WARNING: This story contains sensitive subject matter, including suicide and self-harm, that could be triggering for some readers.
Universities across Canada have introduced controversial involuntary leave policies that empower school officials to remove students struggling with serious psychological challenges.
School administrators argue these policies are designed to encourage students who pose a risk to themselves or others to get help before safely returning to their studies.
These involuntary removals can also force already vulnerable young people to deal with the added stresses of losing their studies, student housing and funding, along with the end of career aspirations and, for international students, the threat of deportation.
At least 32 students have been removed from Canadian universities through involuntary withdrawal policies since the 2014/15 school year.
Some schools do not make removals information public, so that number is likely higher.
In a review of 21 schools, a Toronto Star/Investigative Journalism Bureau investigation found more than half had some type of removal or involuntary leave policy or were currently in the process of drafting one. They include the University of British Columbia, Brock University and Concordia University.
While some of these policies directly mention mental health, others more generally reference what some schools call “at-risk” behaviour, including threats of harm or disruption of the campus community.
In 2018, the University of Toronto introduced an involuntary leave policy called the University-Mandated Leave of Absence Policy, or UMLAP, that has since triggered student protests and formal written concerns from the province’s human rights commission and the university’s own mental health task force.
“The primary effect is one of fear,” said Kay Zimmer, a recently-graduated U of T student who has been a vocal advocate against the policy. “It really has instilled among students this sense of dread that the policy is going to be used against them.”
In two years, nine people have been put on leave at the University of Toronto under the new policy.
Though the school would not provide specifics of these cases, the policy outlines two scenarios that can lead to a removal: Students can be removed when their behaviour leads university administration to believe there is a “risk of imminent or serious physical or psychological harm” to themselves or others; or, when a student’s “serious behavioural problems that may be related to mental health” prevent them from engaging in “essential activities required to pursue an education.”
Two students asked the university to review the decisions in their cases, but the decisions were upheld. Of the nine, five have since returned to their studies.
The U of T’s vice-provost of students, Sandy Welsh, said in a written statement that the policy is intended for a “very small number of students in rare circumstances involving serious concerning behaviour, where a supportive, non-punitive approach is best.” The policy states that it will “generally be invoked” when other measures, including on-campus counselling, have been unsuccessful.
A U of T spokesperson added that prior to UMLAP, students in mental health crisis faced disciplinary sanctions such as course failures and other academic penalties. “The families of several of the students who have used the UMLAP provisions have appreciated the absence of academic penalties for their children as they recover from mental health illnesses,” the statement read.
Critics call the policy discriminatory.
“Our concerns have always been that it’s directed specifically to students with mental health disabilities,” said Dianne Wintermute, a staff lawyer at ARCH Disability Law Centre in Toronto, adding that the number of removals at U of T in such a short time is significant.
Wintermute worries about how students’ lives are disrupted after removal from their studies, housing and financial support “but also the barriers they face in getting back into the institution.”
Two of the students were removed “voluntarily,” according to the university, whose policy allows for both mandatory and voluntary removals.
“Given that as a choice—leave voluntarily or have the policy applied to you—is not a real choice, I don’t think voluntary leave actually reflects the reality,” said Nadia Kanani, a coordinator with U of T’s Students for Barrier-free Access, which represents students with disabilities.
“I don’t see this as a solution for students experiencing crisis. Rather, it seems like a way the university, perhaps inadvertently, ends up isolating students from the community and the services they need.”
Removal policies are emerging while demands for mental services rise on campuses.
A 2019 survey of more than 52,000 Canadian graduate students by the Canadian Association for Graduate Studies found 3,200 self-identified as having a disability or “impairment,” of which the leading cause—46 per cent—was depression and other mental health challenges.
Like many post-secondary institutions, U of T has invested time and resources.
Counselling appointments at U of T reached more than 33,000 last school year—up 35 per cent from the 2013/2014 school year.
Mental health accommodations have also skyrocketed.
In 2013/14, 31 per cent of students with academic accommodations at U of T listed mental health as their primary disability. Five years later, that proportion nearly doubled to 58 per cent or 3,841 students.
In response, the university has launched drop-in counselling at its main library during exam seasons, reviewed the mental health “atmosphere” in its research labs, funded “wellness programs” and partnered with human resources giant Morneau Shepell to provide online services and increase the supply of available counsellors.
In the United States, removal policies are more common, dating back decades.
A study conducted by the Ruderman Family Foundation—a U.S. philanthropic foundation that publishes research on disability rights issues—graded the removal policies of the eight Ivy League schools. The highest grade was a D+.
“While a leave of absence is potentially useful to both the student and the school, many schools also use the leave of absence as a tool for discrimination, pushing students out of school who are entitled by law to receive accommodations and support which would enable them to stay,” the study concluded.
A school scored poorly if removals were based on a “threat to self;” “community disruption,” which the study calls “vague, overly broad, and very easily misapplied;” an inability for students to access on-campus housing upon return to school; and, a lack of clarity on how students are able to resume their studies.
Controversy over these policies has spilled into U.S. courts.
A group of Stanford University students sued the school in 2018 to change its leave policy, after multiple students were removed amid mental health hospitalizations, suicidal ideation and attempts.
One of the students involved in the lawsuit was Harrison Fowler, who was removed from campus in 2017 during his first semester at Stanford. He was suffering from suicidal ideation at the time and after telling his residence advisor, he said he was handcuffed by police to be taken to the hospital.
After a few days in a hospital bed, Fowler was visited by a Stanford residence dean and told to sign a voluntary leave of absence form, he said.
“I was suddenly getting hit with all this legal jargon and litigation about what was happening to me in the midst of dealing with my own emotions and trying to receive effective treatment at Stanford Hospital,” said Fowler. “It was almost like taking a plea deal from the jail; it was like, ‘Yeah, I’ll sign whatever, just get me out of this hospital as fast as possible,’ because it felt very much like a prison.”
Fowler said he doesn’t believe the answer is removing involuntary leave policies altogether.
“I just want universities and mental health professionals to individualize the treatment that they give to students and not give blanket removal policies to everyone for the purpose of removing themselves of liability or the guilt of having someone commit suicide on campus. They should still exist, but there has to be a very justifiable reason for it.”
If you are thinking of suicide or know someone who is, there is help. Resources are available online at crisisservicescanada.ca or you can connect to the national suicide prevention helpline at 1-833-456-4566, or the Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868.
In October 2019, Stanford vice provost for student affairs, Susie Brubaker-Cole, announced an agreement with the student plaintiffs that included a revised policy on mandatory leaves.
“My colleagues and I have learned from our conversations with you, and our campus community is stronger because of your advocacy,” it read.
According to the school’s revised policy, students with medical disabilities (including mental health disabilities) that require university medical services may petition to remain in campus housing for one term while on leave, the school said in a written statement.
Two of Canada’s largest universities—the University of Toronto and McGill University—began forming policies around the same time, ending up in very different places.
In fall 2019, following student outrage, McGill shelved its brand-new forced removal policy.
Written submissions sent to university officials were overwhelmingly opposed to the policy, according to responses McGill received during consultations and obtained through a freedom of information request.
“Students need more access to resources, not to be shown the door out,” reads one submission. “The idea that students like me could be forced to leave, even if they were seeking help, would be a failure for this institution.”
There were similar concerns raised by students and others when U of T’s policy was first announced in 2017 as a “transparent, non-disciplinary and compassionate process,” to be used for “few students” each year.
Then-Ontario Human Rights Commission Chief Renu Mandhane told school officials that the draft policy “falls short” of meeting U of T’s duty to accommodate and could lead to discrimination on the basis of mental health disability.
“The policy does not require the university to assist students who pose a serious risk of harm to themselves,” Mandhane wrote. “Rather, the Policy appears to allow the university to immediately put the student on leave and withdraw essential services (housing, health, and counselling services) at a time when the student is in crisis and most in need of support.”
Mandhane also pointed out a lack of any requirement for mental-health training for decision-makers in UMLAP cases or clear requirements for providing evidence—such as a medical assessment—showing that a student is at risk.
While subsequent drafts addressed some of her concerns, Mandhane later flagged an “urgent” situations clause, saying the policy “allows the university to withdraw essential services from students who pose a serious risk of harm to themselves without considering the impact.”
The clause remains unchanged, and of the eight students put on leave in the policy’s first school year of use, six fell under it.
One month after Mandhane’s letter, U of T provost and vice-president Cheryl Regehr told the school’s governing council, “it was the view of the administration that the policy was compliant with the Ontario Human Rights Code,” according to meeting minutes.
Later that day, the UMLAP was passed by governing council, following statements from all three student unions opposing the policy.
Now a justice in Ontario’s Superior Court, Mandhane declined an interview.
Ena Chadha, appointed interim chief commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission (OHRC) in July, said “the commission does still have some concerns about the policy’s compliance with the code.”
Universities adopting such policies may intend to reduce risks to students on campus, Chadha said, but a careful balance is required.
Amid a cluster of student suicides and student discontent over the university’s management of mental health services in the spring of last year, U of T convened a task force that examined, among other things, the removal policy.
“We find it concerning that the (policy) is viewed by some members of our community as a potential barrier to students seeking mental health services,” reads the task force’s final report, issued in December 2019.
It urged the university to make clear to students that they will not be forced on leave for simply seeking mental health support and medical care.
There has remained vigorous support for the policy among senior administrators.
In her 2018/19 annual report, the university’s ombudsperson, Ellen Hodnett, wrote of the policy’s first year: “I was extremely impressed by the sensitivity, compassion, and fairness with which each case was handled.”
In a statement to campus paper The Varsity, she said the policy was doing “just what it was intended to do.”
Hodnett declined to be interviewed for this story.
The University of British Columbia has become the latest Canadian school to approve a formal removal policy, although it does not focus specifically on mental health. The school’s “At-Risk Behaviour Policy” applies to any conduct that threatens the safety of others or themselves.
The policy, made effective in April, gives the university the ability to remove a student in violation of the policy from courses and residence and bar them from visiting campus.
UBC vice president of students Ainsley Carry said the policy is a last resort for only the rarest of cases.
Recent U of T graduate Zimmer said that university reassurances that removal policies will be used rarely don’t bring comfort.
“There’s always that lingering fear of, ‘What if I am that one case?’ ” said Zimmer, 24.
Had the current involuntary leave policy been in place earlier, Zimmer believes she would have been forced to leave university.
In June 2017, she submitted a petition to the university, containing medical records and a doctor’s opinion, seeking more time to complete some outstanding assignments.
As she awaited a response from the university, Zimmer said she became increasingly withdrawn.
In a diary entry that day, she wrote: “I feel too low and uninspired to be around anyone, let alone myself.”
The university declined the petition, she said, and, as a result, she failed three courses.
“I was already feeling suicidal,” Zimmer said in an interview. “I thought, ‘OK, this is it.’ That was the last thing I had needed.”
That night, she wrote a list of names in her diary of people who mattered to her and attempted to take her own life.
In the morning, Zimmer went to the school counselling centre and subsequently to the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. A later appeal to her rejected petition was successful. She graduated in the spring of 2020.
Two years after her suicide attempt Zimmer stood before a group of students and the university’s senior administrators at a board meeting in March 2019 with a prepared statement.
The night before, a student had died on campus. The university reported three student suicides that year.
“I urge you to revise a policy that is clearly not working and clearly not for us,” she said during a lengthy speech at the board meeting. “Accommodate us without removing our autonomy.”
With files from Minh Truong / Ryerson School of Journalism
This story was also published in the Toronto Star.
If you are thinking of suicide or know someone who is, there is help. Resources are available online at crisisservicescanada.ca or you can connect to the national suicide prevention helpline at 1-833-456-4566, or the Kids Help Phone at 1-800-668-6868.
- Feds vow to probe findings of IJB/Star/TVO investigation on mental health care for Indigenous people - 4 November 2024
- ‘Deeply troubling’: Ontario chiefs call for reforms to federal health program after Star/IJB investigation - 3 November 2024
- ‘I am deeply troubled’: Head of Ontario law society speaks out after Star/IJB investigation into sexual harassment among lawyers - 25 October 2024
- Inside Canada’s ‘exploitative’ clinical trial industry, where study participants say they’re incentivized to lie — even about medications’ side effects - 7 October 2024
- The hidden hate on campus: We tracked incidents at colleges and universities and found a growing problem - 10 March 2023
- She was suicidal, struggling with PTSD and addicted to alcohol. The help she needed was all under one roof - 9 December 2022
- She was suicidal, struggling with PTSD and addicted to alcohol. The help she needed was all under one roof - 9 December 2022
- Anatomy of a campus mental health crisis - 17 March 2021
- Abi was outgoing and gifted. He never made it to graduation. The 17-year-old’s death — and what followed at his Brampton high school — is part of a concerning problem - 19 February 2021
