DATE:
February 28, 2024
PARTIES:
J.C. ("the Student"). v. School of Graduate Studies
HEARING DATE:
November 20, 2023
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Sara Farherty, Chair
Professor Sotirios Damouras, Faculty Governor
Firdaus Sadid, 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 SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES:
Professor John Peever Vice Dean, Students
The Student appealed the decision of the Graduate Academic Appeals Board (“GAAB”), denying her appeal of the School of Graduate Studies’ (“SGS”) decision to terminate the Student’s registration in the PhD Program in Pharmaceutical Sciences. The decision to terminate the Student originated in the Graduate Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences Advisory Committee (the “Advisory Committee”). The Student’s registration in the PhD program had been previously terminated, though the Student was later reinstated by the GAAB.
The Student challenged the GAAB’s decision to terminate the Student’s registration in the PhD program on several grounds. The Student asserted that the Advisory Committee’s assessment of the Student’s academic progress, relied on by the GAAB in its decision, was inaccurate. During the hearing, the Committee reviewed the written feedback of the Advisory Committee, contemporaneously recorded at the Advisory Committee’s meetings with the Student. The Committee found that the written feedback form did not coincide with and, in fact, directly contradicted the Student’s assertion that they had made sufficient academic progress. The Committee further noted that there was no evidence to support the Student’s claim the Advisory Committee was unfairly biased towards them. The Committee did not find any support for the Student’s assertion that their lack of academic progress was related to COVID-19 and its aftereffects.
The Student raised two separate procedural issues. First, the Student argued that they were not required to pass a qualifying examination. The Committee noted that the Department requires qualifying examinations for PhD students, whether they enter the program after completing an MSc or after completing a BSc. The Committee further observed that the Student was aware of the qualifying examination requirement and noted that the Student had submitted a “Request for Extension to Achieve Candidacy” in which they explicitly acknowledged the qualifying exam requirement.
The second procedural issue raised by the Student concerned the fact that one of the Student’s co-supervisor, Dr. Suzanne Cadarette, served as the Advisory Committee’s Chair – an arrangement which violated a Department rule that the Advisory Committee Chair may not be a Supervisor or Co-Supervisor. The Committee found that while the Department deviated from its rule barring a supervisor from acting as an Advisory Committee Chair, it did so because it determined that Dr. Suzanne Cadarette was not acting as a substantive academic supervisor. The Committee further noted that the Student was informed of and agreed to such deviation from the rule, and in any event, the Student could not point to any harm to her progress caused by the rule modification that would otherwise warrant reversing the Department’s decision to terminate the Student’s registration.
Lastly, the Committee considered the Student’s submission that the University had made several missteps following the termination of the Student’s registration in the PhD program. For example, the University mistakenly permitted the Student to engage in activities reserved only for actively enrolled graduate students and to upload a document to a platform meant to be reserved for current students only. The Committee concluded that none of the technical errors constituted re-registration in the Department and could not form the basis for establishing a student’s academic status.
The Committee concluded that the Advisory Committee correctly assessed that the Student was not making academic progress toward her degree, and that the termination of her registration was supported by the evidence. The appeal was dismissed.