DATE:
July 4, 2023
PARTIES:
S.R.K. ("the Student"). v. the Toronto School of Theology
HEARING DATE(S):
This appeal was conducted on the basis of written submissions.
Senior chair:
Professor Hamish Stewart
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE Toronto SCHOOL OF THEOLOGY
Catherine Fan, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student appeals to the Committee regarding the manner in which the Toronto School of Theology (“TST”) conducted her third comprehensive examination.
The Student was enrolled in the Doctor of Theology (ThD) program in 2012. She successfully completed her course work and language requirements, with the next step being to pass three comprehensive exams. The focus of this case is on the third exam of the comprehensive exams which is an analytic or comprehensive essay with an oral defence of the essay. The minimum passing mark was B+ (77%) and according to the ThD handbook, a student who fails to attain the minimum grade in any of the comprehensive exams on the first attempt may take a supplementary examination with a maximum of two supplementary examinations.
The Student received a B on both the first and second comprehensive exam, and a B- on the analytic essay. However, the Student had not orally defended the essay. The TST posited that there was no purpose in continuing to the oral defence as there was no possibility the Student could pass, given that she had failed all three comprehensive exams and could only take two supplementary examinations. She was withdrawn from the program.
The Student appealed to the TST’s Graduate Studies Council Academic Appeals Committee (GSCAAC), and her appeal was dismissed. She appealed the GSCAAC’s decision to the Committee on several grounds, but the Committee only accepted the following ground: given that the third comprehensive exam had an oral defence and analytic essay it was unreasonable to interpret the relevant policy as preventing the Student from proceeding to the defence. The Student was provided with the remedy in Report 413 of being allowed back to the ThD program for a minimum of one full semester and would receive an overall grade to the third examination after the oral defence.
In 2021, the Student was informed she had received a B- on the analytic essay and its defence. Due to having failing marks on all three comprehensive exams, she was ineligible for supplemental examinations. The Student was told she would be withdrawn from the ThD program effective November 18, 2021. Professor Billet stated that if the Student believed the remedy was not properly implemented, she may wish to look for further redress from the AAC and that if she believed the ThD regulations were not correctly applied, she still had the right to make an appeal through the channels of recourse listed in the ThD handbook.
The Student appeals to the Committee on the basis that the TST did not properly implement the remedy in Report 413. One of the remedies the Student seeks includes re-doing the analytic essay and defence with different but relevant examiners. The Senior Chair attempted to arrange a conference with both parties but due to unexpected difficulties the parties were invited to make written submissions regarding whether the Committee had jurisdiction. The Student submitted that the appeal continues off the previous appeal while the TST submitted that while the Committee has jurisdiction over the meaning of the remedy ordered the Committee had no jurisdiction to grant the remedies sought by the Student and should dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, pursuant to section 3.1.7 of the AAC’s Terms of Reference.
The Student raised three grounds of appeal. The first was that five days were given to her for writing the analytic essay due to the confusing administration. Second, when the Student was taking the oral examination, she was in a serious mental crisis caused by unsent and falsely written report by the examiner that was found in the academic appeal process. Third, the Student was forced to take the oral defence with the examiner the Student had the serious stress with. The Committee finds that with respect to the first reason, the appeal does not concern the implementation of the remedy. As for the second and third grounds, there is nothing granted in the remedy in Report 413 that implies the oral defence should be examined by examiners other than those who read the analytic essay. Should the Student want to argue that there were procedural flaws in the administration of the oral defence, the proper venue is an appeal to the GSCAAC.
The Senior Chair finds that the remedy granted by the Committee in Report 413 was implemented according to its terms. The appeal is quashed.