Report #278

DATE: April 15, 2003
PARTIES: Ms. S.D. (“the Student”) v. UTM


Hearing Date(s): March 14, 2003

Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Jane Kidner, Chair
Professor John Furedy
Professor Ellen Hodnett
Professor John Wedge
Mr. Josh Paterson

Secretary:
Mr. Paul Holmes, Judicial Affairs Officer

In Attendance:

For the Appellant:

Ms. S.D., “the Student”

For UTM:
Professor Gordon Anderson

UTM – late withdrawal without academic penalty – attempts to drop course on ROSI denied as a result of system failure – Faculty failed to provide ROSI records in support of its case – onus on the University to provide evidence in support of its case when Student’s academic record and career are at stake – due diligence demonstrated by Student – appeal allowed – the grade of “F” in the course to be vacated and replaced with WDR

Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from one course. The Student failed the course and was subsequently refused further registration. The Student claimed that she fell behind in her course work due to her father’s illness. She claimed that it was her intention to drop the course, but that her repeated attempts to so using the student web service of ROSI were denied as a result of a system failure. The Student claimed that the electronic message she received was “access denied – see the Registrar”. The Student also attempted to drop the course using the student telephone service of ROSI, but was unable to do so because the lines were consistently busy. The Committee found that the Faculty failed to provide evidence in support of its position that while the Student may have logged onto ROSI on the date in question, she did not do so in an attempt to drop the course. In particular, the Faculty failed to provide ROSI records which would have shown whether the system was operational at the time in question, how many times and at what time of day the Student made attempts to log onto ROSI, what electronic message the Student received, and what the precise deadline was for dropping a course. The Committee found that where the Student’s academic record and career are at stake, the onus is on the University to provide evidence in support of its case. The Committee found that the Student demonstrated due diligence in attempting to withdraw from the course within the deadline for course withdrawal. Appeal allowed. The Committee ordered that the grade in the course be vacated and replaced with the non–grade report WDR.