Report #316

DATE: April 9, 2007
PARTIES: The Student Appellant v. Faculty of Pharmacy
 

Hearing Date(s): March 9, 2007

Committee Members:  
Assistant Dean Kate Hilton, Chair
Mr. Kristofer Coward
Professor William Gough
Dr. Joel Kirsh
Professor James Rini

Judicial Affairs Officer:
Dr. Anthony Gray

In Attendance:

For the Student Appellant:
the Student Appellant
Mr. Chris Burr (Counsel)
Ms. Janye Lee (Counsel)

For the Leslie Dan Faculty of Pharmacy:
Associate Dean Lesley Lavack,
Ms. Brenda Thrush, Registrar

Faculty of Pharmacy – request for readmission to the Faculty of Pharmacy – re-instatement in program – failure to obtain the required annual GPA – stress and anxiety did not incapacitate to the point of mental illness – no basis for Divisional Appeals Committee conclusions – appeal dismissed – recommendation to Division to consider additional procedures to ensure students in difficulty are aware of options available to assist them – recommendation that Division pay attention to information and resources provided to students pursuing an appeal – See Policy on Academic Appeals within Divisions

Request for readmission to the Faculty of Pharmacy for the purpose of repeating Year 2 of the program. The Student’s registration in Pharmacy was cancelled after he did not obtain an annual GPA of 1.7 in two separate years. The Committee considered whether the Student had suffered from an undiagnosed mental illness as a result of his family situation during the relevant time period which had prevented him from performing to the standard required. There was no medical documentation available in relation to the Student’s alleged mental illness. The Committee considered the Student’s oral evidence about the nature of his symptoms and found that the Student’s stress and anxiety did not incapacitate him to the point of mental illness and that his situation did not merit extraordinary relief. The Committee arrived at the same decision as the Divisional Appeals Committee, but disagreed on the reasons. The Committee found that the Divisional Appeals Committee had no basis for its negative conclusions regarding the student’s attitude when he returned to his studies. Appeal dismissed. The Committee recommended that the Faculty may wish to consider adopting procedures to ensure that students are aware of the range of options available to assist them. The Committee expressed concern that the Student was unprepared for the Divisional Appeals Committee despite meeting with the Registrar. The Committee recommended that the Division to review its information provided to students pursuing an appeal, with reference to the Policy on Academic Appeals within Divisions, and the Provost’s Framework for the Divisional Appeals Processes.