Report #333

DATE: May 15, 2009
PARTIES: Mr. A. M. (the Student) v. UTSC


Hearing Date(s): April 23, 2009

Committee Members:
Professor Ed Morgan, Chair
Professor Elizabeth Cowper
Professor Michael Marrus
Ms. Anna Okorokov
Ms. Maureen Somerville

Appearances:

For the Student Appellant:
Mr. A.M. (the Student)

For the University of Toronto at Scarborough:
Vice-Dean Professor John Scherk

UTSC – request to write deferred examination – request changed to late withdrawal without academic penalty after Notice of Appeal submitted – no jurisdiction to hear new requests not submitted to the Faculty – submissions restricted to original request – trauma from male pattern baldness – inadequate medical grounds – no evidence of psychological ramifications of condition – no impact on ability to take examination – past Faculty accommodation more than generous – appeal dismissed

Request to write a deferred examination. The Student changed his request after submitting his Notice of Appeal and asked the Committee for late withdrawal without academic penalty. The Student had twice been granted permission to write the deferred examination. The Student reenrolled and passed the course in a subsequent term; he now sought late withdrawal to remove the failing grade from his academic record. The Committee found that it had no authority to hear new requests that had not been submitted to the Faculty and the Student was asked to restrict his submissions to the request to take a deferred examination. The Student submitted a doctor’s note from a medical practitioner in India indicating that he suffered from male pattern baldness. The Committee found that there were inadequate medical grounds for seeking permission to write the deferred exam. The Committee found that despite the Student’s claim that he was traumatized by this condition, no psychological or psychiatric report was submitted, and nothing in the medical file tendered indicated that there were psychological ramifications to his condition. The Committee observed that the Student’ condition did not ordinarily impact on a person’s ability to take an examination in a university course. The Committee considered that the Student had failed on each occasion to show up at the appointed examination time and that the Faculty had been more than generous in accommodating his various requests. Appeal dismissed.