Report #324

DATE: March 30, 2008
PARTIES: Mr. D. V. (the Student) v. UTSC


Hearing Date(s): March 14, 2008

Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Professor Ellen Hodnett
Professor Yuki Johnson
Mr Alex Kenjeev
Professor Arthur Ripstein

In Attendance:
Mr. D. V., the Student
Professor John Scherk, Vice Dean, UTSC
Ms Nancy Smart, Judicial Affairs Officer

UTSC – request to defer 12 month academic suspension, write two deferred examinations and re-write a final exam – monetary and personal destabilization – deliberations confined to the remedies that formed part of the decisions under appeal – little evidence provided to support claim that personal circumstances had become worse or did not resolve themselves at time of the petition – little evidence academically that the opportunity to write the finals would have lifted the 12 month suspension – minority opinion that appeal should be allowed based on evidence submitted by Student or alternatively that the Faculty should have given more weight to surrounding circumstances – appeal dismissed

Request to defer 12 month academic suspension, write two “deferred” examinations and re-write a final examination. The death of the Student’s uncle and aunt, and the requirement that he move out of his aunt’s house, had monetarily and personally destabilized his life. Although not registered, the Student had re–attended classes he had failed, in the hopes that the Committee would retroactively overturn his suspension. The Student submitted several petitions and re–petitions, however the Committee confined its deliberations to the remedies that formed part of the decisions under appeal. The Committee found that it was beyond its jurisdiction to consider retroactively allowing the Student to write the final exams for the courses he was re–attending as a non–registered student and have them count as his grades in the courses. The Committee considered the Student’s personal circumstances and the conflict of these circumstances with the University’s course selection policies, and its method of applying these policies. The Committee found that there was little evidence to support that the Student’s personal circumstances had become worse or did not resolve themselves at the time of the petition to the Divisional Appeal Committee and there was little evidence academically that the opportunity to write the finals would have lifted the Student’s 12 month suspension given how poorly he had performed and given how little work he had done in the courses. The majority of the Committee found that the appeal should be denied. A minority of the Committee would have allowed the appeal on the grounds of the evidence submitted by the Student or, alternatively, that the Faculty’s decision should have given more weight to the surrounding circumstances affecting the Student. Appeal dismissed.