ACTIVITY REPORT OF THE SENATE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO THE SENATE
September 1st, 2015 to August 31, 2019
Introduction
The following report of the Senate Appeals Committee (the “Committee”) is presented to the Senate pursuant to the Committee’s Terms of Reference.
Mandate
The Committee’s functions are detailed in its Terms of Reference, which stipulate that the Committee makes a final decision on the following matters:
- any appeal submitted by a student concerning the application of regulations governing admissions, promotions and degree requirements, and any other academic regulations of the University;
- any recommendation of disciplinary sanction, or appeal of a disciplinary sanction, in accordance with relevant Senate regulations;
- any other appeal referred to the Committee by the Senate or its Executive Committee.
In practice, the great majority of the Committee’s work is concerned with student-initiated appeals related to the application of academic regulations. A much smaller percentage of the Committee’s work is faculty-initiated, i.e. the imposition, upon faculty recommendation, of the more serious sanctions contemplated in the regulations concerning academic fraud.
On occasion, the Committee also makes recommendations to the Senate with respect to the regulations, procedures and policies which it is entrusted to apply.
Membership
The Senate Appeals Committee consists of eight members, including six full-time regular professors, one undergraduate student member, and one graduate student member. Members of the Committee are appointed by the Executive Committee of the Senate, which also designates a Chair and Vice-Chair from amongst the members of the Committee. Mandates are for a three-year period and are renewable.
The current members of the Committee, as of August 31st, 2019, are:
Boivin, Denis - Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, Chair
Ioshikhes, Ilya - Professor, Faculty of Medicine
Laganière, Robert - Professor, Faculty of Engineering
Newman, Mike - Professor, Faculty of Science
O’Byrne, Patrick - Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences
Racine, Karl - Undergraduate Student
Steeves, Valerie - Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vice Chair
Wigginton, Michael - Graduate Student
Five members constitute a quorum for purposes of meetings of the Committee. The Chair (or in his or her absence, the Vice-Chair) does not vote other than to break a tie-vote among other members of the Committee. The Secretary-General of the University or his or her representative acts as secretary to the Committee. The Secretary-General of the University does not vote but has a right to participate in the deliberations of the Committee.
Secretarial and administrative services are provided by the Governance Officer from the Office of the Secretary-General.
In general, the Committee meets every second week from 9:00 AM to noon throughout the year, unless there is no business to dispose of or quorum cannot be attained.
ACTIVITIES – YEARS 2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, AND 2018-2019
This section describes a year-by-year summary of the volume of cases submitted to the Senate Appeals Committee.
2015-2016
During the period of September 1, 2015, to August 31st, 2016, the Committee met a total of 19 times and dealt with a total of 98 cases.
Among the 98 cases, 94 were student-initiated appeals and four (4) were faculty-initiated recommendations of serious sanctions for fraud.
In the latter category, the fraud sanctions recommended by the relevant academic unit were affirmed by the Committee in all four (4) cases.
With respect to 94 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 27 cases (28.7%); and
- the student’s appeal was denied in 67 cases (71.3%).
22 appeals were withdrawn by the student before being seen by the Committee.
2016-2017
During the period of September 1, 2016, to August 31st, 2017, the Committee met a total of 22 times and dealt with a total of 109 cases.
Among the 109 cases, 97 were student-initiated appeals and twelve (12) were faculty-initiated recommendations of serious sanctions for fraud.
In the latter category, the fraud sanctions recommended by the relevant academic unit were affirmed by the Committee in 11 cases. In one case, only part of the Faculty’s recommendation was imposed.
With respect to 97 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 25 cases (25.8%); and
- the student’s appeal was denied in 72 cases (74.2%).
17 appeals were withdrawn by the student before being seen by the Committee.
2017-2018
During the period of September 1, 2017, to August 31st, 2018, the Committee met a total of 22 times and dealt with a total of 97 cases.
Among the 97 cases, 92 were student-initiated appeals and five (5) were faculty-initiated recommendations of serious sanctions for fraud.
In the latter category, the fraud sanctions recommended by the relevant academic unit were affirmed by the Committee in all five (5) cases.
With respect to 92 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 22 cases (23.9%); and
- the student’s appeal was denied in 70 cases (76.1%).
28 appeals were withdrawn by the student before being seen by the Committee.
2018-2019
During the period of September 1, 2018, to August 31st, 2019, the Committee met a total of 22 times and dealt with a total of 102 cases.
Among the 102 cases, 96 were student-initiated appeals and six (6) were faculty-initiated recommendations of serious sanctions for fraud.
In the latter category, the sanctions recommended by the relevant academic unit were affirmed by the Committee in two (2) of the six (6) cases. The Committee imposed a more severe sanction than what was recommended by the relevant academic unit in one (1) of the cases and a less severe sanction than the one recommended by the relevant academic unit was imposed in two (2) of the cases. In one (1) case, the Senate Appeals Committee reversed the decision of the relevant academic unit and removed one of the sanctions that had been imposed by them, but confirmed the more severe sanction recommendation.
With respect to 96 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 31 cases (32.3%);
- the student’s appeal was denied in 61 cases (63.5%); and
- the SAC deemed that it did not have authority to decide in four (4) cases (4.2%).
34 appeals were withdrawn by the student before being seen by the Committee.
Outcomes of student-initiated appeals
This table demonstrates the outcomes of the student-initiated appeals processed by the Committee over the years covered in this report (2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019).
|
Outcome of Appeals |
Number of Cases (2015-2016) |
Number of Cases (2016-2017) |
Number of Cases (2017-2018) |
Number of Cases (2018-2019) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Appeals Granted |
27 (28.7%) |
25 (25.8%) |
22 (23.9%) |
31 (32.3%) |
|
Appeals Denied |
67 (71.3% |
72 (74.2%) |
70 (76.1%) |
61 (63.5%) |
|
SAC did not have authority |
- |
- |
- |
4 (4.2%) |
|
Totals |
94 |
97 |
92 |
96 |
|
Withdrawn Appeals |
Number of Cases (2015-2016) |
Number of Cases (2016-2017) |
Number of Cases (2017-2018) |
Number of Cases (2018-2019) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Appeals Withdrawn |
22 |
17 |
28 |
37 |
Reasons for withdrawn appeals range from the student requesting that his/her appeal be withdrawn to the Faculty agreeing to settle the appeal directly rather than through the Senate Appeals Committee. In some instances, the student did not appeal to the correct body. Finally, students may withdraw their appeal at any time in the process should they wish to do so. It should be noted that these appeals were not considered by the Committee because they were withdrawn before the hearing.
Cases by academic unit of provenance
This table demonstrates the cases by academic unit of provenance over the years covered in this report (2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019).
|
Academic Unit |
Number of Cases (2015-2016) |
Number of Cases (2016-2017) |
Number of Cases (2017-2018) |
Number of Case (2018-2019) |
Number of students registered in uOttawa Faculties (Fall 2018) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arts |
7 (7.1%) |
3 (2.8%) |
3 (3.1%) |
4 (3.9%) |
5,014 (11.9%) |
|
Education |
0 (0%) |
6 (5.5%) |
1 (1%) |
1 (1%) |
2,186 (5.2%) |
|
Civil Law |
2 (2%) |
4 (3.7%) |
4 (4.1%) |
3 (2.9%) |
901 (2.1%) |
|
Common Law |
10 (10.2%) |
11 (10.1%) |
11 (11.3%) |
10 (10%) |
1,242 (2.9%) |
|
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies |
15 (15.3%) |
5 (4.6%) |
- |
- |
- |
|
Engineering |
19 (19.4%) |
17 (15.6%) |
15 (15.5%) |
23 (22.5%) |
6.076 (14.4%) |
|
Medicine |
0 (0%) |
3 (2.8%) |
0 (0%) |
4 (3.9%) |
2,338 (5.5%) |
|
Science |
2 (2%) |
6 (5.5%) |
7 (7.2%) |
3 (2.9%) |
5,227 (12.4%) |
|
Health Sciences |
15 (15.3%) |
23 (21.1%) |
25 (25.8%) |
22 (21.6%) |
4,561 (10.8%) |
|
Social Sciences |
25 (25.5%) |
18 (16.5%) |
20 (20.6%) |
20 (19.6%) |
10,014 (23.7%) |
|
Telfer |
3 (3.1%) |
10 (9.2%) |
10 (10.3%) |
12 (11.8%) |
4,647 (11.0%) |
|
Saint-Paul University |
0 (0%) |
3 (2.6%) |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
|
|
Total |
98 |
109 |
97 |
102 |
42,553 (uOttawa students) |
Cases by type
This table demonstrates the types of cases heard by the Committee over the years covered in this report (2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019).
|
Type |
Number Of Cases (2015-2016) |
Number Of Cases (2016-2017) |
Number Of Cases (2017-2018) |
Number of Cases (2018-2019) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade review |
17 (17.3%) |
28 (25.7%) |
27 (27.8%) |
24 (23.5%) |
|
Mandatory withdrawal |
22 (22.4%) |
21 (19.3%) |
21 (21.6%) |
14 (13.7%) |
|
Fraud |
13 (13.3%) |
24 (22%) |
12 (12.4%) |
12 (11.8%) |
|
Degree entitlement |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
0 (0%) |
3 (2.9%) |
|
Retroactive drop / extension of drop date |
19 (19.4%) |
12 (11%) |
12 (12.4%) |
16 (15.7%) |
|
Admission / readmission |
1 (1%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (2.1%) |
1 (1%) |
|
Deferral / permission to rewrite examination / assignment |
8 (8.2%) |
14 (12.8 %) |
10 (10.3%) |
13 (12.7%) |
|
Request to repeat course |
0 (0%) |
5 (4.6%) |
0 (0%) |
2 (2%) |
|
Other forms of relief |
6 (6.1%) |
3 (2.6%) |
11 (11.3%) |
9 (8.8%) |
|
Justification letters for deadline extension |
12 (12.2%) |
2 (1.8%) |
2 (2.1%) |
8 (7.8%) |
|
Total |
98 |
109 |
97 |
102 |
Request for extension
Pursuant to the Committee’s rules of procedure, a student wishing to appeal a faculty-level decision must file his or her appeal, along with supporting argument and documentation, within 10 working days of receipt of the decision from which the appeal is to be taken.
Students who failed to respect the 10-day deadline granted for the submission of appeals to the Senate Appeals Committee were required to submit a request for an extension in the submission of appeals, outlining the valid reasons for the late submission, along with their appeal letter and supporting documents.
This table demonstrates the numbers of requests for extension of the 10-day deadline received from students over the years covered in this report (2015-2016, 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019).
|
Academic Year |
Requests for extension |
Granted |
|
2015-2016 |
12 |
7 |
|
2016-2017 |
2 |
2 |
|
2017-2018 |
2 |
2 |
|
2018-2019 |
8 |
4 |
PROCESSING TIMES
Student-initiated appeals
Upon receipt of a student’s appeal, the relevant academic unit is required to file its responding comments on the appeal, along with any supporting documentation, within 15 working days; and the student is then required to submit any final written comments or other information, in reply to the academic unit’s submissions, within a final 15 working days. The appeal is then inscribed on the agenda of the Committee for hearing either at its next meeting or (as students have the right to appear in person before the Committee) at the next meeting of the Committee which the student is able to attend.
The following table provides a comparison with respect to average processing times, in working days, for student-initiated appeals.
|
Processing Times in Working Days |
Average Processing Time |
Average Processing Time |
Average Processing Time |
Average Processing Time (2018-2019) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Unit |
15 |
16 |
16 |
15 |
|
Student |
13 |
11 |
10 |
12 |
|
Senate Appeals Committee |
27 |
36 |
27 |
41 |
|
Overall Processing Time |
56 |
61 |
53 |
62 |
In the period of September 1, 2017, to August 31, 2018, we note a marked decrease from the previous year. During this year, a more concerted effort was made to ensure that there were timely meetings set for the Senate Appeals Committee. Unfortunately, in the 2018-2019 academic year, the average processing time increased due to the lack of quorum for four SAC meetings which had to be cancelled. Therefore, the cases scheduled had to be postponed to a later meeting date.
Faculty-initiated cases of academic fraud
In the cases that are submitted by the Faculty as a recommendation for severe sanction provided for in article 2 in Academic Regulation I-14, the student has 10 working days to comment on the recommendation and/or to appeal the findings of fraud. Should the student decide to appeal, the normal delays apply. If the student does not appeal, the case is added to the next available meeting date.
OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE
General observations
- The Committee reiterates that specific efforts to inform both students and Faculties about how to prepare and respond to appeals would be useful. The Committee works very hard to come to the best possible decision that is fair to both the student and the Faculty. Its ability to do so depends a great deal on the preparation of the file submitted either as the appeal or in response to an appeal. A well-prepared letter of appeal or response to an appeal is the most helpful document in the file. If the grounds for the appeal or the grounds for the Faculty decision being appealed are clearly stated, the Committee will better understand what is at stake and will be able to reach a decision that is fair to all involved.
- The Committee emphasizes that Faculties should provide accurate and transparent information when responding to student appeals.
- Members noted that in some cases, the Faculty replies to the student were not in the language that the student chose to communicate in.
- To ensure confidentiality the Committee recalled to faculties that in the cases of grade revisions, they must keep the reviewers confidential as well as other students involved.
- In response to an Ombudsman recommendation, SAC members underlined that they are sensitive to the fact that students and faculties need to understand the reasons behind the Committee’s decisions. In recent years, efforts have been made in this area and members want to continue to improve the process. Where circumstances permit, the SAC’s decision specifies the primary reason for allowing or dismissing the appeal. That said, it is important to note that when the SAC confirms a faculty decision and that decision is detailed, reasoned and free of procedural defects, the lack of grounds to overturn the decision is the main reason for the SAC’s decision. We also note that students always have the opportunity to be heard before the SAC. At meetings, SAC members interact with students and their representatives. This exchange allows students to have answers to their questions, see members’ concerns and understand their decision later.
Regulations
- The Committee suggests that Faculty regulations should be included in the University’s Academic Regulations or that the information be simpler to find online.
- Academic regulation I-9 – Evaluation of student learning
There are discrepancies with the way the Academic Regulation 9.5.1.d) and 9.5.2.d) is written, particularly between the English and French versions. The regulation states as follows:
9.5.1 d) If the medical problem is not foreseeable, students must notify their professor or the academic secretariat of the faculty where they are registered and submit a medical certificate bearing the date of the absence within five working days of the exam date or the assignment deadline, except if extenuating circumstances prevent them from doing so; these circumstances must be documented.
9.5.1 d) Si l'empêchement d'ordre psychologique est imprévisible, l'étudiant doit aviser le professeur ou le secrétariat scolaire de la faculté où il est inscrit et présenter un certificatdaté du jour de l’absence ou une lettre d’appui dans les cinq jours ouvrables qui suivent la date de l'examen ou la date de remise des travaux et ce, à moins de circonstances exceptionnelles, documentées, qui l’empêcheraient de le faire.
It is unclear whether this would mean the certificate itself is dated on the day of the absence, meaning, the student would have to be seen by a doctor on the day of the absence, or whether this meant that the time of the absence must be indicated on the medical certificate.
The French version of this regulation seems to imply the first of these scenarios. As such, this has been a point of confusion for some Faculties as well as the Committee.
- Academic regulation I-14 – Academic Fraud
In the case where a student is found of having committed academic fraud by the Faculty, and in which case the student is no longer registered in the course, Faculties may re-register the student to the course in question (I-14, article 2). However, the Committee finds that the regulation is not clear and proposes changes to article 2:
FROM: If a student withdraws from a course following an allegation of fraud filed against the student, the University may re-register the student in the course in question.
TO: If a student withdraws from a course to which an allegation of fraud relates, the University may re-register the student in the course in question.
Appeal procedure
- The Committee notes that the appeal files are getting bigger with lengthy letters of appeal, many duplicates, and redundancy. An appeal submission form will be provided to students to ensure that the procedure was duly followed and that all important information is contained in their letter of appeal and supporting documentation.
- From time to time, students file appeals before the SAC of decisions for which the SAC has no jurisdiction (questions regarding admission and or other issues not related to academic regulations). The Appeal procedure should state the power of the Chair, in those circumstances, to refuse the appeal at the first stage.