Case Details
DATE:
January 22, 2026
PARTIES:
X.Z. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Arts and Science
HEARING DATE:
November 7, 2025, via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Dr. Erika J. Murray, Chair
Professor Andrew Petersen, Teaching Staff Governor
Kevin Li, 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 Faculty finding that no further re-read of the Student’s term test in PSY390 would be conducted. The Student requested two remedies. First that the term test be re-read and that substantive reasons be provided for any changes to the term test grade.
The Student submitted that no actual re-read of their term test was conducted and, due to a conflict of interest, it was procedurally unfair that the Associate Dean, Student Affairs, determined that no further re-read of the term test would be conducted.
The Student requested a re-read of their term test in late October. In early November, the Student’s term test grade for the term test was updated in Quercus from 75% to 81%. No written comments or explanations accompanied the grade change.
The Student argued that that the initial grade was arbitrary and that, because no comments were added to Quercus, no procedurally fair re-read was conducted. The Committee commented that their jurisdiction is limited to whether the grading procedures were followed and they could not substitute their judgment for the instructor’s. The Committee found that a re-read of the term test was conducted and that the absence of written comments in Quercus does not, in itself, establish procedural unfairness. The lack of feedback was consistent with departmental practice. The Committee further found that the Faculty’s decision not to conduct a further re-read was fair and reasonable.
With respect to the allegation of bias, the Student argued that the Associate Dean, as an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology was subject to the direct administrative authority of the Associate Chair of the Department of Psychology. The Division submitted that the two individuals held parallel positions and that no formal reporting relationship or evaluative authority existed between them. The Committee found that there was no formal reporting or evaluative relationship and that the routine departmental interactions between the Associate Dean and the Associate Chair did not give rise to a personal interest sufficient to amount to a conflict of interest. The Committee concluded that there was no actual or reasonably perceived bias or conflict of interest affecting the Associate Dean’s determination.
The Committee dismissed the appeal.