Statement to Undergraduate Students About Constitutional Interpretation

Dear students,

I am writing to provide further clarity and explanation with respect to the Constitutional Interpretation held by the Judicial Council on April 16, 2025.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the Judicial System for hosting its first open-session hearing this year, and extend a heartfelt thank you for the outgoing Judicial Disputes Manager, for proposing changes to the procedure on Constitutional Interpretations as approved by Assembly in January that reaffirmed the rights of members to participate in hearings, and provided for greater guidance on engagement with stakeholders to strengthen transparency.

With that being said, Constitutional Interpretations are intended to allow for the Judicial Council to define terms and determine the application of the Constitution. The Judicial Council does not have the authority to make policy decisions that are within the purview of the Assembly, but to simply interpret and apply such decisions with neutrality, fairness and impartiality. Please note that in such hearings, interpretations should not be understood as formal position on matters outside this purview.

What does the decision of April 16th actually mean?

To put the decision released by the Judicial Council in simple terms, the current wording of the Constitution restricts the access of the AMC to events that have gone through a formal approval process through the Campus Affair Commission. Unlike sec. 14.1.3 which guarantees The Queen’s Journal access to any “on-campus” events, sec. 8.2.10 uses different languages that limits the access of the AMC. This interpretation was based on the material facts and the analysis of the Constitution and does not reflect any position as to whether or not access to non-AMS sanctioned events by the AMC should be limited.

In addition, the Judicial Council has agreed that the ability to produce photographic content is integral and implicit in the editorial autonomy granted to the AMS Media Centre. While the decision states that any attempt to fully replace the content produced by the AMS through submissions, would undermine the autonomy, it will now be up to the AMS Assembly to determine the appropriate level of access to events. To guide this process, the question on editorial autonomy was clarified, to ensure that any new policy is made in a manner that respects the spirit of what the constitution affirms. In simpler words, while access is within the purview of Assembly, the Judicial Council has provided guidance that editorial autonomy includes the production of photography for the Yearbook. The Assembly is called to strengthen its commitment to the autonomy of the Tricolour Yearbook, which is funded by a fee paid for by all members of the Society, and guaranteed by the Constitution by reviewing the wording under 8.2.10.

Does this mean that AMC will not be present at EngSoc Orientation in Fall ’25?

No! Constitutional Interpretations are a means to clarify the constitution, and the appropriate application of terms. This does not preclude EngSoc from freely entering into any agreement with AMC that facilitates content production at the orientation events and/or furthers the autonomy guaranteed by the Constitution. What this decision really did is highlight how the language used that guarantees access is restrictive and/or may not capture the true intent of the Constitution nor facilitates the editorial autonomy granted to the AMC.

Please note that any member seeking clarification on the decision of the Judicial Council is encouraged to email within 72 hours of the release of this decision. All decisions of the Judicial Council are binding and not subject to appeal.