Course/Term Grade

FILE: Report #321
DATE: February 19, 2008
PARTIES: Mr. J.V. (the Student) v. Graduate Department of Architecture, Landscape and Design


Hearing Date(s): Monday December 10, 2007

Committee Members:
Professor L. Sossin (Chair)
Mr. Ken Davy (Student)
Professor Ellen Hodnett
Professor Joel Kirsh
Professor Louise Lemieux-Charles

Judicial Affairs Officer:
Ms. Nancy Smart

Appearances:
For the Student Appellant:
Mr. J.V. (the Student)

For the Graduate Department of Architecture, Landscape and Design:
Professor J. Danahy
Professor E. Kesik

Graduate Department of Architecture, Landscape and Design – course grade appeal – instructor bias – no basis to question instructor’s overall assessment of the Student’s participation – no unfairness where same grading scheme was applied to all students, and not contrary to any information provided to students – no credible basis in the evidence presented for allegation of bias – appeal dismissed

Appeal from a grade of B- in a course and from a grade of B in another course. The grounds of the appeal related to alleged bias of the courses’ instructor. The Student disputed a failing grade of 50% which had been assigned to the class participation mark, worth 5% of the total course mark, and a B grade in the fourth assignment worth 40% of the of the total course mark. The Student believed that his grade in one of the courses was not calculated properly. The Committee upheld the majority of the Divisional Appeal Board’s finding that the instructor’s recollection was sufficient for the purposes of the participation grade. The Committee found that there was no basis to question the instructor’s overall assessment of the Student’s participation. The Committee agreed with the majority of the Divisional Appeal Board that the issue regarding the calculation of the grade was one of consistency and equity to all students. The Committee found that if the same grading scheme was applied to all students, and was not contrary to any information provided to students, then no unfairness could arise in relation to the Student. The Committee accepted the Divisional Appeals Board finding of no evidence of bias on the part of the instructor, finding that there was no credible basis in the evidence presented for the Student’s view that he had been treated unfairly. Appeal dismissed.



FILE: Report #305
DATE: December 8, 2005
PARTIES: Mr. A.Z. (the Student) v. the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering

Committee Members:
Professor Emeritus Ralph Scane, Senior Chair
Professor Clare Beghtol
Professor Pamela Catton
Professor Ian McDonald
Mr. Mahadeo Sukhai

Secretary:
Mr. Anthony Gray, Judicial Affairs Officer

In Attendance:

For the Student Appellant:
Mr. A.Z. (the Student)

For the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering:
Professor Kim Pressnail
Ms Ella Lund-Thomsen

Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering – request to increase term sessional average – grade appeal – illness affected exam preparation and performance – medical and oral evidence insufficient – weakness in term work played role in poor results – appeal dismissed

Request to increase the sessional average for the term, from 51.8% to 54.8%, in order to enable the Student to proceed to the third year of his programme without repeating the failed term. The Student claimed that illness seriously affected his preparation for and performance in three examinations. In the subjects in which the examinations were written, the Student received two grades of F, and a grade of C–. The Committee considered medical evidence, the Student’s oral evidence and the student’s academic performance in the term and found that the condition of the Student was not such that, but for the existence of the medical condition, the Student would have passed the term. The Committee found that the Student’s attending physician did not consider that prescription medication or stronger non–prescription medications was called for in treating the illness, and that the Student’s weakness in term work also played a role in his poor results. The Committee observed that not every illness suffered during the examination period will excuse inadequate academic performance, particularly performance at the level demonstrated in the academic term in question, where weakness in term work also played a significant role in the poor results. Appeal dismissed.