Non-academic misconduct statistics published for 2016

Cases processed by AMS NAM in May to December detailed in report to Assembly

Between May 1 and Dec. 31, 2016, 30 investigations were launched through the AMS’ non-academic misconduct (NAM) system, a report to Assembly detailed. 

Of the cases, 14 have reached hearings and resulted in assigned sanctions to some degree. 

The statistics given in the report are out of a percentage of cases with sanctions, not overall cases investigated by the NAM system. 

The majority of cases concern misuse of alcohol, with 71 per cent of cases this reporting period falling under that umbrella versus last year’s 41 per cent and only 25 per cent in 2014-15. 

Seventy-one per cent of cases also deal with some form of trespassing versus 23 per cent last year, though the trespassing incidents and alcohol misuse cases aren’t explicitly linked. 

Fourteen per cent of cases included an incident of failure to comply, 21 per cent include infringing on the rights of university or community members. 

Fifty-seven per cent include failure to adhere to alcohol regulations, and seven per cent include unlawful public disturbance, threatening civil order and/or safety, fraud, physical altercations, or “other.”

Zero per cent of the last reporting period’s NAM cases dealt with off campus noise violations, theft or possession of stolen property, or incomplete sanctions. 

Four were dropped, two at cause of mistaken identity and two because the respondent was “outside of the jurisdiction of NAM,” as non-Queen’s students. 

The remaining 12 cases, the report stated, are still within the investigation or settlement process. 

Eleven per cent of complainants since May were classified as “other,” a catagory which includes police officers. Four per cent were students and four per cent came from Queen’s Residences. 

Twenty-one per cent of complaints came from the Student Constables. The majority — at 68 per cent  — came from Campus Security. 

Out of the cases with sanctions, there have been $350 in bonds assigned, two TriPub bans, eight eCHUG Challenges — an alcohol use feedback program — one alcohol workshop, 13 educational sanctions and one warning letter. 

The average day-span to reach a hearing is 32 days, slightly higher than last year’s at 29 days but drastically lower than the 71 days in 2011-12. The average day-span to resolution is 44.6 days, which is nearly consistent with last year’s average of 45 days. 


A previous version of this article stated that the caseload was down 25 per cent from last year’s number at this point in the year, this is incorrect. 

The Journal regrets the error.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to

When commenting, be considerate and respectful of writers and fellow commenters. Try to stay on topic. Spam and comments that are hateful or discriminatory will be deleted. Our full commenting policy can be read here.