Search

School of Graduate Studies – request to reconsider a previous decision of the Academic Appeals Committee (“AAC”) – Student argued that materials she received from a Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (“FIPPA”) request provided evidence that the grades she received in a course were unreliable and documents had been deliberately withheld – whether the AAC can reconsider its prior decisions rests on the application of the legal principle of functus officio – the principle of functus officio applies to the AAC – Paper Machinery Ltd. V. J. O. Ross Engineering Corp. – Chandler v. Alberta Association of Architects, [1989] 2 SCR 848 – beyond the two exceptions to the principle of functus officio, the principle generally applies unless there is an explicit or implicit statutory power of reconsideration – the AAC does not have an explicit or implicit power to reconsider its prior decisions – the Terms of Reference emphasize that the AAC is the final decision-maker – AAC has very limited common law power to reconsider decisions – Student argued that an exception for fraud and breach of natural justice on the tribunal and such exceptions to functus officio are appropriate in the administrative law context – Berge v. College of Audiologists and Speech Language Pathologists of Ontario, 2019 ONSC 3351 and Kennedy v. College of Veterinarians of Ontario, 2021 ONSC 578 (Div Ct) do not find such a fraud exception in the context of an administrative tribunal – Canadian Association of Film Distributors and Exporters v. Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC) Inc., 2014 FCA 235 stated that there should be a reluctance to find new exceptions to the functus officio rules – no evidence of fraud or breach of natural justice – the AAC allows for a final resolution of appeals that gives parties certainty and provides a limit on the resources for any single appeal – parties can seek judicial review on procedural and substantive grounds – Request for Reconsideration dismissed – recommendation that the Division ensure steps are taken to provide students with timely and accurate information about their grades when they are appealed – recommendation that the governance process be engaged to determine whether the Terms of Reference should be clarified regarding reconsiderations.

UT – Faculty of Medicine – failed to meet criteria of informal remediation academic support plan – engaging in formal remediation – Student completed formal remediation – appealing reasonableness of decision to require Student to engage in formal remediation – appeal dismissed.

UT – School of Graduate Studies – request for a reassessment of a major paper – Academic Appeals Committee (“Committee”) lacks jurisdiction to seek disclosure of another student’s work – no evidentiary basis to compare the quality of work between two students – the procedures followed by the Professor, the Department, the Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee Graduate (“GDAAC”), and the Graduate Academic Appeal Board (“GAAB”) were appropriate – appeal dismissed.