DATE:
June 15, 2023
PARTIES:
P.S. ("the Student"). v. the University of Toronto Mississauga
HEARING DATE(S):
March 29, 2022 via Zoom
COMMITTEE MEMBERS:
Dr. Erika J. Murray, Chair
Professor Jan Mahrt-Smith, Faculty Governor
Susan Froom, Student Governor
SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievance
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE STUDENT APPELLANT:
The Student
FOR THE UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO MISSISSAUGA:
Professor Michael Lettieri, Vice-Dean, Academic Experience, University of Toronto Mississauga
Chioma Nwabugwu, Assistant Registrar, Academic Standards, University of Toronto Mississauga
This appeal was from a decision of the Academic Appeals Subcommittee of the University of Toronto Mississauga (the “Division”) from July 2021, which refused to allow the Student late withdrawal without academic penalty from five courses (“the five courses”), ranging from Fall 2015 to Winter 2018.
PSY100Y5Y, 2015(9); PSY201H5F, 2017(9); PSY210H5F, 2017(9); PSY230H5F, 2017(9); and PSY210H5S, 2018(1).
The Student registered with the University of Toronto in Fall 2015. Following the Winter 2016 term, the Student was placed on academic probation because her CGPA was below 1.50. After a one-year suspension in 2016, the Student returned to the University in Fall 2017 and at the end of Winter 2018, her CGPA remained below 1.50 and consequently, she was suspended for three years.
Three years later, in March 2021, the Student submitted petitions for late withdrawals without academic penalty for the five courses. The petition statements for the five courses were identical. The Student outlined that her mental health between 2016-2018 provided challenges that led her to perform poorly in school, be put on academic probation, and later, academic suspension. In support of her petitions, the Student submitted three medical documents from her psychiatrist, a University of Toronto Verification of Student Illness or Injury (VOI) form, and a copy of prescription receipts for three medications, which are respectively used to treat panic disorders, prevent and control seizures, and treat certain disorders such as schizophrenia and depression.
The petitions were all refused on the basis that the Student had completed the courses and late withdrawal without academic penalty could not occur after a student showed their intent to finish a course by writing the final exam. In response to these refusals, the Student, in April 2021, submitted an appeal to the Committee on Standing (COS), including additional medical documentation to support her appeal. The additional documents included: an appeal notice, a letter from a lead counsellor, a VOI, a psychiatric assessment, and three academic advising walk-in appointment notes. The Student’s appeals were all denied. On June 10, 2021, the Student appealed the refusals to the Academic Appeals Subcommittee (AAS) and did not submit any additional supporting documents. The Student received a letter from the Chair of the AAS informing her that her appeal was refused, with one of the comments stating that members of the Subcommittee noted the Student had not presented a compelling case. In November 2021, the Student appealed the decision of the AAS to the Academic Appeals Committee (AAC).
The Committee asked the Student questions about the 2018 course in which she enrolled and wrote the final exam in April 2018. The Student explained that due to her mental health she did not believe she was able to make decisions at that time. The Committee asked about her mental health during the three courses she was enrolled in and for which she wrote the final exams in December 2017. The Student explained that just because she wrote the exams did not mean she knew what she was doing because she was mentally unwell. The Committee asked the Student about her mental health in 2015 when she was enrolled and wrote a final exam for PSY100Y5Y. The Student explained that she had symptoms and had symptoms since high school. The Student did not have evidence to support that she was medically incapacitated in 2015.
The Committee opened up the forum to the Division for their response. The Vice Dean argued that because the Student wrote the final exams for the courses in question, it was indicative of her intent to complete the courses. The Division argued further that the medical documents submitted by the Student did not confirm her incapacity and the Student was appealing for academic withdrawal without academic penalty because she had poor grades. While the Committee agreed that the Student was appealing for academic penalty because she had poor grades, the issue before this Committee was to decide, based on the evidence that was before the Division and the AAS, whether denying the Student’s appeal was reasonable and fair, and within the range of possible acceptable outcomes.
The Division argued that the AAS had considered the supporting documentation submitted by the Student. The Committee asked the Division why the VOI form dated August 2018 was not considered sufficient. The Division explained that because the VOI form was not dated contemporaneously with April 2018 or December 2017, the periods when the Student wrote her final exams, it was insufficient. The Committee asked the Student why the form was not more contemporaneous, and she explained that she was very ill, did not know what to do, and that it took several months to be seen by her psychiatrist.
The Committee questioned the Division on whether there was a form other than the VOI in such circumstances, and the Division confirmed there was not. The Division also noted that in certain circumstances the VOI can be dated after the final exam but that it would require more evidence. The Committee asked both the Division and the Student if the Student was notified of any deficiencies with the VOI form or asked to provide further documentation. The Division confirmed that it did not notify the Student nor reach out to the Student’s psychiatrist to ask for further evidence, even though the psychiatrist did leave a note stating they could explain more if needed.
The Committee found that there was nothing on the standard VOI Form template to indicate that where a VOI form is dated after a relevant date, there is an onus on students to provide additional supporting documentation. Further, the Committee was not aware of any University policy indicating a finite limited time period by which a student must file a petition to rely on an earlier dated VOI to seek late withdrawal without academic penalty.
The Committee recognized that the VOI form was not completed contemporaneously as the Student’s final exams but noted that the form was completed when the Student received her referral appointment. The Committee did not agree that it is reasonable that when a mentally unwell student, having a serious degree of incapacitation attends a final exam, that they have the mental capacity to write the exam or even to make an informed decision on whether writing the exam is a good decision in light of academic regulations and consequences. The Committee found it unclear how the medical evidence the Student provided was considered not supporting, insufficient, did not confirm her incapacitation, or that there were not extenuating circumstances. The Committee found that none of the lower-level committees reasonably or adequately considered the medical evidence.
The Committee found that the evidence the Student submitted from her psychiatrist held significant weight that none of the previous petition levels or appeal bodies correctly and fairly considered. Accordingly, the Committee found that the decision of the Division and AAS was unreasonable. The question was not whether the Student intended to complete the course, but whether the Student had a degree of incapacitation on academic functioning that impaired her ability to write her exam and potentially to make informed decisions about her academic progression and consequences of relevant policies. The Committee found that the Division and other appellant committees lacked appreciation of relevant medical evidence and had disregarded such evidence.
The Committee found that there was no medical evidence to support the Student’s petition for the 2015 course and dismissed the Student’s appeal for that course. However, the Committee unanimously agreed there was sufficient evidence to support the Student’s petition for LWD without academic penalty from the Winter 2018 course. The Committee also agreed there was sufficient, though less extensive, medical evidence to grant the Student’s petition for the three Fall 2017 courses. The Committee found that a reasonable person who reviews all the evidence and properly gives it weight, should reasonably accept that the evidence supports the conclusion that the Student was seriously incapacitated and unable to write exams during the Fall 2017 and Winter 2018 periods. The Committee also found that if the Division thought the evidence was questionable or lacking, it was on them to request further information and that the Division did not make these inquiries should not be held against the Student. The Committee found that it was unreasonable and unfair of the lower committees to have overlooked the Student’s medical evidence. Thus, the Committee found that a late withdrawal without academic penalty for the Fall 2017 and Winter 2018 courses was an appropriate remedy.
The appeal was allowed, in part.