Leave to File Late Appeal / Extend Deadline


FILE: Report #348
DATE: October 18, 2010
PARTIES: M.K. (the Student) v. UTM

Hearing Date(s): October 1, 2010

Committee Members:
Renu Mandhane, Chair
Professor Denise Belsham
Professor William Gough
Dr. Sarita Verma
Joeita Gupta

Appearances:

For the Student Appellant:
M.K. (the Student)

For the UTM:
Professor Angela Langef, UTM
Sandra Speller, UTM

UTM – late withdrawal without academic penalty – mature student – family issue – child – no dispute of truthfulness of events – deadline – drop-date – candid and forthcoming – nature of a drop-date – nature of a deadline – allowed to take up to last day possible – extenuating circumstances – requirements of allowing late withdrawal without academic penalty – appeal allowed

Appeal of a decision to deny the Student their petition for a late withdrawal without academic penalty from two courses. The Student was a mature student and had a child during the 2008-2009 calendar year. The Student was placed on academic probation during that year and was advised by UTM not to enrol in summer courses. The Student did so despite this advice. The Student eventually withdrew from two courses, remaining in the two courses that came under review by the Committee. The Student spoke to an academic counsellor and was advised of the deadline for withdrawal without academic penalty. The Student missed the deadline. The Student submitted a petition for an extension of completion of coursework for one course the day after the deadline. Two days after the deadline, the Student withdrew their petition and petitioned for late withdrawal without academic penalty from both courses. The petitions were denied and the Student failed both courses and was subsequently suspended for one year due to their poor GPA. The Student submitted that the birth of their child and other family issues negatively affected their performance. The Committee found the Student was candid and forthcoming in their oral submissions regarding an unexpected and serious family issue that arose on the day of the deadline which resulted in the Student missing the deadline. The Committee noted that UTM had accepted that the event that occurred on the deadline date was, in fact, unexpected and serious. UTM submitted that since the Student had sufficient time to drop the courses prior to the unforeseen event and the deadline, the Student should not be granted relief. The Committee found that the very existence of a drop date or a deadline for withdrawal implies that students are entitled to wait until that very date to make their final decision. The Committee accepted that there was an unexpected and serious family issue that arose on the day of the deadline and that the Student fell into the narrow exception where extenuating circumstances required allowing late withdrawal without academic penalty. Appeal allowed.



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 #312
DATE: December 5, 2006
PARTIES: Mr. R (for the Student) v. UTSC

Hearing Date(s): December 5, 2006

Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Kaye Joachim, Chair
Professor Ellen Hodnett
Professor Michael Marrus
Ms. Estafania Toledo
Dr. John Wedge

Judicial Affairs Officer:
Dr. Anthony Gray

Appearances:

For the student:
Mr. R
For UTSC
Professor and Associate Dean, Nick Cheng

UTSC – request for continued registration and leave to file late appeal – not initially thought to be worthwhile to file appeal – lack of written notice of 90 day deadline played no part in failure to meet deadline – effective September 1, 2006, the right to appeal to Governing Council should be clearly communicated – University Policy on Academic Appeals within Divisions – section 3.2.1 the Terms of Reference – no reasonable explanation or demonstrated exceptionable circumstances for delay – request for permission to file appeal beyond the 90 day deadline refused – appeal dismissed

Request for continued registration at UTSC and leave to extend the 90 day deadline for appeal. The notice of appeal was submitted approximately 5 months from the date of the decision of the Divisional Appeals Committee. The Student claimed that he delayed for two months in filling the appeal because, at the time he received the Divisional Appeals Committee decision, he did not initially think it was worthwhile and later he changed his mind. The Divisional Appeals Committee decision was not accompanied by written material specifically advising the Student of the deadline to appeal. The Committee found that the Student was aware throughout the process of his right to appeal to Governing Council. The Calendar and UTSC Petitions Guide for Students clearly stated the appeal process and deadlines. Thus, the lack of written material on the 90 day deadline played no part in the Student’s failure to meet the deadline. The Committee noted that effective September 1, 2006, the existence of the right to appeal to Governing Council should be clearly communicated, in writing, to students for whom the appeal was denied, as stated in the University Policy on Academic Appeals within Divisions. The Committee considered section 3.2.1 the Terms of Reference and found that the Student did not offer a reasonable explanation nor demonstrated exceptionable circumstances for the delay in filing the appeal. Request for permission to file the appeal beyond the 90 day deadline was refused. Appeal dismissed.