annual report on trends and statistics collected by their office, alongside recommendations based on their experiences from the position.
Because the ombudsperson’s role is limited to making recommendations rather than enforcing decisions, Shaw’s reports serve as a way to persuade and guide others on campus, especially decision-makers, in upholding fairness.
Shaw expects these recommendations to become even more important as the university’s new Policy on Academic Integrity takes effect Sept. 1. The new policy, among other changes, will distribute responsibility for academic integrity decisions among a broader group of decision-makers, such as individual instructors, rather than concentrating it primarily in those more experienced holding this kind of power, like department chairs and associate deans.
“All of a sudden, we’re going to not have hundreds of decision makers, we’re going to have like thousands of decision makers,” Shaw said in an interview with the Martlet. “Our chairs and associate deans are generally pretty good at making decisions. They know their fairness principles. They know how to do it.”
“In the future with this new academic integrity policy, there’s going to be a lot of people who have never done it before…. So I foresee my recommendations becoming more pressing.”
The 2025 report addresses ambiguity in the word “should,” as it appears in UVic’s academic integrity policies. While the policies recommend certain penalties, Shaw emphasized that decision-makers must still exercise judgment and determine the most appropriate penalty based on the circumstances of each case. He recommends providing clear written reasons for the chosen penalty, rather than simply citing the policy, and making decisions only after gathering sufficient information.
Shaw said this recommendation builds on concerns raised in previous reports, and that he has seen cases relating to unclear justification for academic misconduct penalties for several years.
“I do still hear repeatedly the same issue about students complaining about a penalty not being justified,” Shaw said.
Another set of Shaw’s recommendations focuses on academic concessions. An academic concession can be requested by students whose course requirements are affected by unexpected and unavoidable circumstances, or conflicting responsibilities, such as illness, trauma, or bereavement, and representing the university, the province, or the country by participating in an academic event, an athletic competition, or an artistic performance.
Options for academic concession include in-course extensions and deferrals.
He said he was mildly surprised that concessions became the most common issue brought to the ombudsperson’s office in 2025, as opposed to academic integrity, which was the case the previous year.
In 2024, 14.5 per cent of cases his office handled involved academic integrity, and 13.8 per cent involved concessions. In his 2024 report, Shaw noted an increase in academic integrity complaints, with “many, if not most of these cases” involving artificial intelligence (AI).
In 2025, however, concessions accounted for 16.7 per cent of cases, while academic integrity cases fell to 11.5 per cent.
“It’s not like AI has gone away or anything,” Shaw said. “In fact, the conversation has only increased. So it’s really hard for me to draw conclusions for why that is the case.”
Shaw said his recommendations on concessions were driven by the seriousness of a small group of cases he encountered, where the boundaries between concessions and accommodations were blurred. In several of these cases, students felt they had been treated unfairly in ways that could affect their transcripts or careers.
Shaw found that when students disclose a disability in a concession request, decision-makers may focus too heavily on the disability itself, rather than independently assessing whether the student meets the criteria for a concession.
To address this, Shaw argues decision-makers have an “enhanced duty of clarity.” They should keep concession and disability accommodation processes separate, and provide clear written reasons demonstrating that concession requests were assessed independently on their own merits.
Of those who used the ombudsperson office in 2025, 90 per cent were students, 72 per cent of those students were undergraduates, and 33 percent of all users were registered with the Centre For Accessible Learning (CAL).
“[Students] are entitled to a fair process,” Shaw said. “It feels like the university is this very powerful [entity]. It has a bunch of resources. But remember that they’re bound by fairness principles.”
Shaw acknowledged that making decisions, particularly in academic integrity cases, is not easy. Since those decisions can have lasting consequences for both a student’s education and future career, he says it is important that decision-makers are well supported.
As the university’s new academic integrity policy expands decision-making responsibilities to more members of the UVic community, Shaw said he is developing additional guidance, while encouraging staff to use the ombudsperson’s existing resources, such as one-on-one consultations and online resources, which include a section dedicated to staff support.
