DATE: May 29, 2012
PARTIES: J.C. (the Student) v. the School of Graduate Studies (SGS)
Hearing Date(s): May, 2012 (in writing)
Committee Members:
Prof. Andrew Green, Chair
Appearances:
For the Student Appellant:
Ms. J.C. (the Student)
For the University of Toronto, School of Graduate Studies:
Mr. Robert A. Centa, Counsel, Paliare Roland
SGS – motion to refuse to give hearing on the ground that AAC does not have jurisdiction to grant remedies requested – request for an implicit increase of grade and a re-evaluation by substituting a paper for the exam – no jurisdiction to increase grade – s.3(b) of the GAAB Terms of Reference on jurisdiction – Committee has a broad power to order re-evaluation of any grade – Committee rejected that a “re-evaluation” does not include a modification of the method of re-evaluation – hearing should be held only on the issue of substitution of a paper for the exam
Motion brought by the SGS to refuse to give formal hearing to the appeal on the ground that the AAC does not have jurisdiction to grant remedies requested by the Student. At the Divisional Appeal Board hearing, the Student stated that she was feeling unwell on the day of the exam due to a medication she was taking and that she could not participate in the presentation of the team assignment due to unexpected circumstances. The Divisional Appeal Board replaced the grade of FZ with WDR. In her appeal, the Student requested that, in place of the non-grade report of WDR, the AAC increase her grade on the team assignment and allow her to submit a term paper in place of the examination she wrote. The SGS moved to ask the Committee to refuse to grant hearing pursuant to s.3.1.7 of the AAC Terms of Reference. The Committee stated that s.3(b) of the GAAB Terms of Reference provided some guidance on the AAC’s jurisdiction. On the issue of the request for an implicit increase in her grade, the Committee held that it did not have jurisdiction. The Committee stated that although it had jurisdiction to order a re-evaluation, it did not have the expertise nor the specific knowledge to exercise the judgment required in creating grades for particular courses. On the issue of the second remedy requested, a re-evaluation by submission of a paper, the Committee held that it had jurisdiction to order such remedy. The Committee rejected the SGS’s submission that submitting a paper for the examination was not a “re-evaluation” as “re-evaluation” did not include a modification of the method of evaluation. The Committee stated that its powers to order re-evaluation in any grade appeal were very broad. S.3(b) of the GAAB Terms of Reference stated that it may order a re-evaluation “of the student”, “in such manner and on such terms and conditions as the Board considers appropriate”, and thus its powers were not limited to ordering a re-evaluation of a particular assignment. Accordingly, the Committee held that a hearing should be held in the appeal but only on the issue of substitution of a paper for the exam.