FILE: Report #291
DATE: June 14, 2004
PARTIES: Ms T., the Appellant v. Faculty of Law
Hearing Date(s): May 22, 2004
Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Professor Clare Beghtol
Dr. Pamela Catton
Ms Françoise Ko
Professor Jake Thiessen
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Mr. Paul Holmes
In Attendance:
Ms T., the Appellant
Mr. T., brother of the appellant
Associate Dean Tony Duggan, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto
Faculty of Law – grade appeal – aegrotat standing, “pass” standing, or increase from grade requested – aegrotate standing – external assessment of academic work – delay, frustration, late instructions and lack of guidance – delay and frustration met definition of exceptional circumstances – more time to complete the assignment without delay and frustration – better performance with earlier instructions – grade inconsistent with other grades – appeal allowed – grade of "D" vacated and replaced with a grade of AEG – recommendation that the Faculty provide its faculty with information regarding orientation, evaluation methods, and the obligations of its teaching staff – unfairness related to the third party reader process – violation of procedure for a third party reader to receive extraneous comments
Appeal from a grade of “D” in the course. The Student requested one of three remedies: “Aegrotat” standing; “pass” standing; or an increase from the grade of “D”. The Student elected to write an essay worth 100% of the final grade. The Student sought review of the grade through a third party reader before applying to the Faculty’s Academic Standing Committee for aegrotat standing in the course. The Student claimed relief based on the excessive time she devoted to preliminary research while seeking topic approval, her frustrations in obtaining topic approval, the lack of guidance provided by the instructor in topic development and on the final topic, and the very late start date on which she had to begin writing the paper. The Committee considered the grounds upon which the Faculty awards aegrotat standing and found that the delay and frustration that the Student experienced met the definition of exceptional circumstances, despite no illness or a traumatic personal experience being suffered. The Committee found that due to the circumstances, the Student was unable to satisfactorily complete the requirements of a course where otherwise she would have performed successfully. Without the delay and frustration the student experienced researching topics she would have had more time to complete the assignment; with earlier instructions regarding the professor’s expectations for the paper and greater supervision once the topic was approved, she would have performed better; and the grade was inconsistent with the Student’s other grades awarded at the Faculty. Appeal allowed. The Committee ordered that the grade of "D" be vacated and replaced with a grade of AEG. The Committee recommended that the Faculty provide its faculty, and particularly adjunct professors, with information regarding orientation, evaluation methods, and the obligations of its teaching staff. The student also alleged unfairness related to the processes for appealing grades at the Faculty. The Student claimed that the third party reader received written information from the course professor regarding the circumstances relating to topic approval while she was not allowed to submit similar material. The Committee stated that the third party reader receiving extraneous comments was a violation of the procedure by which third party readers are meant to evaluate only the paper.
FILE: Report #277
DATE: March 27, 2003
PARTIES: Mr. G.S. (the Student) v. the School of Graduate Studies
Hearing Date(s): February 24, 2002
Committee Members:
Professor Ed Morgan, Chair
Dr. Alice Dong
Ms. Durré Hanif
Professor Ellen Hodnett
Professor John Furedy
Secretary:
Mr. Paul Holmes, Judicial Affairs Officer
In Attendance:
Mr. G.S., the student
Professor Rashmi Desai, Associate Dean, School of Graduate Studies
Professor J.D. Lavers, Associate Chair, Graduate Studies, Department of
Electrical and Computer Engineering
School of Graduate Studies – grade appeal – Student’s performance re–evaluated by new examiner – external assessment of academic work – any possible flaws from previous evaluations cured by reevaluation – no basis for claim that the new examiner lacked qualifications – strength or fairness of the reevaluation not undermined by lower grade – new examiner acted properly in conducting independent reevaluation – no jurisdiction to re–evaluate course work and no reason to do so given new evaluator’s expertise and fairness of reevaluation process – appeal dismissed – observation that recording a conversation with a member of the university community without consent is contrary to the university’s atmosphere of good faith
Request to change a failing course grade. The Student’s projects for the course were reevaluated twice by his course instructor. The Divisional Appeals Committee ordered that the Student’s performance be re-evaluated by a new examiner. On the reevaluation the Student received a failing mark. The Committee found that any possible flaws from the previous evaluations were cured once the reevaluation by the new examiner took place. The Committee found no basis for the Student’s claim that the new examiner lacked the qualifications to conduct the reevaluation. The Committee considered the Student’s objections to the procedures pursued by the examiner and found that the Student had not made out any case of unfairness. The Student’s lower grade in the reevaluation did not undermine the strength or fairness of the reevaluation; the new examiner was not obliged to consult with the course instructor in regards to the reevaluation; and the new examiner acted properly in conducting the reevaluation independently. The Committee considered the Student’s objection to the substance of the grade and found that it did not have the jurisdiction to reevaluate the Student’s course work, and that there was no reason to do so, given the new evaluator’s expertise and the fairness of the reevaluation process. Appeal dismissed. The Committee noted that the Student had tape recorded one of his conversations with the new examiner. The Committee observed that recording a conversation with a member of the university community without that person’s consent is contrary to the atmosphere of good faith in which the business of the university is conducted.