Capilano University quietly introduces guidelines for protests on campus, emphasizes campus grounds are ‘private property’
Jolee Wen (she/they) // Contributor
Andrei Guecco (he/him) // Illustrator
Without prior notice or consultation with faculty or students, guidelines for “Peaceful Protest at CapU” were published on the Capilano University website. They establish a list of prohibited acts during campus protests, including trespassing into classrooms, events, “business areas” and “sensitive zones,” disrupting access to campus facilities, using sound amplification devices, gatherings that “disturb the peace” and encampments.
The guidelines apply to all CapU campuses. If protestors refuse to leave the premises, campus security may issue a “Notice of Trespass” and contact local authorities. The guidelines also allow CapU to designate a “protest zone” within which demonstrations may occur.
The Courier, pursuant to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA), requested access to records and communications related to the creation of the protest guidelines. Emails exchanged between Safety & Emergency Services and the Communications office pinpoint the creation of guidelines in late August 2025. A first draft was finalized for internal review on September 10, 2025.
It’s important to note that some documents were withheld from the FOI on the basis that “it reveals or relates policy advice and recommendations that were developed by or for a public body” and that Section 15 of the act stipulates that a “public body” can refuse to disclose information to an application if the disclosing of such information runs the risk of causing harm. The irony here is that these reasons emphasize the university as a public body, while the new protest guidelines emphatically designate the university as private property.
Under Section 27(2)(t) of the University Act, the Board of Governors is responsible for imposing requirements in relation to use of the “real property, buildings, structures and personal property” of the university. However, the protest guidelines have not appeared on public Board of Governors minutes as a decision item. Additionally, a faculty senator provided that while individual faculty members discovered the presence of the new guidelines on the CapU website, they were never formally brought to the attention of faculty, nor the Senate.
“The lack of consultation feels intentional, especially with how they showed up unannounced on the website,” a second-year student at CapU expressed. “It feels haphazardly done to prevent any protests, especially with how some guidelines are worded.”
“It feels vague enough that any group of people can be unfairly escorted off CapU if CapU so deems it.”
As a form of free expression, student protests provide an outlet for democratic participation. “For a democratic society to survive, let alone flourish, a wide number of spaces for political participation are required,” says David Matijasevich, a political science instructor at CapU.
“If universities become hostile to politics on campus, they are directly contributing to the shrinking of space for popular political activity that has been an unfortunate feature of liberal democracies over the last several decades and, in some ways, has given rise to the polarization and political upheaval that we are all currently witnessing.”
Matijasevich believes that certain provisions of the guidelines including: the ability to designate ‘protest zones,’ the condition that protestors do not interrupt campus activities, and “unclear language around offensiveness and respect,” are “akin to legislation commonly found in authoritarian societies.” He observes that while universities may legally have the right to limit protests, “it doesn’t follow that they ought to do so.”
“Authoritarian regimes (and organizations) that utilize such control mechanisms typically do so within the bounds of law, so we shouldn’t confuse legality or legal consistency with democracy.”
2 Cents on: “Capilano University is private property” *
*The Courier supports critical analysis but does not necessarily endorse the views expressed in this segment
The guidelines emphasize that “Capilano University is private property,” twice. The phrase also appears once more in the response letter to the Courier’s FIPPA request.
“Please note that Capilano University is private property as per the [sic] Section 27(2)(t) of the University Act,” the letter reads.
Despite being publicly funded institutions, universities are legally considered private property. As such, universities may limit protests by regulating their campus spaces or disciplining students, despite the right to peaceful protest enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (the Charter) – which B.C.’s court decisions have affirmed.
Such decisions bring into question whether universities should function as spaces of public discourse and free expression and the role of student protests in democratic societies.
The right to protest peacefully is derived from Section 2 of the Charter, which protects freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association. In Eldridge v British Columbia (Attorney General), it was ruled that the Charter applies when the quality of an act is “governmental” in nature, such as when implementing “a specific statutory scheme or a government program.”
While post-secondary education seemingly falls under this definition, BC courts largely dismiss the argument. A recent example is Kishawi v Vancouver Island University, which upheld the suspension of a VIU student for engaging in “disruptive” protest acts in support of Palestine. The BC Supreme Court ruled that Charter rights do not apply to the regulation of university spaces, which is not considered ‘governmental action.’
“There is no express responsibility for the provision of a public forum for free expression on university campuses,” the court held.
Other provincial courts see universities as spaces that promote civic discourse. In 2020, UAlberta Pro-Life v Governors of the University of Alberta held that the University of Alberta’s regulation of campus protests violated their students’ right to freedom of expression, noting that campus grounds “are physically designed to ensure that the capacity of each student to learn, debate and share ideas is in a community space.”
The core purpose of universities, the appellate court stated, is “the education of students largely by means of free expression.”