Report 375


September 5, 2014


Mr. S.S. (the Student) v. University of Toronto Scarborough (UTSC)

Hearing Date(s):

June 4, 2014

Committee Members:

Mr. Tad Brown, Chair
Professor Salvatore Spadafora
Mr. Rastko Cvekic


Ms. Natalie Ramtahal, Coordinator, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances


For the Student Appellant:

Mr. S.S., the Appellant (“the Student”)
Mr. Samuel Greene, Downtown Legal Services


Professor Mark Schmuckler, Vice Dean of UTSC

Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from two courses or, in the alternative, removal of the Courses from the Student’s academic record. The Student submitted a petition requesting either to rewrite the final examinations or be granted late withdrawal from the courses after he learned that he had failed them. The petition included a medical note indicating that the Student had recurrent epistaxis throughout the period of his exams. UTSC denied the petition, noting that the medical form was not evidence that the Student was ill on the day of the examinations, and that the exam invigilators had no documentation of the Student’s illness during the exam. The Student then appealed to the Subcommittee on Standing at UTSC, which denied his request. He then appealed to the Subcommittee on Academic Appeals (SAA) of UTSC requesting late withdrawal from the courses. The SAA denied the appeal for the same reasons, namely the Student’s lack of sufficient documentation to justify granting the appeal.

The Student then appealed to the Academic Appeals Committee on medical and compassionate grounds. The Student provided additional medical documents to the Committee. The Committee denied the appeal, noting that the Student had the option to drop the courses right up to the day before the examination, and 24 hours after the exam with medical documentation. The Committee cited the lack of evidence to support the impact of the Student’s medical condition on his academic performance and the lack of evidence to demonstrate that the Student’s symptoms became unpredictably worse at the time of the examinations. The case did not justify granting the extraordinary remedy of late withdrawal without academic penalty. Appeal dismissed.