ACTIVITY REPORT OF THE SENATE APPEALS COMMITTEE TO THE SENATE
September 1st, 2014 to August 31, 2015
INTRODUCTION
The following report of the Senate Appeals Committee (the “Committee”) is presented to the Senate pursuant to the Committee’s Terms of Reference, which provide that the Committee shall present a report of its activities to the Senate once a year, or upon request from the Senate or its Executive Committee.
FUNCTIONS
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 and computer misuse.
The Committee also recommends to the Senate any change which it deems appropriate with respect to the regulations and procedures which it is entrusted to apply.
MEMBERSHIP
The Senate Appeals Committee consists of eight members, including six full-time regular professors (at least three of whom must be members of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies), 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 members of the Committee from September 1, 2014 to August, 31, 2015 were:
Bouchard, Mawy - Professor, Faculty of Arts (until July 12, 2015)
Dallaire, Christine - Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, Vice-Chair
Deschamps, Émilie - Graduate student, Faculty of Arts (from Nov. 19, 2014)
Dupont, Marie-Pier - Undergraduate student, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section (until April 2015)
Eaton, David - Undergraduate student, Faculty of Social Sciences (from June 9, 2015)
Foucher, Pierre - Professor, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section (from June 5, 2015)
Laganière, Robert - Professor, Faculty of Engineering
Manwaring, John - Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section : Chair
O’Byrne, Patrick - Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing (until Aug. 31, 2015)
Steeves, Valerie - Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences (from Mar. 17, 2015)
The current members of the Committee, as at June 13, 2016, are:
Dallaire, Christine - Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences: Vice-Chair
Deschamps, Émilie - Graduate student, Faculty of Arts
VACANT - Undergraduate student
Foucher, Pierre - Professor, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section
Laganière, Robert - Professor, Faculty of Engineering
Manwaring, John - Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section: Chair
Moreau, Denise - Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences, School of Nursing
Steeves, Valerie - Professor, Faculty of Social Sciences
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 Vice-President, Governance of the University or his or her representative acts as secretary to the Committee. The Secretary of the University does not vote, but has a right to participate in the deliberations of the Committee.
ACTIVITIES
In general, the Committee meets every second week throughout the year, unless there is no business to dispose of or quorum cannot be attained. During the period of September 1, 2014 to August 31st, 2015, the Committee met a total of 19 times and dealt with a total of 88 cases.
Of this total of 88 cases, 78 were student-initiated appeals and ten (10) 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 ten (10) cases.
With respect to the 78 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 23 cases (29.5%);
- the student’s appeal was denied in 51 cases (65.4%); and
- the student’s appeal was withdrawn in 4 cases (5.1%).
The following tables provide further details concerning the 88 cases dealt with by the Committee in the period of September 1, 2014 to August 31, 2015, first with respect to academic unit of provenance and second with respect to type (subject-matter) of the case:
|
CASES BY ACADEMIC UNIT OF PROVENANCE 2014-2015 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Unit |
Number of Cases |
Percentage of All Cases |
Academic Unit’s Total Enrolment 2014-2015 |
Percentage of Total University Enrolment 2014-2015 |
|
Arts |
5 |
5.7% |
5,502 |
13% |
|
Education |
4 |
4.5% |
1,561 |
4% |
|
Civil Law |
3 |
3.4% |
761 |
2% |
|
Common Law |
5 |
5.7% |
1177 |
3% |
|
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies |
18 |
20.5% |
6,604 |
15% |
|
Engineering |
10 |
11.4% |
3,419 |
8% |
|
Medicine |
2 |
2.3% |
2,350 |
5% |
|
Science |
4 |
4.5% |
4,287 |
10% |
|
Health Sciences |
23 |
26.1% |
3,849 |
9% |
|
Social Sciences |
11 |
12.5% |
8,846 |
21% |
|
Telfer |
3 |
3.4% |
4,265 |
10% |
|
Total |
88 |
100% |
42,621 |
100% |
|
CASES BY TYPE 2014-2015 |
||
|---|---|---|
|
Type |
Number Of Cases |
Percentage of All Cases |
|
Grade review |
12 |
13.6% |
|
Mandatory withdrawal |
19 |
21.6% |
|
Fraud |
17 |
19.3% |
|
Removal of grade from transcript |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Degree entitlement |
0 |
0 |
|
Retroactive drop / extension of drop date |
11 |
12.5% |
|
Admission / readmission |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Deferral / permission to rewrite examination / assignment |
10 |
11.4% |
|
Other - Change of grade on transcript to P |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Other |
8 |
9.1% |
|
Total |
88 |
100 |
ACTIVITIES – YEARS 2010-2011 AND 2011-2012 AND 2012-2013
During the period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, the Committee met a total of 16 times and dealt with a total of 94 cases.
During the period July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012, the Committee met a total of 19 times and dealt with a total of 82 cases.
During the period July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013, the Committee met a total of 22 times and dealt with a total of 106 cases.
2010-2011 Among the 94 cases dealt with during the period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, 91 were student-initiated appeals and three (3) 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 three cases.
With respect to the 91 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 18 cases (20%);
- the student’s appeal was denied in 46 cases (50%); and
- the student’s appeal was withdrawn or abandoned by the student in 27 cases (30%).
Excluding cases withdrawn or abandoned by the student, approximately 28% of student-initiated appeals were successful whereas approximately 72% were unsuccessful.
2011-2012 Among that 82 cases dealt with during the period July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012, 75 were student-initiated appeals and seven (7) 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 five of the seven cases and varied in the remaining two.
With respect to the 75 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 17 cases (22.7%);
- the student’s appeal was denied in 50 cases (66.7%); and
- the student’s appeal was withdrawn or abandoned by the student in eight cases (10.6%).
Excluding cases withdrawn or abandoned by the student, approximately 25.4% of student-initiated appeals were successful whereas approximately 74.6% were unsuccessful.
2012-2013 Among the 106 cases dealt with during the period July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013, 103 were student-initiated appeals and three (3) 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 three cases.
With respect to the 103 student-initiated appeals received by the Committee:
- the student’s appeal was granted in whole or in part in 24 cases (23.3%);
- the student’s appeal was denied in 67 cases (65%); and
- the student’s appeal was withdrawn or abandoned by the student in twelve cases (11.7%).
Excluding cases withdrawn or abandoned by the student, approximately 26.3% of student-initiated appeals were successful whereas approximately 73.6% were unsuccessful.
The following tables provide a comparison with respect to outcomes of appeals, including fraud cases, the types of appeals processing by the Committee as well as the cases by academic unit of provenance for the periods of July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011, July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 and July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013 and September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015.
The statistical data for the 2013-2014 Senate Appeals Committee Annual Report has not been provided as support to the Committee during that period was provided by several Governance Officers, making data collection difficult to track.
OUTCOMES OF APPEALS
|
Outcome of Appeals |
Number Of Cases (2010-2011) |
Percentage of All Cases (2010-2011) |
Number Of Cases (2011-2012) |
Percentage of All Cases (2011-2012) |
Number Of Cases (2012-2013) |
Percentage of All Cases (2012-2013) |
Number Of Cases (2014-2015) |
Percentage of All Cases (2014-2015) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Appeal Granted |
18 |
19% |
19 |
23% |
24 |
23% |
23 |
26% |
|
Appeal Denied |
49 |
52% |
55 |
67% |
70 |
66% |
61 |
69% |
|
Appeal Withdrawn |
27 |
29% |
8 |
10% |
12 |
11% |
4 |
5% |
|
Totals |
94 |
100% |
82 |
100% |
106 |
100% |
88 |
100% |
The table above illustrates that number of denied appeals has increased over the last five years and also shows a marked decrease in withdrawn appeals in 2014-2015. 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. Some appeals are also withdrawn if a student fails to provide their final response within the 15 business days allocated to do so or consistently fails to respond to emails from the Secretariat.
TYPES OF APPEALS
|
Type |
Number Of Cases (2010-2011) |
Percentage of All Cases (2010-2011) |
Number Of Cases (2011-2012) |
Percentage of All Cases (2011-2012) |
Number Of Cases (2012-2013) |
Percentage of All Cases (2012-2013) |
Number Of Cases (2014-2015) |
Percentage of All Cases (2014-2015) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Grade review |
36 |
38.3% |
33 |
40.2% |
29 |
27% |
12 |
13.6% |
|
Mandatory withdrawal |
24 |
25.5% |
19 |
23.2% |
23 |
22% |
19 |
21.6% |
|
Fraud |
12 |
12.8% |
17 |
21% |
25 |
24% |
17 |
19.3% |
|
Removal of grade from transcript |
5 |
5.3% |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Degree entitlement |
3 |
3.2% |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Retroactive drop / extension of drop date |
2 |
2.1% |
2 |
2.4% |
8 |
7.5% |
11 |
12.5% |
|
Admission / readmission |
1 |
1.1% |
1 |
1.2% |
2 |
2% |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Deferral / permission to rewrite examination / assignment |
1 |
1.1% |
5 |
6% |
8 |
7.5% |
10 |
11.4% |
|
Other |
10 |
10.6% |
5 |
6% |
10 |
9% |
12 |
13.6% |
|
Total |
94 |
100% |
82 |
100% |
106 |
100% |
88 |
100% |
In the table above, it is interesting to note that there is a significant decrease in appeals relating to Grade reviews while there is a significant increase in the number of Retroactive drop / extension of drop date appeals in the last five years. The table also shows a year-to-year increase in the number of appeals related to Deferral / permission to rewrite examination / assignment.
It should be noted that the 15 appeals in the “Other” category for 2014-2015 includes four (4) appeals where the student requested a change of grade on their transcripts to a P. This is reflected in the earlier table on page 5 of this report.
CASES BY ACADEMIC UNIT OF PROVENANCE
|
Academic Unit |
Number of Cases (2010-2011) |
Percentage of All Cases (2010-2011) |
Number of Cases (2011-2012) |
Percentage of All Cases (2011-2012) |
Number of Cases (2012-2013) |
Percentage of All Cases (2012-2013) |
Number of Cases (2014-2015) |
Percentage of All Cases (2014-2015) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Arts |
4 |
4.3% |
3 |
3.7 % |
8 |
7.5% |
5 |
5.7% |
|
Education |
4 |
4.3% |
3 |
3.7 % |
1 |
0.9% |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Civil Law |
21 |
22.3% |
2 |
2.4 % |
5 |
4.7% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Common Law |
4 |
4.3% |
25 |
30.5% |
15 |
14.2% |
5 |
5.7% |
|
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies |
13 |
13.8% |
15 |
18.3 % |
21 |
19.8% |
18 |
20.5% |
|
Engineering |
19 |
20.2% |
7 |
8.5 % |
21 |
19.8% |
10 |
11.4% |
|
Medicine |
3 |
3.2% |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0.9% |
2 |
2.3% |
|
Science |
0 |
0% |
4 |
4.9 % |
6 |
5.7% |
4 |
4.5% |
|
Health Sciences |
7 |
7.4% |
10 |
12.1 % |
14 |
13.2% |
23 |
26.1% |
|
Social Sciences |
6 |
6.4% |
0 |
0 |
3 |
2.8% |
11 |
12.5% |
|
Telfer |
13 |
13.8% |
13 |
15.9 % |
11 |
10.4% |
3 |
3.4% |
|
Total |
94 |
100% |
82 |
100% |
106 |
100% |
88 |
100% |
The number of cases by Faculty has varied in the case of the Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section, the Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, the Faculty of Engineering, and the Faculty of Social Sciences. The number of appeals from Faculty of Arts, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies, Faculty of Medicine and Faculty of Science have remained somewhat consistent. There has been a gradual increases of appeals from the Faculty of Health Sciences and a marked decrease of appeals from the Telfer School of Management.
PROCESSING TIMES
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. In order to ensure the timely submission of student appeals to the Senate Appeals Committee, verifications were made regarding the submission of appeals within the 10-day deadline following receipt of the official Faculty decision.
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 extension in the submission of appeals, outlining the valid reasons for the late submission, along with their appeal letter and supporting documents. In total, eight (8) requests for extensions in the submission of appeals were provided to the Senate Appeals Committee during the 2014-2015 period for consideration and approval. Of the 8 requests dealt with during this period, 6 were accepted, thus meaning that the appeal would be processed per the regular procedure, and 2 were rejected by the Committee. The two who were rejected were not permitted to initiate their appeals and were therefore not heard by the Committee.
Once the Committee is satisfied that the required deadlines for the submission of appeals have been met, the appeal is initiated and 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.
It should be noted that the Committee was hesitant to deny requests for extensions to students beyond the initial 10-day deadline, due to the regular practice of accepting submissions from Faculties beyond the prescribed deadline. In order to ensure appeals were processed in a timely manner, the Faculties were sent a memo regarding amendments to Secretariat Guidelines with respect to Faculty response times, in accordance with SAC procedures. This memo was written following discussions with the Committee and sent to Faculties on February 25th, 2015.
This memo specified, among other items, that the Secretariat would follow up with Faculties three (3) days prior to the deadline as a reminder to provide their comments by the prescribed deadline. The memo also stated that Faculties must provide a justification explaining the unexpected circumstances causing the delay in responding, if the Faculty could not respond by the prescribed deadline. It was specified that the extension would need to be approved by the Chair of the Committee. The Faculties were also reminded that the Committee reserves the right to proceed without the Faculty’s response if it is not provided by the prescribed deadline.
This new process was put in place and enforced in May 2015. As a result, two (2) student appeals were presented to the Committee without the Faculty’s comments. While the Committee endeavours, whenever possible, to render a decision on a case on the same day it is heard, the Committee always reserves the right to return to the Faculty or student for any information it deems necessary to make a decision, should the file not contain enough information, with or without the Faculty’s comments.
It is interesting to note that there were 6 student requests for extensions which were accepted before the memo was sent to Faculties and enforced, while the 2 that were requested after the memo was sent to Faculties and enforced, were rejected by the Committee. The change in procedure for handling late responses has allowed the Committee to make decisions based more on merit than on process. As a result, this should constitute a quality improvement in the appeals process.
It should also be noted that the Secretariat has also instituted the process of sending a reminder to students 3 day before their responses are due, as per the same procedure as Faculties, to ensure fairness in the appeals process.
In the period September 1, 2014 – August 31, 2015, the overall average elapsed time from receipt of a student’s appeal to final disposition of that appeal was 71 working days (compared to 55 working days in 2012-2013). This significant increase in processing time may be due to a number of factors. One of which is that 4 out of 7 possible meetings between February and April were cancelled due to lack of quorum. This meant that students had to wait longer than usual to have their cases heard once all submissions were made by the Faculty and student. As a result, there was a backlog of cases to be heard in May, June and July 2015. This meant extending 3 meetings until 3 PM, rather than the typical end time of 12 PM, to allow for a larger number of cases to be heard.
The quorum issue appears to have been resolved due to the replacement of a few members and a more concerted effort by the Secretariat to follow up with members prior to each meeting. The importance of attendance as well as the consequences of cancelling meetings has also been brought up at Committee meetings as a reminder to members. The Committee’s membership is currently stable and this is reflected in the attendance records of the last few month’s meetings.
Of the 71 working-day total previously mentioned, 22 working days were attributable to the academic unit (i.e. average time taken to provide comments in response to student’s appeal or additional information requested by the Committee). This is a significant increase from previous years’ data (15 in 2012-2013, 15 in 2011-2012 and 17 in 2010-2011.) It is important to note that before the memo to Faculties sent in February 2015 was enforced, the Faculty response time was 36 days. Once the memo was enforced in May 2015, the response time dropped significantly to 14 days. As a result, this has helped decrease the overall processing times for appeals.
Fourteen working days were attributable to the student (i.e. average time taken to reply to academic unit’s comments or provide additional supporting documentation to the Committee, student requests for a deferred hearing date etc.); and 35 working days were attributable to the Committee (i.e. average processing time or time taken from appeal file being complete to hearing and disposition of appeal). This significant increase is, as previously mentioned, likely due to the Committee’s inability to meet on a regular basis in February, March and April 2015 due to issues around achieving quorum. Again, if we look at the time before the new processes were put in place in May 2015, the total processing time was 75 days as opposed to only 47 days once the new processes were put in place, and enforced and quorum was more stable.
With respect to faculty-initiated recommendations of serious sanctions for fraud during the same period, the overall average elapsed time from receipt of the faculty’s sanction recommendation to final disposition by the Committee was 53 working days. This is a slight improvement from the previous data collected in 2012-2013 which was 56 days. Of this total, 21 working days were attributable to the student (i.e. average time taken to submit comments to the Committee in response to the faculty’s recommendation). This is an improvement from the last data collected in 2012-2013, which was 28 working days. 32 working days were attributable to the Committee (i.e. average processing time or time taken from file being complete to hearing and final imposition of sanction.) Again, this is likely due to same issues previously mentioned relating to quorum.
It should be noted that some of the delays, particularly between the time the appeal file was complete and the time of the hearing, can also be attributed to a number of students who were unable to attend the next available meeting and chose to select an alternate meeting date. This has a tendency to happen around the holidays, particularly the summer holidays, when students return home and are not able to attend the hearing in Ottawa. Some students stated conflicts with their school schedules (classes or examinations) as a reason they are unable to attend proposed meetings dates/times.
PROCESSING TIMES – YEARS 2010-2011 AND 2011-2012 AND 2012-2013
2010-2011 In the period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, the overall average elapsed time from receipt of a student’s appeal to final disposition of that appeal was 54 working days. Of this total, an average of 17 working days was attributable to the academic unit (i.e. time taken to provide comments in response to student’s appeal or additional information requested by the Committee); an average of 18 working days was attributable to the student (i.e. time taken to reply to academic unit’s comments or provide additional supporting documentation to the Committee, student requests for a deferred hearing date etc.); and an average of 19 working days was attributable to the Committee (i.e. processing time, time taken from appeal file being complete to hearing and disposition of appeal).
2011-2012 In the period July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012, the overall average elapsed time from receipt of a student’s appeal to final disposition of that appeal was 50 working days. Of this total, 15 working days were attributable to the academic unit (i.e. average time taken to provide comments in response to student’s appeal or additional information requested by the Committee); 18.3 working days were attributable to the student (i.e. average time taken to reply to academic unit’s comments or provide additional supporting documentation to the Committee, student requests for a deferred hearing date etc.); and 17 working days were attributable to the Committee (i.e. average processing time or time taken from appeal file being complete to hearing and disposition of appeal).
2012-2013 In the period July 1, 2012 – June 30, 2013, the overall average elapsed time from receipt of a student’s appeal to final disposition of that appeal was 55 working days. Of this total, 15 working days were attributable to the academic unit (i.e. average time taken to provide comments in response to student’s appeal or additional information requested by the Committee); 18 working days were attributable to the student (i.e. average time taken to reply to academic unit’s comments or provide additional supporting documentation to the Committee, student requests for a deferred hearing date etc.); and 22 working days were attributable to the Committee (i.e. average processing time or time taken from appeal file being complete to hearing and disposition of appeal).
The following tables provide a comparison with respect to average processing times for student-initiated appeals for the periods of July 1, 2010 - June 30, 2011, July 1, 2011 – June 30, 2012 and July 1, 2012 –June 30, 2013.
|
Processing Times in Days |
Average Processing Time (2010-2011) |
Average Processing Time (2011-2012) |
Average Processing Time (2012-2013) |
Average Processing Time (2014-2015) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Academic Unit |
17 |
15 |
15 |
22 |
|
Student |
18 |
18 |
18 |
14 |
|
Senate Appeals Committee |
19 |
17 |
22 |
35 |
|
Overall Processing Time |
54 |
50 |
55 |
71 |
OBSERVATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE
On the basis of its experience with the matters brought before it, the Senate Appeals Committee would like to make the following observations:
1. The Senate Appeals Committee members have noted that procedures for students who have been accused of academic fraud during examinations vary across the campus. In some cases, students are removed from the examination and not permitted to continue their examination. In other cases, the committee found that students were removed from their examination, sent to speak to someone at their Faculty, and then permitted to return to complete their examination. This matter was sent to the Office of the Vice-President, Academic and Provost for further investigation to determine whether a new regulation on procedures for handling fraud during examinations should be put in place.
2. Members noted that there are sometimes allegations of systemic issues brought forward by the Student Rights Centre. Members found that systemic issues are not under the jurisdiction of the Senate Appeals Committee and should be brought to either the Senate, through the student Senators, or to the University’s Office of the Ombudsperson.
RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE
On the basis of its experience with the matters brought before it, the Senate Appeals Committee would like to make the following recommendations and requests that the Senate follow up:
1. All letters communicating Faculty decisions to students should include a specific mention of the student’s right to appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee and the 10-day deadline for the filing of such an appeal. A link to the relevant website page concerning the procedure for appealing a decision to the Committee would also be useful. In addition, information about the Student Rights Centre should be included. The Student Rights Centre will assist students with their appeals, provide clarification on academic regulations as well as inform students of the resources available to them.
The table in Appendix A shows the faculties who are currently 1) informing students of their right to appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC), 2) providing the link to the SAC procedure and 3) informing students of the 10-day deadline that they have to appeal to the SAC. This data was collected based on the Faculty decisions included in the five (5) most recent appeal files received from students, sent to the Secretariat as at March 1, 2016, and going back to January 1st, 2015.
2. It should also be noted that the Secretariat regularly receives appeals that are not under the jurisdiction of the Senate Appeals Committee. The SAC would like to remind faculties to pay special attention to the nature of the issues in order to direct students to the appropriate body. If assistance is required to determine the nature of an appeal, including its next steps, enquiries can be sent to the University Secretariat.
3. All course syllabi should include a statement that academic fraud is against university regulations and include a link to Academic Regulation on Academic Fraud and links to relevant university documents explaining the meaning of fraud.
4. Clear and specific instructions should be included in all course syllabi to ensure that students do not inadvertently commit academic fraud. All course syllabi should clearly state the forms of evaluation used in the course with specific instructions on how examinations and other assignments are to be completed (for example, is group work allowed?).
5. Students whose education prior to admission to the University of Ottawa took place outside of Canada – both undergraduate and graduate – should receive the support necessary to ensure that they are aware of the University of Ottawa’s regulation on academic fraud. A disproportionate number of Academic Fraud cases coming before the Committee involve international students.
6. In the opinion of the Senate Appeals Committee, Academic Regulation 10.3 is ambiguous and the Committee recommends that it be clarified.
Regulation 10.3 states under the title “General Provisions” that the University encourages students to contact their professor or practicum supervisor for clarifications or for the reasoning behind the grade. However, under the heading “First Stage: Grade Review” in both sections A and B, the Regulation states “Students who are not satisfied with their grade after discussing the matter with their professor can ask for a grade review.” It is not clear if the meeting with the professor is a compulsory step in the grade review procedure or something that students are merely encouraged, but not required, to do. Given that Faculties sometimes reject a request for a grade review on the grounds that the student has not met with his or her professor prior to submitting their request, it would be helpful for students to know if this step is compulsory.
7. In the opinion of the SAC, 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.
8. If a party has a procedural or jurisdictional objection to make at the outset of the hearing, it should do so but it must also submit its observations on the substance of the appeal in order to ensure that the Committee has all relevant information before it at the time of the hearing. The decisions of the Committee are subject to judicial review by the Courts of Justice. The Committee must follow a procedure that is fair to all parties. It is therefore important that the Committee follow its procedure as set out in its rules. It cannot modify its procedure solely at the request of one party.
APPENDIX A
|
Faculty |
Informs student of right to appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee |
Provides link to Senate Appeals Committee Procedure |
Informs student of appeals deadline (10 days) |
|
Arts |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Science |
No |
No |
No |
|
Telfer |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Social Sciences |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Health Sciences |
Yes |
Yes |
50/50 |
|
Engineering |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |
|
Medicine |
No |
No |
No |
|
Common Law |
No |
No |
No |
|
Droit civil |
No |
No |
No |
|
Education |
Yes |
No |
No |
|
Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies |
Yes |
Yes |
Yes |