Report #380

DATE: August 31, 2015
PARTIES: Ms. H.K. (the Student) v. the University of Toronto Mississauga (UTM)

Hearing Date(s): August 24, 2015
Committee Members:
Professor Andrew Green, Chair
Professor Elizabeth Smyth
Ms. Susan Froom
Secretary:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Appearances:
For the Student Appellant:
Ms. H.K., the Appellant (“the Student”)
For UTM:
Professor Kelly Hannah-Moffat, Professor and Vice Dean Undergraduate, UTM
Ms. Michelle Kraus, Assistant Registrar, Academic Standards and Petitions
UTM – late withdrawal without academic penalty – insufficient reasons to warrant granting the extraordinary remedy – appeal dismissed
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from five courses. The Student submitted a petition for late withdrawal once she decided to apply for graduate school, citing health problems and her involvement in court cases at the time she was enrolled in the courses. The COS refused her petition, noting that late withdrawal without academic penalty could not be granted after a student shows his or her intent to complete a course by writing the final examination or assignment. The Student then appealed to the AAS, which found that the Student had not presented a compelling case for an exemption from UTM’s policies on late withdrawal and dismissed the appeal.
The Student then appealed to the Academic Appeals Committee, arguing that her meeting with the Dean and waiting for the results of the re-grading process prevented her from pursuing withdrawal within the appropriate timelines. The Committee noted that the Student knew of her difficulties prior to the drop date and that she was aware of the drop date, but that she chose not to withdraw from her courses and in fact completed the final assignments in the courses. The Committee concluded that it was not unreasonable for the AAS to find that the Student’s interactions with the Dean did not provide sufficient reason for the Student not pursuing late withdrawal within the appropriate timeline, and that it was not unreasonable for the AAS to find that the re-grading process was not unfair. Appeal dismissed.