Judicial Affairs

The Judicial System of the Alma Mater Society is an independent system composed of the Judicial Committee (JCOMM), which is the adjudicative branch, and the Judicial Affairs Office, which is the investigative branch. The Judicial System of the Alma Mater Society is the first and oldest in Canada, being established by Principle Grant in 1898. To date, the AMS Judicial Affairs Office remains the only of its kind, and a unique hallmark of student life at Queen’s University. In all affairs, the Judicial System aims to promote positive values at Queen’s, and uphold the values of  Restorative Justice, Peer-Administered, Complaint-Driven, Non-Adversarial, and Procedural Fairness. The Judicial System is governed by the Judicial Policy, and Appointments Policy.

Learn about the Judicial Affairs Office
Learn about the Judicial Committee
Pillars of the Judicial System
Read the Student Code of Conduct
Contact Information
Judicial Affairs Office

Judicial Affairs Office

The Judicial Affairs Office investigates Category 1 Non-Academic Misconduct (NAM) Cases, as referred to it by the Non-Academic Misconduct Intake Office (NAMIO) as well as Suspected Policy Infraction (SPI) cases. The Judicial Affairs Office also supports the Student Conduct Office in implementing educational outcomes, and offers peer-to-peer guidance to students involved in NAM cases. Lastly, the office also provides training to key stakeholders on matters of Non-Academic Misconduct, and values of student conduct. The Judicial Affairs Office is led by the Judicial Case Manager and Judicial Disputes Manager, who work together to lead a team of deputies and investigate any complaints and/or cases referred to the JAO.

The Judicial Case Manager is primarily responsible for Non-Academic Misconduct cases, as well as educational and peer-to-peer support for students going through the system.

The Judicial Disputes Manager is primarily responsible for investigating Suspected Policy Infractions; and supporting any policy review or development.

The Judicial Managers are supported by Judicial Deputies, who work to support the office through research and by advocating to improve equitable access to the system. The Judicial Deputy role is meant to provide students with experiential learning opportunities to develop their skills in policy, research, advocacy and learn case investigation proceedings.

If you are interested in applying, please keep an eye out this June on our Job postings page for more information.

What are the Pillars of Non-Academic Misconduct (NAM)?

As outlined in the NAM Policy and Procedures Manual, there are five pillars that the AMS NAM system must adhere to: 

Restorative Justice:Emphasizes the importance of elevating the role of victims and community members through active involvement in the misconduct process, holding Students directly accountable to the people and communities harmed by their conduct, restoring the emotional and material losses of victims, and providing a range of opportunities for dialogue, negotiation, and problem solving, whenever possible. The goal is to achieve a greater sense of community safety and social harmony for all involved and requires the willing joint participation of students and those impacted.

Peer-administered:Upholds the non-adversarial and restorative nature of the NAM system and recognizes the inherent value of peers supporting student development and learning to become positive community members and citizens.

Complaint-driven: The JAO responds to cases referred to its office by, where appropriate, meeting with those impacted and/or harmed by the actions in order to fulsomely understand the complaint.

Non-Adversarial: The AMS Judicial System strives to approach NAM cases in a collaborative way with all participants in order to arrive at resolutions that balance the interests of those involved.

Adherence to the Principles of Procedural Fairness: Respondents have the right to: 

a. be advised, in writing, of the allegations;  

b. have a case heard and decided by an unbiased decision-maker;  

c. formal written notice of any adjudication date;  

d. an advisor, including the assistance of a Support Person or Advisor;  

e. present evidence and arguments in response to an allegation of non-academic misconduct;   

f. be provided with written reasons for the decision(s) made in their case.  

NAM System – Elaborated

Please note that for NAM matters, the JAO does not have general jurisdiction over every allegation of
student misconduct at Queen’s. Its authority is delegated by Queen’s University and applies to Category 1 NAM cases referred to the JAO by the Non-Academic Misconduct Intake Office (NAMIO).

The AMS Constitution similarly recognizes the University’s authority over the overall NAM System and the delegation to the AMS of responsibility for Category 1 NAM matters referred through NAMIO.

It is NAMIO whom determines whether alleged conduct falls within the Student Code of
Conduct, whether the case is Category 1 or Category 2, and which NAM Unit should have carriage of the matter.

Accordingly, the principal jurisdictional distinction is that the JAO handles the Category 1 NAM cases delegated to it, while more serious or otherwise appropriately classified matters may be handled by another NAM Unit, including the Student Conduct Office.

Where does the JAO fit within the Queen’s NAM System?
  • The Judicial Affairs Office operates as the AMS Authorized Agent of Queen’s University for NAM cases referred to it. Under the Student Code of Conduct, an Authorized Agent is an organization formally authorized by the University to administer NAM cases on the University’s behalf.
  • The JAO is therefore one of the four NAM Units at Queen’s University, alongside:
    •  Student Conduct Office
    •  Athletics & Recreation
    • Residences
    • The AMS, through the Judicial Affairs Office as an Authorized Agent
  •  The Student Code defines a NAM Unit as the Student Conduct Office, Athletics & Recreation, Residences, and any Authorized Agent of the University involved in administering the Student Code of Conduct.
  • Each NAM Unit has a distinct role within the University’s system. The Student Conduct Office handles alleged Category 2 NAM, while the AMS Judicial System is delegated Category 1 matters through NAMIO.
Harassment & Discrimination and Sexual Violence – Who does this fall under?

Harassment & Discrimination (H&D) and Sexual Violence (SV) are violations of the Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct; however, these matters do not ordinarily fall within the jurisdiction of the Judicial Affairs Office.

  • Under the Student Code of Conduct, Sexual Violence and Harassment are identified as Misconduct Against Persons and Dangerous Activity, and cases under this section are presumptively Category 2 Non-Academic Misconduct.
  • The Student Code also identifies Discrimination by a Student Group as prohibited misconduct.
  • Because the JAO’s delegated NAM authority is principally over Category 1 matters referred by NAMIO, H&D and SV allegations do not ordinarily fall within the JAO’s investigative or adjudicative purview.
  • The AMS Constitution expressly recognizes this jurisdictional distinction. It states that the Judicial Council, as one of several non-academic disciplinary bodies at Queen’s, does not hear matters including discrimination, harassment, and sexual assault that are better suited to another jurisdiction unless the matter is referred by the University.
  • Previous AMS Secretariat guidance similarly clarifies that the AMS does not have jurisdiction to investigate H&D/SV allegations. As a result, the JAO cannot determine that an individual has committed H&D/SV misconduct, nor can it clear an individual of such allegations.
  • This jurisdictional limitation does not mean that H&D or SV falls outside Queen’s student conduct expectations. Rather, the misconduct remains prohibited under the Student Code of Conduct, while responsibility for addressing those allegations lies with the appropriate University process rather than the JAO’s ordinary jurisdiction.

Overall, even though H&D and SV do not fall under us as the proper disciplinary process we are always happy to support you referral or clarify any concerns!

More NAM contacts can be found below!

The Judicial Affairs Office (JAO) is one of four judicial units that oversee Non-Academic Misconduct (NAM) Cases. The JAO solely oversees Category 1 level cases when referred.


Below are additional contacts for NAM:

Judicial Committee

The Judicial Committee (JCOMM) is composed of 9 undergraduate students, each from a different faculty. Led by the Judicial Committee Chair, it is the highest adjudicative body of the AMS. The Judicial Committee hears all cases handled by the Judicial Affairs Office, in addition to other cases relating to policy and governance. 

The Alma Mater Society recognizes the invaluableness of diversity, particularly diversity of thought, in ensuring a fair and strong AMS Judicial Committee. Hiring for members of the Judicial Committee follows the Appointment Policy, and is initially based on the candidate’s membership in an academic faculty on campus. One JCOMM seat is reserved to students in Arts, Science, Computing*, Kinesiology & Physical Education*, Nursing, Engineering, Commerce, Health Science and Concurrent Education*. Hiring for JCOMM will be released this June so keep an eye out on ourJob postings page for more information

*If the hiring panel is unable to fill these seats, the next best candidate from the Arts or Science application pools is hired. If a vacancy persists, the next best candidate is hired.*

Sanctions Overview

Types of Hearings

Cases handled by the Judicial Affairs Office

The AMS Judicial Committee hears all cases handled by the Judicial Affairs Office when referred or unless JCOMM has purview to oversee it directly first.

There are two types of hearings that may occur:

  • Partial Hearings: In the event that an informal resolution is achieved between the Judicial Affairs Office, and respondents. Partial hearings may also occur if the respondents agrees to some but not all findings of JAO.
  • Full Hearings: In the event that the respondent does not agree to any finding of the JAO.

Appeals of the Judicial Committee in matters of Suspected Policy Infractions can be heard by the Judicial Appeals Board.

Appeals of Non-Academic Misconduct Cases follow NAM Appeals Procedures Procedures of the University. No case resolved via an Informal Resolution is subject to appeal.

Constitutional and Policy Interpretation

The AMS Judicial Committee is the ultimate authority on interpreting the AMS Constitution, and all other relevant Society Policies. If you are unclear about what a policy or constitution means, you may bring your concerns to one of the following, who has the authority to initiate a formal hearing:

  • Secretary of Internal Affairs (Secretariat)
  • Judicial Affairs Office
  • The AMS Assembly, which can request a constitutional interpretation by a 2/3 majority.

Constitutional Interpretations may not occur if there is a suspected policy infraction, and are binding for the Society. All new policies must follow the spirit of JCOMM’s decision, as their decisions set precedent.

Oversight Hearings

An oversight hearing is called when there is lack of clarity on how a body should proceed or fulfill its mandate – the question that leads this: “Is an AMS body or official acting within its authority and obligations?”

It is not primarily a disciplinary hearing against a respondent, nor simply an interpretation requested by any member of the AMS.

The purpose is to help ensure those bodies uphold their mandates and receive guidance, learning, or feedback from the Judicial Council.

The Secretariat may request an Oversight Hearing when there are concerns about the AMS Election Team or Judicial Affairs Office, or when those bodies need guidance on how to proceed in a particular situation.


These hearings are not open to the public, and serve as a forum for learning and feedback for members of the Internal Affairs Office. Whatever is discussed and decided sets precedent.

The Secretariat has the sole authority request an oversight hearing to receive further guidance from the Judicial Committee on how to navigate a situation when there are concerns about the Elections or Judicial team; their purpose is to ensure that these offices uphold their mandates.

Constitutional Interpretation Hearing

A Constitutional Interpretation Hearing occurs when not necessarily determining whether someone did something wrong, but to request the JCOMM to interpret the meaning or application of the AMS Constitution or Society policy. The question that guides this is “what does the Constitution/policy mean?”

Constitutional Interpretations go straight to the Judicial Council. The JCOMM acts as the final authority on interpretation → the decision sets precedent and how that future policy is followed.

Appeals Hearing

An Appeal Hearing is fundamentally different because the Judicial Council is generally not hearing the original dispute from scratch. Instead, it is reviewing a previous decision, ruling, or outcome; the question that guides this is: “was an earlier decision made incorrectly or unfairly?”

Appeals go straight to the Judicial Council and there are three areas it clearly outlines:

Appeals relating to Elections and Referenda

The AMS Judicial Committee is the only level of appeal for all Society elections, including elections of Faculty Societies; the AMS Constitution and Judicial Council Charter give the Judicial Council an appellate role. The AMS Judicial Committee hears appeals of:

  • Any decision made by the Election Team
  • Any decision made by the CEO/CRO
  • Appeals of the Election Results
    Disqualification decisions (within 24 hour time frame).

If you would like to appeal a decision related to Elections, please contact the Secretariat to request a hearing and learn more about the procedure.

Appeals relating to the Speaker of Assembly – Not Under JCOMM Purview

Any member of the Society and/or Assembly may appeal a ruling made by the Speaker of the AMS Assembly by sending a written request to the Chief Governance Officer within 72 hours following the ruling; and outlining the ground(s) to appeal.

Please note that in their capacity of Speaker, the Speaker may normally make any ruling, following the spirit and principles of Assembly; to ensure that such meetings meet their mandate and remain and open and respectful forum for discussion. The appeal is not within the JCOMM jurisdiction.

Appeals relating to Conflicts of Interest

The AMS Judicial Committee has jurisdiction to ensure that the Conflict of Interest guidelines outlined by the Appointments Policy are upheld; and to protect key governance proceedings from actual or perceived bias.

The AMS Judicial Committee does not have jurisdiction over hiring-related or corporate conflicts of interest, these both do not fall within the purview of Governance and rather Human Resources and the Corporation.

For any questions or concerns or specificities, please contact the Secretariat.

Suspected Policy Infraction (SPI) Hearing

A Suspected Policy Infraction (SPI) Hearing occurs when it concerns an allegation that has actually violated AMS policies or procedures. The concern is not what the rule means—it is whether the respondent broke it. The question that guides it is: “did someone violate AMS policy?”

Process: Complaint/allegation → Judicial Affairs Office Investigation → Judicial Council Hearing → Finding/decision

Annual Reports

Every year, the Judicial Affairs Managers make a full report to the AMS Assembly detailing activities of the Judicial System, and the state of Non-Academic Misconduct. To read the Queen’s University NAM Reports, visit the Non-Academic Misconduct page.

2022-2023
2023-2024

Contact Information

The appropriate Judicial Affairs Manager will reach out depending on the appeal submitted.

Skip to content