DATE:
January 8, 2024
PARTIES:
W.Y.L. (the “Student”) v. UTM
HEARING DATE:
November 15, 2023, via Zoom
Committee members:
Cheryl Milne, Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Governor
Dveeta Lal, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
Hyun Tae Kim, Representative, Downtown Legal Services
Aimee Veiner, Co-Representative, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
FOR THE University of Toronto Mississauga:
Charlotté Calon, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student is an undergraduate student registered with the Department of Chemical and Physical Sciences and the University of Toronto Mississauga. In Fall 2021, the Student enrolled in two courses, CHM231 and CHM242, both of which he failed. As a result of the grades in those courses, the Student’s cGPA fell below 1.5 and the Student was placed on a three-year academic suspension as of May 2022.
The Student requested that the appeals of two decisions of the Academic Appeals Subcommittee (“AAS”) be heard together. The first appeal is of the decision of the AAS, refusing to grant NCR notations in the two courses. The second appeal is of the decision of the AAS, denying the Student’s appeal for a lift of their three-year academic suspension. The Academic Appeals Committee (the “Committee”) granted the Student’s request that the two appeals be heard together, on the basis that the factual basis for both appeals were related.
With respect to the first appeal, the Committee found that the AAS decision to uphold the decision of the Committee on Standing (“COS”) and deny the petition for the CR/NCR notation was reasonable on the basis that there was insufficient evidence to support the Student’s contention that he requested the designation within the time limits of the policy. In particular, the Committee found that there was no evidence to support the Student’s claim that his ACORN account had been compromised by hackers who allegedly had reversed the Student's timely request for the CR/NCR notation. The Committee reviewed the ACORN activity log, and concluded that the Student had provided no additional evidence to either challenge the accuracy of the ACORN records or explain why they were unable to register their request for the changed notation within the prescribed time limits. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support the Student’s contention that they requested the designation within the time limits of the University’s policy.
With respect to the second appeal, the Committee considered whether the Student had presented compelling evidence of a change in circumstances to support an early return from his three-year academic suspension. The Committee noted that early return from suspension is an extraordinary remedy that is available only where a student produces compelling evidence of a change in circumstances relevant to the purposes of the suspension in question. The Committee found that, aside from demonstrating completion of the Promoting Academic Skills for Success program, the Student did not provide well-documented evidence that was sufficiently compelling to justify an early return from the Student’s academic suspension, or to otherwise demonstrate a change in circumstances to indicate that their poor academic performance to date would not likely recur. As a result, the Committee found that the AAS decision was reasonable.
The Committee dismissed both of the Student’s appeals.