DATE:
February 7, 2012
PARTIES:
Mr. H.M.; Ms. M.Y. v. the School of Graduate Studies
Hearing Date(s):
November 25, 2011
Committee Members:
Prof. Hamish Stewart, Chair
Prof. Andrea Sass-Kortsak
Mr. Kenneth Davy
Secretary:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Observer:
Mr. Jason Marin, Administrative Assistant, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Appearances:
For the Students:
Mr. H.M.
Ms. M.Y.
For SGS:
Mr. Robert Centa, Counsel
Ms. Julia Wilkes
Vice-Dean Berry Smith
Ms. Jane Alderdice, Director Quality Assessment and Governance
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty; grading of tests; recommendation of rebate or cancellation of tuition. The Students did not write the exams and as a result had received grades of FZ in five courses they took in their first year Ph.D. program. In the next term, the Students were permitted to audit the first module of two courses and to write the test for that module. However, the Students never registered for the academic year, and thus the Department refused to grade the tests. The Committee decided to treat the Students’ cases as one since their issues were almost identical (the Students were married to each other). In addition to the remedies mentioned above, the Students also sought other remedies such as prompt registration and guaranteed funding. However, the Committee held in Motion Decision #359-1 that the only issues for which the AAC had jurisdiction to grant remedies were (1) whether the grades of FZ should be replaced, (2) whether the Department should grade the tests the Students took in later period, and (3) whether the AAC should recommend any rebate or cancellation of fees. As for the first issue, the male Student’s father died about a month before their exams, and neither wrote the exams. Between the death of the male Student’s father and about one month after the exams when the Department contacted the Students to discuss their termination, the Students made no request for special consideration for failing to write the exams. The Committee found that the Students had not offered a satisfactory explanation for their failure to make a timely request for special consideration on account of these circumstances. Although the male Student submitted and the Committee accepted that he was not feeling good enough to go to school and it took him a month and a half to recover, the Committee held that there was nothing to indicate why the Student’s circumstances were so severe as to prevent making a request for special consideration. As for the female Student, the Committee found that there was nothing at all to indicate why she was unable to make such a request. Moreover, given that the Students were previously given special consideration, the Committee did not find credible the Student’s claim that he did not make the request because he had the impression that such a request would not be granted. Thus, the Committee held that neither Student was entitled to the extraordinary remedy of late withdrawal without penalty. As for the second issue, the Committee found that the tests, which the Students wrote in the subsequent term for the courses in question, should not be graded because the Students were not registered at the time. Finally, the Committee held that since the Students had not succeeded in having the FZ grades removed, there was no reason to make any recommendation concerning rebate or cancellation of tuition. Appeal dismissed.