Report 282

DATE: August 7, 2003
PARTIES:
the “Student” v. Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (“OISE”), University of Toronto

HEARING DATE: July 25, 2003

Committee Members:
Professor Emeritus R. Scane, Chair
Mr. M. Ahmad
Professor C. Beghtol
Ms. K. Lewis
Professor J. Wedge

Appearances:
For the Student Appellant: No appearances

For OISE:
Ms. S. Springer, Counsel
Professor D. Galbraith
Ms. S. McKitrick

Secretary:
Mr. Paul Holmes, Judicial Affairs Officer

Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (“OISE”) – Student appealed from dismissal by Divisional Appeals Committee of OISE of appeal from decision of Appeals Committee of OISE Faculty Council which dismissed appeal from failure in Practice Teaching component of Diploma in Technical Education Program – no appearance by or on behalf of Student – reasonable notice of hearing provided - written materials filed did not justify calling OISE to respond to appeal - appeal dismissed

The Student appealed a decision of the Divisional Appeals Committee of the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (“OISE”) which dismissed an appeal from the decision of the Appeals Committee of the Faculty Council of OISE. The latter decision dismissed an appeal from a failure in the Practice Teaching component of the Diploma in Technical Education Program (the “Diploma”) in the 1997-98 academic year.

The Student failed one of the three teaching sessions comprising the Practice Teaching component of the Diploma. The Student was permitted to take a make-up session, but failed this session also and, as such, was not recommended for the Diploma.

There was no appearance by or on behalf of the Student at the hearing of the Academic Appeals Committee (AAC). The AAC was satisfied that the Student had been advised both orally and in writing of the date, time and place of the hearing in compliance with the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The AAC noted that notice of the hearing had been sent by courier to the Student at his place of business when it appeared there had been problems with the first delivery. The Judicial Affairs Officer, in the presence of the Committee, attempted to telephone the Student at his home and place of business but was unable to speak to the Student or ascertain his whereabouts. The Committee remained in session for approximately one hour.

The AAC determined that the written materials filed did not justify calling on OISE to respond to the appeal.

The AAC accordingly dismissed the appeal.