Case Details
DATE:
January 16, 2026
PARTIES:
X.Z. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Arts and Science
HEARING DATE:
November 20, 2025, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Professor Ian B. Lee, Chair
Professor Laurent Bozec, Teaching Staff Governor
Jay-Daniel Baghbanan, Student Governor
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCE
Professor Randy Boyagoda, Vice-Dean, Undergraduate
The Student appealed from a decision of the Acting Vice-Dean, Undergraduate, Faculty of Arts and Science, terminating consideration of the Student’s request for a regrade of their final exam in a Course. The Student requested two remedies. First that the exam be reread by the original course instructor and in accordance with conditions they set out and second, a letter of apology from the Department.
With respect to the Student’s request for an apology letter, the Committee noted that the AAC’s remedial jurisdiction is limited to making orders of an academic nature. As such, the Committee solely determined whether the Acting Vice-Dean’s decision to terminate the consideration of the Student’s request of a reread of the final exam was fair and reasonable.
The Student requested a review of their grades for all four components of their assessment in the course. With respect to the final exam, the instructor indicated that they would be happy to review the exam after the exam viewing process. After the exam viewing process, the Student renewed their request for a review of the final exam. The instructor said he would review it, but that the Student would need to file a formal request, including a report detailing their concerns. The Associate Chair then emailed the Student to inform them of the procedures for a final exam re-read, which the Student followed.
The Associate Chair of the Department offered a different instructor to regrade the exam. The Student asked that the original course instructor regrade the exam, but the Faculty indicated the instructor was not available and that another instructor would be selected. The Student then asked the Acting Dean for their intervention. The Acting Vice-Dean requested that the Student confirm that they wished to proceed with the exam regrade in accordance with the pathway offered by the Associate Chair. The Student did not respond to the request for confirmation and disputed the Acting Vice-Dean’s authority to respond on behalf of the Acting Dean. The Acting Vice-Dean then sent the Student an email indicating that the Student had rejected the opportunity to have a regrade of their final exam.
In determining whether the decision to terminate the request for a reread was fair and reasonable, the Committee agreed that the Student had complied with all of the steps required to obtain a reread of the final exam. The Committee disagreed, however, that there was an entitlement to have the exam reread by the original instructor, as the exam reread procedure referred to “an” instructor, not the original instructor. Further, the reread process set out that another instructor will be selected when the original instructor is “unavailable”, which is open-ended. The Committee concluded that the fairness of an exam reread does not depend on its being conducted by the original instructor but depends on the re-reader’s having expertise in the subject matter and being provided with the relevant information. The Committee declined to specify how the reread must be conducted, commenting only that it should be done fairly.
The Committee rejected the Faculty’s argument that the Student, in not responding to the request for their consent to the pathway offered by the Associate Chair amounted to a withdrawal of their request.
The Committee allowed the appeal in part. The Committee decided that the Student is entitled to have their final exam re-read; however, the rereading need not be done by the original course instructor. The Department is entitled to select a different instructor with relevant expertise. The Committee found that it did not have jurisdiction to order the issuance of a letter of apology.