DATE:
March 9, 2007
PARTIES:
The Student Appellant v. the Faculty of Arts and Sciences
Hearing Date(s):
February 20, 2007
Committee Members:
Professor Emeritus Ralph Scane, Senior Chair
Professor Jan Angus
Mr. Kristofer Coward
Professor William Gough
Ms Maureen Somerville
Judicial Affairs Officer:
Dr. Anthony Gray
In Attendance:
The Student Appellant
For the Faculty of Arts and Science:
Ms Sari Springer (Counsel)
Ms Elaine Ishibashi, Associate Registrar
Professor Suzanne Stevenson, Acting Vice-Dean, Undergraduate Education and Teaching
Request for late withdrawal without academic penalty from one course. The Student failed the course. The Student claimed that she was overwhelmed by time demands arising out of assistance to her father's litigation, and emotional stress as well as time demands arising from the serious illness of her aunt and grandmother. The Student claimed that if the course instructor had been more severe with the lateness penalty imposed on the first assignment handed in late then she would have dropped the course. The Committee considered the Student’s submissions and the University and Committee’s approach to the policy on late withdrawal without academic penalty as described in Report #264. The Committee found that the demands imposed by the lawsuit were known by the Student by the drop date and that the date of the Trial did not provided sufficient excuse for the Student's default with respect to the first three papers. The situation with regard to the aunt and grandmother was known, and while their health had deteriorated, increasing the stress upon the Student, the circumstances occurred after the Student had so severely defaulted in the course that her situation was almost certainly irreparable. The Committee found that the penalty imposed on the first assignment was sufficiently clear and severe so that no reasonable student could have been lulled into a sense of security with respect to the instructor’s approach to time defaults. The Committee considered whether the general policy on late withdrawal without academic penalty should be revisited in order to allow relief to younger first year students. The Committee found that it should not attempt to revise a policy that has been generally applied by so many Academic Appeals Committee panels and by the Divisions. The minority found that the policy should be amended and that relief should be granted. Appeal dismissed. The Committee recommended that the University undertake a review of its policies with respect to the admittance of younger students and to consider whether the University should be more proactive in reaching out to younger students.