DATE:
July 8, 2024
PARTIES:
S.G. ("the Student"). v. Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy
HEARING DATE:
March 22, 2024
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Dr. Erika Murray, Chair
Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Faculty Governor
Annabelle Dravid, Student Governor
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE LESLIE DAN FACULTY OF PHARMACY:
Dr. Jamie Kellar, Associate Dean, Academic
The Student appealed the decision of the Faculty of Pharmacy’s Committee of Appeals (the “Faculty Committee”) decision to not grant the remedies sought by the Student, namely, promotion to Year 2 of their Doctor of Pharmacy Program (the “Program”) or to write twelve supplemental examinations for failed Year 1 courses. The decision stemmed from the Faculty’s assessment of the Student’s performance In Year 1 of the Program, in which the Student failed twelve of thirteen courses, and failed to complete the summer experiential rotation due to a lack of professional competencies to work with the public. The Faculty made special accommodation offering the Student to write four supplemental exams, despite the Student’s low annual GPA (the “Proposal”). The Student had neither accepted nor rejected the Faculty Proposal. On appeal before the Academic Appeals Committee (the “AAC”) the Student requested Aegrotat standing and reinstatement to the Program at the Year 2 level.
In their first year of studies, the Student earned a failing grade in twelve of their thirteen courses, and passed only a single course with the lowest passing grade possible. Following the end of the second semester, the Registrar notified the Student that, consistent with the Faculty’s policies, the Student was required to re-take all Year 1 courses.
The Student submitted a petition requesting to progress to Year 2, and to participate in the Year 1 experiential rotation, despite their failing grades, citing extenuating circumstances. This petition was denied. The Student then sought permission to write twelve supplemental exams for the Failed Courses or special consideration to “clear” courses without taking a supplemental examination. The Faculty denied the petitions, and the Student appealed to the Faculty Committee which unanimously denied the Appeal citing the Faculty’s obligation to graduate students who are academically capable and competent in their field.
The AAC considered whether the Faculty Committee’s decision was unreasonable or unfair, having regard the facts and the Faculty’s policies. The AAC concluded that the Decision was reasonable and followed the Faculty’s policies. In particular, the AAC noted that while the Pharmacy Faculty Calendar provided the possibility to write supplemental examinations, it did not allow students to write more than 2.0 credits worth of supplemental examinations. It further specified that “the petition process was not a means to salvage courses and/or the academic record”.
The AAC further concluded that the Faculty Committee’s decision was fair and consistent with its policies when it granted the Student special consideration to write 2.0 credits worth of supplemental examinations in view of the Student’s extenuating circumstances. Where the Faculty deviated from its policies, it did so in an effort to accommodate the Student’s difficulties and support the Student’s long-term success in the program.
The AAC noted that the pharmacy program is a national accredited program that must meet accreditation standards, with a duty to the public to ensure that its students meet all educational outcomes. The Faculty met its regulatory obligations by refusing to allow the Student to progress to Year 2.
The Committee concluded that the Student’s appeal was baseless, contrary to both the Faculty’s policies and the best interest of the public. The Appeal was dismissed.