DATE:
April 13, 2023
PARTIES:
T.S.C. ("the Student"). v. the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering
HEARING DATE(S):
March 10, 2023 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Cheryl Milne, Chair
Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith, Faculty Governor
Susan Froom, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE FACULTY OF Applied SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Professor Thomas Coyle, Vice Dean, Undergraduate
The Student appeals the decision of the Faculty of Applied Science and Engineering’s Academic Appeals Board denying his request to write a deferred exam in the 2022 Winter session. The Student is asking for an order allowing him to write a deferred exam or alternatively, permitting a reweighted assessment based on his earlier performance in the course.
The Student had been granted a deferral by the Undergraduate Assessments Committee for the exam on April 25, 2022, due to illness but missed the deferred exam. He petitioned for a second further deferral. The Academic Appeals Board denied an appeal for a second deferral. The Student posits that the decision granting him a deferral of the April 25, 2022 exam was not communicated to him with enough time to write the deferred exam which was held on May 18, 2022. The Faculty posits that the Student was made aware of the date regarding the first deferral and that the Student claimed he could not write the deferred exam because he would not be in the country at the time. The Academic Appeals Board denied the Student’s appeal on the basis of insufficient evidence and justification.
An email exchange between the Student and his academic advisor, found through questioning by your Committee, was used to shed light on whether the Student was told by his academic advisor that his deferral was approved. The Student maintained in his submissions that he was not informed of this decision and the only countering evidence from the Faculty was a notation in the Faculty Portal marking that the Student was scheduled to leave the country and that he knew of the May 18 deferred exam date, which was made public to all students.
In the email correspondence uncovered by Committee questioning, an email dated April 29, 2022 shows that the Student advised his advisor that he was leaving the country in a couple of days but required advice given that the final petition result was still pending. In a responding email on April 30, 2022, his advisor informed the Student that his petition was still under review. Through an email exchange on May 18 it is clear that while the Student knew there was an exam scheduled for May 18, 2022, the Faculty Portal still showed that his petition was in progress. An email provided by the Academic Advisor confirm that the Student had not been advised of the final decision of his petition until May 26, 2022.
The Committee considered the issue of the communication of the deferral decision and found that while the Student knew about an exam on May 18, 2022, he was unaware about the final decision of his petition. The Committee considered the issue of the expectation of the Student’s attendance at the May 18 exam. The Committee found that there was a lack of clear communication to the Student about the decision for his petition. The Committee found that it is not reasonable for the Faculty to conclude the Student should have attended the May 18, 2022, exam when he did not know whether he would be permitted to write it. Additionally, while the Faculty argued that it was fair to hold the Student accountable for not attending when other students had, the Committee notes that assessments of fairness for other students is not relevant to the determination of whether the decision for the Student in this appeal was fair and reasonable. The Committee considered the issue of the reasonableness of the Academic Appeal Board’s finding respecting the evidence. The Committee found it concerning that the material the Faculty filed painted an incomplete picture of the information in the Advisory’s Portal. Material provided after the Committee’s questioning largely confirms the Student’s claim that he was told his deferral petition was still pending up until May 26, 2022. The Committee’s conclusion is that had the additional emails been provided to the Academic Appeal Board, they ought to have reached a different conclusion. The Committee did not find it reasonable to find that there was insufficient evidence to support the Student’s appeal as the Portal notation and emails confirmed the Student’s claims.
The appeal is allowed. The Committee recommends that the choice of remedy be made by the Faculty but suggests that this decision be made as soon as possible.