QMIND executive alleges being removed from club after disclosing mental health concerns

‘I have lived experiences, and I’m so much more than just a statistic,’ student says

Image by: Journal File Photo
The member was removed from the club in January.

This article discusses mental illness and suicide and may be triggering for some readers. The Canadian Mental Health Association Crisis Line can be reached at 1-800-875-6213.

After being removed from their role on QMIND, a former executive is speaking out, citing their mental health concerns as the reason for their termination.

In late January, a former executive member of QMIND, an AMS-ratified club, was removed from their position after the club’s main three executives allegedly learned about the individual’s history with bipolar disorder and past suicide attempts. QMIND is Canada’s largest artificial intelligence organization, guiding over 250 students across 30 teams each year to tackle real-world problems for industry clients.

“The same day they found out, I was removed from all relevant s—signed out from the Gmail , kicked off of our club’s communication platform, Discord, and removed from my position,” the student said in an interview with The Journal. “I was also prohibited from going on a club trip to San Francisco.”

According to the student, they reached out to the AMS for advice but were encouraged to file a complaint with the University’s Human Rights and Equity Office (HREO), which would have resulted in a more prolonged process and having to recount their story multiple times, with little reassurance that any meaningful action would follow. The student also said they were given the option to submit an anonymous complaint, which would only be used for statistical purposes by the HREO.

Ultimately, the student chose to go through the AMS’s Judicial System, which includes the Judicial Committee (JCOMM). JCOMM is an adjudicative body made up of nine undergraduate students from different faculties, led by a Chair.

In an e-mail to The Journal on April 2, AMS Secretariat Sylvie Garabedian clarified that, “The AMS Judicial System has no jurisdiction over harassment or discrimination, and when concerns pertaining to protected grounds are raised, all parties to a proceeding are informed of the proper channels within the University to address their concerns. The Judicial Affairs Office navigates complex cases with the of the Secretariat, and in consultation with the University.”

According to the student, the process—which has included eight weeks of meetings and hearings and is still ongoing—resulted in a decision obtained by The Journal. The decision stated the student shouldn’t have been removed from their position, citing the lack of progressive discipline and ordering that all privileges taken away be reinstated. Additionally, the student receive an apology letter from the current QMIND executive team for the improper procedures and lack of communication.

The Journal reached out to the AMS to confirm whether these decisions have been enforced.

Garabedian cited Judicial Policy in a statement to The Journal, stating closed hearings remain private unless parties authorize disclosure or the JCOMM Chair deems it in the public interest. In such cases, a redacted notice may be sent to The Journal.

Further clarification on behalf of Garabedian to The Journal by Chief Governance Officer, Emma Capstick, reiterated the lack of jurisdiction the AMS Judicial System has in respect to harassment and discrimination cases, but any decisions are based on infractions of AMS or Clubs policy

“We want to be clear and reaffirm that the Judicial System does NOT handle cases of H&D, and while some cases have more complex elements, no decision issued by the Judicial System should be considered to be making a statement or taking a position with respects to H&D” read the e-mail.

“At this point in time, there has been no such directive or decision made in the Judicial System. As such, the Judicial Affairs Office cannot comment on any matters. The Judicial System takes compliance with proceedings seriously, and matters are addressed by the Case Officer and/or escalated to the Judicial Committee,” Garabedian said in a statement to The Journal.

When ed by The Journal, the QMIND Executive Team stated that, to their understanding, they were unsure about disclosing any information, citing a non-disclosure agreement required for all parties involved in the ongoing JCOMM hearings.

“When things like this happen, it’s not okay. It’s not okay in the slightest,” the former QMIND executive said. “Decision-makers in student government and at the university need to realize they must force change and students who are going through this.”

*Name changed due to safety concerns

Corrections

May 8, 2025
A previous version of this story did not include clarification surrounding the lack of jurisdiction the AMS Judicial System has over harassment and discrimination cases. In fact, the AMS Judicial System has no jurisdiction over harassment or discrimination cases. Additionally, a previous version of this story incorrectly stated that QMIND declined to comment on allegations. In fact, QMIND was unsure of whether or not they were allowed to comment due to an non-disclosure agreement.

Incorrect information appeared in the April 4 issue of The Queen’s Journal.

The Journal regrets the error

Tags

QMIND

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

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *