(See Notes at bottom of page)
FILE: Report #317
DATE: April 9, 2007
PARTIES: Student Appellant v. UTM
Hearing Date(s): March 22, 2007
Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Kaye Joachim, Chair
Professor Jan Angus
Ms. Coralie D’Souza
Professor William Gough
Dr. Joel Kirsh
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Dr. Anthony Gray
Appearances:
the Student Appellant
For UTM:
Gordon Anderson, Chair, Academic Appeals Board, UTM
UTM – late withdrawal without academic penalty and leave to file late appeal – ongoing anxiety and depression – no evidence that medical condition prevented or hindered withdrawing from courses in timely fashion – impact on a Student’s GPA not a reason for granting late withdrawal – unduly technical to deny leave to file a late appeal in the circumstances – medical evidence directly connected the student’s medical state with missing the drop deadline for two courses – Appeal allowed in part – withdrawal without academic penalty from two courses allowed – withdrawal without academic penalty from two other courses dismissed
Request for late withdrawal from two courses due to the Student’s ongoing anxiety and depression, and leave to file a late appeal to a subsequent decision of the Divisional Appeal Board denying late withdrawal from two other courses. The Committee considered the medical evidence presented and found that it did not suggest that the Student’s medical condition prevented or hindered her from withdrawing from two of the courses in a timely fashion. The Committee found that the Student’s claim that the subsequent lowering of her GPA was disproportionate to the “wrong” of failing to withdraw in time was not a valid reason for granting late withdrawal. The Committee considered the Student’s intention to file the notice of appeal to the Divisional Appeal Board decision denying her request for late withdrawal from two of the courses and found that in the circumstances, combined with the lack of any prejudice to UTM, it would be unduly technical to deny her leave to file a late appeal. The Committee found that that the medical evidence directly connected the Student’s medical state with missing the drop deadline. Appeal allowed in part. The Committee allowed leave to withdraw without academic penalty from two courses and denied leave to withdraw without academic penalty from two courses.
FILE: Report #302
DATE: July 26, 2005
PARTIES: Ms V. R. (the Appellant) v. UTSC
Hearing Date(s): July 5th, 2005
Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Professor Clare Beghtol
Ms Coralie D’Souza
Professor Michael Marrus
Professor John Wedge
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Mr. Tony Gray
In Attendance:
Ms V. R., the Appellant
Associate Dean Nick Cheng, UTSC
UTSC – late withdrawal without academic penalty – mental and physical difficulties following accident – divisional remedy to re-write examination unreasonable as condition worsened – Committee opinion that monetary relief should not be provided – appeal allowed – late withdrawal without academic penalty granted
Request to withdraw late without academic penalty from one course. The Student claimed that she suffered unforeseeable mental and physical difficulties following a car accident and was unable to participate in the course from mid–March until the end of term. The Division Appeal Committee granted permission to re-write the final examination. The Student rewrote the examination but also continued the appeal, seeking the original remedy. The Committee found that that the divisional remedy to re-write the examination was unreasonable in light of the factors contributing to the Student’s inability to participate in the course. The Committee accepted the Student’s contention that already pre–existing circumstances became significantly more severe following the drop date and that it was not possible to foresee her worsening medical condition. Appeal allowed. Late withdrawal without academic penalty granted. The Committee observed that although it does not have jurisdiction to make such orders, it accepts that students should not be entitled to refunds of courses for which they are granted late withdrawal without academic penalty.
FILE: Report #280
DATE: June 11, 2003
PARTIES: Ms. S. (The Student) v. the Faculty of Arts and Science
Hearing Date(s): June 2nd, 2003
Committee Members:
Professor Emeritus Ralph Scane, Chair
Professor Clare Beghtol
Professor Sherwin Desser
Mr. Chris Ramsaroop
Mrs. Susan Scace
Secretary:
Mr. Paul Holmes, Judicial Affairs Officer
In Attendance:
For the Appellant: Ms S., the Appellant ("the Student")
Ms Elee Scarlett, Counsel
Mr. Jeremy Speight
Professor Aurel Braun
Professor David Wolfe
For the Faculty of Arts and Science:
Vice-Dean Susan Howson
Faculty of Arts and Science – late withdrawal without academic penalty – physical and psychological effects of serious medical condition – no reasonable time to adjust and recover before drop date or before evaluations completed and submitted – appeal allowed – grade in the course vacated, and Student to be permitted to withdraw without academic penalty – recommendation that a warning be issued that University staff who undertake to advise students must not divulge information received or make any comment based upon it without the student's permission – concern with Divisional Appeal Board’s decision – any advice from the Divisional Appeal Board should follow after the decision called for by the appeal, and not control the decision
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from one course. The Student received a grade of "C" in the course. It was not in issue that the Student suffered physical and psychological effects of a serious medical condition, including stress awaiting the diagnosis of her condition, and further stress when the diagnosis was received. The Committee considered the Student’s submissions and the University and Committee's approach to the policy on late withdrawal without academic penalty as described in Report #264 and found that between the receipt of her diagnosis and the drop date for the course, the Student was in a state of emotional upset from which she had no reasonable time to recover. The Committee found that advice to carry on with her courses had contributed to the Student’s stress, and that due to the short period between the drop date and the end of the course the Student had no time to recover before the evaluations for the course were completed and submitted. Appeal allowed. The Committee ordered that the grade in the course be vacated, and that the Student be permitted to withdraw from that course without academic penalty. The Committee recommended that a warning be issued that staff of the University who undertake to advise or counsel students, and who receive a student's confidences, must not divulge the information received or make any comment based upon it, without the student's permission. The Committee stated that it was concerned about the reasons for judgment of the Divisional Appeals Board. The Committee observed that the exclusive concentration upon the better course of action to achieve the Student's goals in launching the appeal resulted in the Board failing to consider what the necessary conditions to permit late withdrawal were, and whether the Student had established those conditions. The Committee observed that if the Student had established the necessary conditions than she was entitled to the relief sought, whether it was wise to proceed to take it or not. Any advice from the Board should follow after the decision called for by the appeal and not control the decision.
FILE: Report #275
DATE:March 17, 2003
PARTIES: Ms. R. (the Appellant) v. the Faculty of Arts and Science
Hearing Date(s): March 11, 2003
Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Professor Clare Beghtol
Professor Sherwin Desser
Professor Luigi Girolametto
Mr. Sean Mullin
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Mr. Paul Holmes
In Attendance:
Ms. R., the Appellant
Mr Shaun Laubman, Downtown Legal Services
Ms Nicole Redgate, Downtown Legal Services
Vice-Dean Susan Howson, Faculty of Arts and Science, University of Toronto
Faculty of Arts and Science – late withdrawal without academic penalty – bulimia – new evidence hears – stress from course exacerbated condition – reliance on advice of professor and mental health counselor – decision to choose mental health over studies only choice available – initiated attempts to get out of course within days of drop date, without final grade being assessed, and having obtained a respectable mark – assistance sought – condition considered despite not being raised in initial appeal – Divisional Appeals Board considered erroneous ground in its decision and did not consider professor’s advice – appeal allowed – grade of “F” in the course to be vacated and replaced with “WDR”
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from one course. The Student requested the remedy on compassionate, medical and procedural grounds. The Student claimed that she suffered from bulimia, which was exacerbated when she was under stress. Student claimed that she experienced extreme stress as a result of the course, which was confirmed to her by her mental health counselor. While waiting for the outcome of her petition for late withdrawal, the Student sought the assistance of her professor who advised her that she faced insurmountable difficulty in the course, recommended that she drop it and offered to support her petition to do so. The Student claimed that her bulimia worsened and relying on the advice of her professor and mental health counselor, and in recognition of the state of her mental health, she chose not to complete any further course requirements. The Student subsequently failed the course. The Committee found that the Student’s decision to choose her mental health over her studies and not continue in the course was the only choice available to her and to penalize the Student for that decision would be to disregard the serious medical and compassionate grounds surrounding her situation. The Committee found that with the assistance of a professor and a counselor, the Student identified the severity of her situation and took steps to ameliorate it. Although the Student missed the drop date for the course, she initiated attempts to get out of the course within days of the drop date, without having been assessed a final grade in the course, and having already obtained a respectable mid–term mark. The Committee considered the Student’s bulimia and the fact that she did not raise the condition in her initial appeal, and found that the condition was at the root of the Student’s difficulties and should be considered in the Committee’s decision. The Committee also allowed the appeal on procedural grounds, finding that the Divisional Appeals Board considered an erroneous ground in its decision and that the Board
Notes
The most thorough discussion of the Academic Appeals Committee’s interpretation of the University’s position with regard to late withdrawal without academic penalty is found in Report # 264, dated March 14, 2002
It is clear from previous decisions of your Committee, as well as from regulations of the various divisions of the University, that permission for late withdrawal without penalty may be granted, but such relief is far from a matter of course. The very existence of “drop dates” demonstrates that those charged with legislating University academic rules and regulations have adopted a policy that is far from paternal in this regard. Up to the “drop date”, the University leaves the matter entirely in the uncontrolled discretion of the student. The student’s reasons for dropping a course may range from merest whim to desperation. However, by that date the student is expected to have assessed his or her circumstances, and made an election. If the student elects to continue with the course, the consequences of that election must be accepted, and no allowance will be made for the effect of circumstances existing at the “drop date”, including the continuation of those circumstances after that date, if continuation should reasonably have been anticipated, however detrimental to the student’s performance they may be. In short, the University, by adopting “drop dates” which are set considerably before the end of the relevant terms, has set its face against a student, at the time the “drop date” forces a choice, from gambling, substantially risk free, that the situation with respect to a course can be repaired.
Without attempting to be exhaustive, the obvious circumstances where this policy does not apply are when unanticipated circumstances arise after the “drop date”, when then existing circumstances unexpectedly become significantly more severe, or when existing circumstances were reasonably expected to abate, but did not.