DATE: January 6, 2003
PARTIES: Mr. N.M. (the Appellant) v. UTM
Hearing Date(s): December 17, 2002
Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Mr Mark Braun
Professor Phil Byer
Professor Sherwin Desser
Professor Luigi Girolametto
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Mr Paul Holmes
In Attendance:
Mr N.M., the Appellant
Professor Gordon Anderson, UTM
UTM – late with withdrawal without academic penalty – personal and financial problems – Faculty granted deferred exams for the courses – deferred exams not written – no specific reason offered for not writing deferred exams – no new or different information presented – opportunity afforded by Divisional remedy not used – no evidence of compelling circumstances – drop dates for withdrawing from courses should have reasonably been known – Appeal dismissed
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from two courses. The Student claimed that he could not focus on school due to personal and financial problems. The Student petitioned to the Faculty and was granted deferred examinations for the courses. The Student chose not to write the deferred examinations and he subsequently failed the two courses. The Student acknowledged that he made poor choices and that he did not seek any assistance from the University to deal with his problems. The Student claimed that he chose not to write the deferred examinations because he had decided that the year was lost to him academically. The Committee found that the decision of the Divisional Appeals Board should be upheld. The Student did not present any information to the Committee that was new or different than that before the Divisional Appeals Board; the Student chose not to use the opportunity that was afforded by the Divisional remedy; there was no evidence of compelling circumstances that would permit the Committee to grant late withdrawals; and having been given special consideration throughout his academic career, the Student should have reasonably known the deadlines for withdrawing from courses when it appeared that his circumstances made continuing in the courses untenable. Appeal dismissed. The Committee stated that it regretted that the Faculty and the Student did not provide it with more detailed and helpful information.