Report #286

DATE: December 1, 2003
PARTIES: Ms. S. (the Appellant) v UTM


Hearing Date(s): November 20, 2003

Committee Members:
Assistant Dean Bonnie Goldberg, Chair
Professor Pamela Catton
Professor Gretchen Kerr
Mr. Adam Watson
Professor John Wedge

Judicial Affairs Officer:
Mr. Paul Holmes

In Attendance:
Ms S. (the “Appellant”)
Professor Gordon Anderson, UTM

UTM – late withdrawal without academic penalty – unable to write third deferral of examination due to chronic migraine headache – disability – Faculty refused to entertain further petitions – no jurisdiction to set policy limits regarding whether Faculty could reasonably take the position that it had granted enough accommodations to a particular student – late withdrawal request reasonably believed to be only remedy available – no difference between request and similar previous requests – appeal allowed – choice of remedy offered – Student to elect whether to withdraw late without academic penalty or write the deferred examination

Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from the course. The Student was unable to write a scheduled third deferral of the final examination due to chronic migraine headaches. The Student was registered with the AccessAbility Resource Office and her illness was classified as a disability. As a result of missing the deferred examination she failed the course, despite completing the coursework with high grades. The Faculty had refused to entertain any further petitions for the course. The Faculty claimed that the time which had passed since the Student had taken the course rendered the remedy of late withdrawal unreasonable and unfair, and that the Student would have been given a fourth deferred examination had she so requested. The Student claimed that she was unaware of the offer of a forth deferred examination. The Faculty had allowed the Student the remedy of late withdrawal in seven previous courses. The Faculty asked the Committee whether the University could reasonably take the position that it had granted enough accommodations to a particular student. The Committee observed that it does not have the jurisdiction to set policy limits for an individual department and that such issues should be resolved internally. The Committee found that the Student requested late withdrawal for the course with the reasonably held belief that it was the only remedy available to her, based on past practice and the Faculty’s stated unwillingness to consider other petitions. The Committee found that there was nothing different about the accommodation requested and similar requests made in the past. The Committee considered the nature of late withdrawal without academic penalty and the fact that the Faculty would have permitted the Student to schedule another examination and found that the Student should be offered a choice as to remedy. Appeal allowed. The Committee ordered that the Student could elect to withdraw from the course without academic penalty or write a deferred examination. If the Student elected the remedy of deferred examination, and was unable due to valid medical reasons to write the examinations, she could continue to petition for deferred examinations in the course.