Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13021
Submitted: April 29, 2025 at 2:42:52 AM
First Name: Ella
Last Name: Purdie
Pronoun: She/Her
Preferred Name: Ella
Student Number: 20390999
Email: 22hls3@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BScH
Plan: LISC
Level of Study: 2
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses
Code: PHGY 216
Term: Winter
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Dr. Nicolle Domnik
Section/Class Number: 004
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 320
Submitted: May 26, 2025 at 6:23:20 PM
Relevant Petition: 13021
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request aegrotat (AG) standing in a course or courses: PHGY 216, Winter 2025 (Dr. Nicolle Domnik)
Appeal Grounds
Appeals to the Board of Studies must include a letter based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal (Appeal Regulation 3.4). What are the grounds you are basing your appeal on?
- The Associate Dean's decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as the Associate Dean failed to:
- Follow the university rules and regulations in a way that supported your right to a fair process.
- Make a reasonable decision in your appeal. A “reasonable” decision is one that is based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from the facts. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions.
Appeal Grounds Details: I am appealing the Associate Dean’s decision on the basis that it was not reasonable and did not uphold my right to a fair and transparent academic process.
The decision referenced an alleged offer to complete the PHGY 216 midterm during the Summer 2025 term. This information is not supported by any communication I received. At no point was I informed of an August opportunity. The only options ever presented to me were May 12, 2025 and January 2026. Both dates were in direct conflict with Queen’s-approved academic commitments.The first overlapped with a medical brigade in Greece and the second with a bilateral exchange semester in Glasgow.
The university granted me long-term academic consideration from February 10 to 17, which acknowledged that my situation qualified as an extenuating circumstance. That consideration should have resulted in a clear and supportive process. Instead, I encountered repeated delays, unclear direction, and no viable alternatives. Despite seeking options early and consistently, none were provided.
This issue was further complicated by a breakdown in coordination between faculties. As a student in the Faculty of Arts and Science taking a course offered through Health Sciences, I found myself without consistent guidance. I was advised by Arts and Science to explore alternative arrangements, but Health Sciences policies restricted those possibilities. This disconnect left me in an administrative gap with no support structure capable of resolving the issue.
The Associate Dean’s decision relied on incorrect claims and overlooked both the documented context and the university’s obligation to ensure fairness. My petition was grounded in a legitimate need for flexibility that was never honored. I am requesting that the Board of Studies recognize this misapplication of process and review the decision accordingly.
The decision referenced an alleged offer to complete the PHGY 216 midterm during the Summer 2025 term. This information is not supported by any communication I received. At no point was I informed of an August opportunity. The only options ever presented to me were May 12, 2025 and January 2026. Both dates were in direct conflict with Queen’s-approved academic commitments.The first overlapped with a medical brigade in Greece and the second with a bilateral exchange semester in Glasgow.
The university granted me long-term academic consideration from February 10 to 17, which acknowledged that my situation qualified as an extenuating circumstance. That consideration should have resulted in a clear and supportive process. Instead, I encountered repeated delays, unclear direction, and no viable alternatives. Despite seeking options early and consistently, none were provided.
This issue was further complicated by a breakdown in coordination between faculties. As a student in the Faculty of Arts and Science taking a course offered through Health Sciences, I found myself without consistent guidance. I was advised by Arts and Science to explore alternative arrangements, but Health Sciences policies restricted those possibilities. This disconnect left me in an administrative gap with no support structure capable of resolving the issue.
The Associate Dean’s decision relied on incorrect claims and overlooked both the documented context and the university’s obligation to ensure fairness. My petition was grounded in a legitimate need for flexibility that was never honored. I am requesting that the Board of Studies recognize this misapplication of process and review the decision accordingly.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: To the Board of Studies,
I am submitting this appeal to request a reconsideration of the decision denying my petition for PHGY 216. I was informed that my request for an Aegrotat Grade was denied because I had not fulfilled the course learning outcomes and had not demonstrated extenuating circumstances that would prevent me from completing the midterm during the Summer 2025 term. I am writing to explain why that conclusion is not accurate and does not reflect the facts of my situation.
Throughout this process, I made every effort to find a workable solution. I communicated early, followed every recommendation, and submitted documentation through the appropriate channels. The only makeup dates I was ever offered were May 12 and January 2026. The May date (which fell outside of published Queen’s University calendar deferral dates), conflicted with a Queen’s Medical Brigade where I was volunteering in an executive capacity. The January date directly overlaps with the start of my bilateral exchange semester at the University of Glasgow. At NO time was I told there would be an opportunity to write the midterm in August. If this had been presented as an option, I would have addressed it immediately in my original petition. As of today, May 26 (the last day for me to appeal), I still have not received a reply back from Dr. Domnik as to when, or if the exam is taking place.
The rationale that I did not meet the learning outcomes of the course is not supported by the course structure. I completed more than sixty percent of the graded components, including the final exam and all available assignments needed at the time of the ongoing TA strike. I performed strongly throughout the term, with a current course average of 86.31 percent.
I was granted long-term academic consideration for the period covering the original midterm date. That recognition should have resulted in a flexible path forward. Instead, I faced ongoing confusion, restricted options, and communication breakdowns. As a student in Arts and Science enrolled in a Health Sciences course, I experienced a gap between two faculties where no one was able to offer a clear or timely solution. That lack of coordination significantly contributed to the outcome I now face nearly four months later.
The expectation that I return to Kingston from Alberta for a 2-hour exam would impose substantial financial strain. Booking flights, arranging transportation, and covering the cost of accommodation would consume nearly half of my summer income. This burden is not the result of poor planning on my part. It is the result of delayed communication and institutional inflexibility that I did everything in my power to avoid.
I am proud of my academic performance and my ongoing contributions to the Queen’s community. I have taken on leadership roles, maintained a high GPA while competing as a student-athlete, and participated in international health outreach work through university-affiliated programs. This situation has placed me in an impossible position through no fault of my own. I am respectfully requesting that I be granted an Aegrotat Grade based on the work I have completed. If that is not possible, I ask that an alternative solution be considered that allows me to fulfill the course requirement before August 31 without the disproportionate cost, as well as the loss of my honours degree.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal.
Sincerely,
Ella Purdie
I am submitting this appeal to request a reconsideration of the decision denying my petition for PHGY 216. I was informed that my request for an Aegrotat Grade was denied because I had not fulfilled the course learning outcomes and had not demonstrated extenuating circumstances that would prevent me from completing the midterm during the Summer 2025 term. I am writing to explain why that conclusion is not accurate and does not reflect the facts of my situation.
Throughout this process, I made every effort to find a workable solution. I communicated early, followed every recommendation, and submitted documentation through the appropriate channels. The only makeup dates I was ever offered were May 12 and January 2026. The May date (which fell outside of published Queen’s University calendar deferral dates), conflicted with a Queen’s Medical Brigade where I was volunteering in an executive capacity. The January date directly overlaps with the start of my bilateral exchange semester at the University of Glasgow. At NO time was I told there would be an opportunity to write the midterm in August. If this had been presented as an option, I would have addressed it immediately in my original petition. As of today, May 26 (the last day for me to appeal), I still have not received a reply back from Dr. Domnik as to when, or if the exam is taking place.
The rationale that I did not meet the learning outcomes of the course is not supported by the course structure. I completed more than sixty percent of the graded components, including the final exam and all available assignments needed at the time of the ongoing TA strike. I performed strongly throughout the term, with a current course average of 86.31 percent.
I was granted long-term academic consideration for the period covering the original midterm date. That recognition should have resulted in a flexible path forward. Instead, I faced ongoing confusion, restricted options, and communication breakdowns. As a student in Arts and Science enrolled in a Health Sciences course, I experienced a gap between two faculties where no one was able to offer a clear or timely solution. That lack of coordination significantly contributed to the outcome I now face nearly four months later.
The expectation that I return to Kingston from Alberta for a 2-hour exam would impose substantial financial strain. Booking flights, arranging transportation, and covering the cost of accommodation would consume nearly half of my summer income. This burden is not the result of poor planning on my part. It is the result of delayed communication and institutional inflexibility that I did everything in my power to avoid.
I am proud of my academic performance and my ongoing contributions to the Queen’s community. I have taken on leadership roles, maintained a high GPA while competing as a student-athlete, and participated in international health outreach work through university-affiliated programs. This situation has placed me in an impossible position through no fault of my own. I am respectfully requesting that I be granted an Aegrotat Grade based on the work I have completed. If that is not possible, I ask that an alternative solution be considered that allows me to fulfill the course requirement before August 31 without the disproportionate cost, as well as the loss of my honours degree.
Thank you for taking the time to review my appeal.
Sincerely,
Ella Purdie