Rapport d'activités 2010-2011

RAPPORT D'ACTIVITÉS DU COMITÉ D'APPEL DU SÉNAT AU SÉNAT
1er juillet 2010 au 30 juin 2011

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 which 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 current members of the Committee are:

• Currie, John H. - Professor, Faculty of Law, Common Law Section, Chair
• Fortier, Pierre - Associate Professor, Faculty of Medicine, Vice-Chair
• Fall, Mamadou - Associate Professor, Faculty of Engineering
• Gélinas-Faucher, Bruno - Undergraduate student, Faculty of Law, Civil Law Section
• Greco, Christopher - Graduate student, Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies
• Guimond, Pierrette - Assistant Professor, Faculty of Health Sciences
• Hallett, William - Professor, Faculty of Engineering
• Philie, Patrice - Associate Professor, Faculty of Arts

Past members of the Committee who served during the period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011 but whose mandate has expired or who have retired from the Committee are: Mr. Eric Cormier, graduate student; Ms. Anaïs Elboujdaïni, undergraduate student; Professor Mary-Ellen Harper, Faculty of Medicine; and Professor Andrew Taylor, Faculty of Arts.  

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 is entitled to participate in the deliberations of the Committee but does not vote.

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 July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, the Committee met a total of sixteen times and dealt with a total of 94 cases.

Of this total of 94 cases, 91 were student-initiated appeals and three 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.

The following tables provide further details concerning the 94 cases dealt with by the Committee in the period July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011, first with respect to academic unit of provenance and second with respect to type (subject-matter) of the case:

PROCESSING TIME

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. Thereafter, 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 Committee endeavours, whenever possible, to render a decision on a case on the same day it is heard, and to advise the student in writing of the outcome within one business day of the decision. On occasion, however, the Committee may determine that additional information is required before rendering a decision, in which event the case is decided at the next Committee meeting following receipt of the additional information and any further submissions the student may have with respect to that additional information.

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).

OBSERVATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE COMMITTEE

Observations

Academic units are reminded that it is important to be as thorough as possible when providing submissions to the Committee in response to student appeals. In particular, it is most helpful to the Committee if the responding academic unit can include, as part of its submissions:

1. a synopsis of the procedural history of the case and its treatment by the academic unit;
2. a statement of the academic unit’s position or response with respect to each of the arguments or bases of appeal invoked by the student; and
3. copies of all documents in the academic unit’s possession that relate to the student’s request and that may potentially be relevant to consideration of the student’s appeal (e.g. e-mail exchanges with the student, documents considered by the academic unit in addressing the student’s request, evaluation reports, medical certificates, etc.).

Failure to provide this information may require or cause the Committee to (1) draw adverse inferences against the academic unit (e.g. where an academic unit does not dispute a factual allegation or argument made in a student’s appeal, the Committee may infer that the allegation is admitted or the argument conceded by the academic unit); (2) adjourn consideration of the appeal until further information can be obtained from the academic unit, thus entailing considerable delay in disposing of the appeal; or (3) inadvertently decide the appeal on the basis of an erroneous or incomplete understanding of the facts or the academic unit’s position in relation thereto.