DATE:
February 5, 2024
PARTIES:
J.Z v. The Rotman School of Management
HEARING DATE:
November 23, 2023
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Professor Hamish Stewart, Senior Chair
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE ROTMAN SCHOOL OF MANAGEMENT:
Lily Harmer, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student appealed from the grade of B+ that they received in RSM1160 at the Rotman School of Management (“Rotman”). The Student's appeals within Rotman and the School of Graduate Studies were dismissed. During Rotman's oral submissions, reference was made to the SGS policy on "Re-reading & Retention of Examinations” (the "SGS Re-Reading Policy") which was not included in either party's materials. Wondering whether the SGS Re-Reading Policy could have some bearing on the appeal, the Chair asked where the SGS Re-Reading Policy could be found and asked the parties to provide submissions as to its relevance.
The Student made two submissions to the Chair. First, the Student submitted that the Chair should not consider admitting the SGS Re-Reading Policy at all because it would be procedurally unfair to do so. In particular, the Student submitted that it was too late for Rotman to introduce new evidence, and it constituted "ambush evidence". The Chair rejected the Student's argument as being without merit. The Chair noted that parties may seek to introduce material not included in their original written submissions, and the decision as to whether such material should be considered during deliberations is a discretionary decision for the Chair in view of the importance of the evidence, the reason for its absence in the original submissions, and the positions of the parties. The Chair further stated that the question of whether the SGS Re-Reading Policy should be considered was raised by the Chair, not by Rotman and thus could not constitute "ambush evidence", nor should the SGS Re-Reading Policy be regarded as "evidence", that is offered to prove the truth or falsity of another fact, at all.
The Chair proceeded to hear Student's second submission that the SGS Re-Reading Policy was not relevant. The Chair concluded that the SGS Re-Reading Policy was marginally relevant and would not significantly assist the Committee. Accordingly, the Chair therefore decided to not add it to the material before the Committee.