Search

Faculty of Arts and Science – request to re-write final examination – claimed disruptive condition at the exam – WC attempted to address the Student’s concern on the day of the exam – Committee satisfied with the effort and found no evidence of disruptive condition – medical certificates did not indicate a sufficiently severe medical condition – Student had the option to take a different course that would allow her to later join FAS programs – Committee encouraged the Student to seek academic support – appeal dismissed

UTSC – re-read of term work – appeal dismissed – Student failed to present substantive arguments – reliance on conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations – several arguments had no bearing on the merits of the appeal

UTSC – re-read of term work and final exam – appeal dismissed – professor had no intention of doing anything contrary to Divisional policy – amenability of a faculty member to performing a re-read is not relevant to the question of whether a re-read is justified – Student failed to present substantive arguments – reliance on conclusory statements and unsubstantiated allegations – a student’s precarious academic situation does not constitute a substantive reason for a re-read

UTSC – motion for adjournment – motion denied – mid-term exam scheduled the evening of an afternoon hearing did not present a conflict warranting adjournment – re-read of term work – appeal dismissed – Student’s vague assertions do not constitute grounds for reconsideration – visible presence of preliminary estimations of grades do not indicate prejudice nor do they indicate that the final grade assigned is incorrect

SGS – request for late withdrawal without academic penalty; grading of tests; recommendation of rebate or cancellation of tuition – Students did not write their exams and received FZ grades – their cases were being decided together because they were almost identical – Committee held in Motion Decision #359-1 that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the other remedies Students requested – male Student’s father died one month before the exams – between the time of the father’s death and about one month after the exams, Students made no request for special consideration – Committee accepted the male Student’s claim that it took him 1.5 months to recover but found that they failed to demonstrate why their circumstances were so severe as to prevent making a request for special consideration – Committee did not find credible the claim that the Student did not make such a request because he had the impression that it would not be granted – no evidence as to the circumstances of the female Student’s circumstances – Students’ tests should not be graded because they were not registered at the time – no reason to recommend rebate or cancellation of tuition as their FZ grades stand – appeal dismissed

Student appeals decision of University of Toronto Mississauga Academic Appeals Board dismissing appeal from decision of Committee on Standing denying Student’s request to lift one-year suspension – early return from suspension is an extraordinary remedy – such remedy not appropriate unless Student produces compelling evidence of change in circumstances relevant to purposes of suspension – only issue is whether Student has produced compelling evidence of requisite change in circumstances – early return from suspension normally only granted where substantive and well-documented change in Student’s circumstances indicating previous record of poor academic performance not likely to recur - appeal dismissed

School of Graduate Studies – motion – admissibility of evidence of communication with University staff and counsel – evidence of communications inadmissible – settlement privilege – evidence of the fact of negotiations admissible if relevant – jurisdiction to grant remedy – request for removal of grades – request for waiver of tuition – request for compensation for costs incurred – request for compensation for losses and – request for an official apology –Academic Appeal Committee’s (“AAC”) powers limited to those granted expressly or by necessary implication in the Terms of Reference – s. 2.1 of the AAC’s Terms of Reference – purpose of s. 19 of Graduate Academic Appeals Board (“GAAB”) Terms of Reference is to enable GAAB Chair to determine a point of law that arises in connection with an issue that is otherwise within its jurisdiction – GAAB and AAC jurisdiction limited to considering whether academic regulations and requirements have been applied correctly, consistently, and fairly – jurisdiction does not include all the consequences flowing from an otherwise reviewable academic decision – jurisdiction of the AAC is limited to considering whether those academic regulations and requirements have been applied correctly, consistently, and fairly – GAAB and AAC remedial jurisdiction limited to orders of an academic nature and making recommendations regarding tuition – GAAB and AAC have no jurisdiction to award financial compensation or demand an apology – AAC has no jurisdiction to order production of documents prepared for the purpose of assisting the GAAB – AAC has no jurisdiction to order registration of students in upcoming academic year when hearing a preliminary motion on questions of law