DATE:
April 18, 2008
PARTIES:
Mr. F. Z. (the Student) v. UTSC
Hearing Date(s):
February 25, 2008
Committee Members:
Ms. Kate Hilton, Chair
Mr. Arya Ghadimi
Professor Glen Jones
Dr. Louise Lemieux-Charles
Professor Michael Marrus
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Ms. Nancy Smart
In Attendance:
Mr. F. Z. (the “Student”)
Mr. Steven Frankel (Representative for the Student)
Professor John Scherk, Interim Vice-Dean, UTSC
Ms. Sherylin Biason, Registrar, UTSC
Request to write a deferred examination, worth 100% of the final mark in the course. The Student proposed two alternative remedies for the Committee’s consideration: that he be allowed to write a deferred exam with a 15% grade reduction; and that he be allowed to withdraw from the course without academic penalty on the basis of non–attendance. The Student claimed that was ill with a fever on the day of the examination. The Student attempted to see a doctor at the UTSC Health Centre but it was closed. The Student then attempted to seek medical attention off–campus, but as an international student, he could not access free medical care without the University Health Insurance Plan (UHIP) card issued by the University. The Divisional Appeal Committee found that the Student had not made best efforts to acquire medical evidence. The Committee found that the Student had a reasonable expectation that he would have access to the Health Centre, and that the Student discharged his responsibility to obtain medical documentation to the extent possible. The Committee found that since UTSC permits students to concentrate the full weight of their grade on a final examination, there is no basis for insisting that a student who misses an examination worth 100% of his grade has a greater responsibility to provide “solid documents to justify the event” than a student who misses an examination worth less than 100% of the final grade. The Committee allowed the appeal and ordered that the Student be permitted to write a deferred examination in the course. Having granted the original remedy requested, it was not necessary for the Committee to consider the alternative remedies. Appeal allowed.