Search

Discipline Appeals Board – Student appealed on the basis that they were not in attendance at the trial and were not represented at the trial hearing – Provost seeks an order dismissing the appeal summarily and without a formal hearing because it is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – sections C.ii.(a)7, C.ii.(a).11, and E.7(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (“Code”) – section 4.2.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – the procedures of the Tribunal shall conform to the requirements of the SPPA – there are two divisions of the Tribunal; (a) Trial and (b) Appeal – the University has determined that SPPA procedures are to apply to hearings and appeals before its Tribunal, and that by including section C.ii.(a)7 in the Code, they have advised their students of such an application – courts have long distinguished between procedural and substantive matters in this regard and have been willing to intervene on procedural matters (Re Polten and Governing Council of University of Toronto (1976), 8 O.R. (2d) 749 (Divisional Court); 1975 CanLII 709) – section 4.2.1(1) of the SPPA applies, and Associate Chair may hear the motion as a panel of one person – an appeal can be classified as frivolous or vexatious if the student takes no steps to move the appeal forward and fails to engage with the process or comply with Directions – the Student’s failure to communicate and engage in the process to advance the appeal renders the appeal vexatious – the Student’s own statements indicated that they used external aids in an assignment, which violated the assignment’s requirements to do the work independently – the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – motion granted – appeal dismissed summarily and without formal hearing