Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13195
Submitted: May 19, 2025 at 5:44:52 PM
First Name: Alison
Last Name: Staples
Pronoun: She/Her
Student Number: 20333961
Email: 21aps9@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BSH
Plan: LISC
Level of Study: 4
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Drop a course after the academic deadline, Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: BCHM 316
Term: Winter
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: BCHM 315
Term: Fall
Year: 2024
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Dr. Robert Campbell
Section/Class Number: 2024F
Level 1 Status
Status: Partial GrantLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 340
Submitted: August 26, 2025 at 4:57:05 PM
Relevant Petition: 13195
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: BCHM 315, Fall 2024 (Dr. Robert Campbell)
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 on the basis that the Associate Dean’s decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness. Specifically:
Failure to follow university rules and regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process.
Failure to make a reasonable decision supported by the available evidence.
As noted in the Associate Dean’s decision, she kindly acknowledged my circumstances but denied my petition for credit standing in BCMH 315 (F24) based on a concern that the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 had not been met.
To address this concern, my attached appeal letter provides a summary of the course requirements of BCHM 315 (F24) and evidence that the requirements set out in Regulation 1.7.1.4 have in fact been met.
To summarize the detailed information provided, I completed the required number of quizzes, both midterms, and the final exam, and I received a passing grade, which is consistent with the conditions for credit standing under Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4. To read the Academic Regulation otherwise is procedurally unfair as I relied on the course syllabus to complete the required number of quizzes and I attended and completed both midterms and the final exam.
It is also important to note that, in my experience, final exam grades are not uploaded to OnQ, which may explain the discrepancy in the course records. As mentioned above, I would welcome the opportunity for the Board to confirm my attendance through official university exam logs which I signed or any other means that may be helpful.
In accordance with procedural fairness, the Associate Dean’s decision was required to take into account all of the relevant information and to apply the rules and regulations in a manner that afforded a fair process. I appreciate that the Associate Dean kindly acknowledged my circumstances and noted that the only deficiency was a technical one based on Regulation 1.7.1.4. I further appreciate the opportunity to clarify and to provide the included information so that either the Associate Dean can review this information and reconsider her decision or this appeal can be reviewed by the Board of Studies.
Please see the attached appeal letter which provides additional detail, evidence and argument.
Failure to follow university rules and regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process.
Failure to make a reasonable decision supported by the available evidence.
As noted in the Associate Dean’s decision, she kindly acknowledged my circumstances but denied my petition for credit standing in BCMH 315 (F24) based on a concern that the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 had not been met.
To address this concern, my attached appeal letter provides a summary of the course requirements of BCHM 315 (F24) and evidence that the requirements set out in Regulation 1.7.1.4 have in fact been met.
To summarize the detailed information provided, I completed the required number of quizzes, both midterms, and the final exam, and I received a passing grade, which is consistent with the conditions for credit standing under Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4. To read the Academic Regulation otherwise is procedurally unfair as I relied on the course syllabus to complete the required number of quizzes and I attended and completed both midterms and the final exam.
It is also important to note that, in my experience, final exam grades are not uploaded to OnQ, which may explain the discrepancy in the course records. As mentioned above, I would welcome the opportunity for the Board to confirm my attendance through official university exam logs which I signed or any other means that may be helpful.
In accordance with procedural fairness, the Associate Dean’s decision was required to take into account all of the relevant information and to apply the rules and regulations in a manner that afforded a fair process. I appreciate that the Associate Dean kindly acknowledged my circumstances and noted that the only deficiency was a technical one based on Regulation 1.7.1.4. I further appreciate the opportunity to clarify and to provide the included information so that either the Associate Dean can review this information and reconsider her decision or this appeal can be reviewed by the Board of Studies.
Please see the attached appeal letter which provides additional detail, evidence and argument.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: To the Board of Studies,
I am so grateful for the time and care taken by the Associate Dean Academic, Dr. Naaman, and others in reviewing my petition for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24). The decision, dated August 25, 2025, concluded that I was not eligible for credit standing due to the fact that my OnQ records showed that I did not complete all of the required components for BCHM 315 (F24) in accordance with Academic Appeal and Petition Regulation 1.7.1.4. I appreciate the opportunity to file this appeal to clarify that I have in fact completed all of the required components to satisfy Regulation 1.7.1.4.
I am therefore writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision regarding my petition for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) on the basis that the decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness as the decision failed to follow university rules and regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process, and that the decision was not a reasonable decision supported by the available evidence.
Background:
On August 25, 2025, I received a decision from Dr. Naaman that my request for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) was not granted due to a technical concern. Specifically, Dr. Naaman kindly acknowledged my circumstances, but noted that I was not eligible for credit standing due to the fact that my OnQ records showed that I had not completed all of the required components of the course.
When I responded to the Academic Petitions team, they responded as follows:
“Your onQ grades show Quiz #3 and the Final Exam as missing so it would be helpful if you could include a copy of the syllabus to show that one quiz wasn’t required, and proof that you wrote the final exam.”
I appreciate this guidance from the Academic Petitions team and will provide that missing material with this package to ensure that the decision in regard to my petition to receive credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) is fairly reviewed and any decision meets the requirements of procedural fairness.
Quiz #3
The Associate Dean’s decision notes that my OnQ record showed one missing quiz (specifically Quiz #3). Due to my circumstances, as outlined in my petition, I was only able to complete 4 out of the 5 quizzes that were set in the course as one quiz (Quiz #3) timed out before I could complete it.
Based on the syllabus, it was my understanding that I had completed all of the course requirements as only 4 of the 5 quizzes were required. To assist, I have included a screen capture of the course syllabus as Attachment 1. As you will read, the 5 quizzes mentioned in the syllabus are subject to a footnote that states: “Only the top 4 out of 5 quiz marks will be used in the final grade calculation. The quizzes are designed to help you to assess your own understanding of concepts”. Further, the final paragraph only speaks to absences from “tests” and “exams”.
As I was unable to complete one of the quizzes during the time frame (further to my circumstances) I do not believe that I have missed a required component of the course. The syllabus confirmed that only 4 of the 5 quizzes were required to complete that component of the grade. Although I may not receive a potential advantage because of this, I want to point out that I was not missing a component. Further, Dr. Campbell provided an email to the class on November 22, 2024, included as Attachment 2, which clarified the grade breakdown. It notes that the mark includes 10% for the quizzes and this was consistent with the syllabus, which noted that 10% would be tabulated based on 4 out of 5 quizzes.
While it is true that I was unable to complete one quiz due to circumstances described in my petition, the course syllabus explicitly states that only the top 4 of 5 quizzes were required to tabulate that portion of my grade. It would therefore be unfair to conclude that I did not meet Regulation 1.7.1.4 as I completed all of the required quizzes as set out in the syllabus. Further, it is not clear that the Associate Dean had the benefit of reviewing the course syllabus and the associated email from the Professor, and, therefore, her decision may not have been based on all of the available evidence.
Final Exam
The decision also indicated that there was no record of me writing the final exam. I am baffled by this conclusion and do not understand how the University and/or the professor do not have a record of my writing this final exam and a copy of the exam that I completed. I can respectfully clarify that despite my circumstances, I did attend and write this exam, as I have all of my exams at Queen’s University. The exam took place on December 16, 2024 at 8:30am. I presented my student card, signed the attendance sheet, and complied with all exam procedures, including turning off my Garmin watch and phone. I do not have access to the exam attendance sheet that I signed but I would welcome the opportunity for the Associate Dean or the Board to review the official university exam logs to confirm my signature.
I then proceeded to complete the exam as is evidenced by my passing mark in the course. I do not have a copy of the exam as it was graded after the course was completed and would hope that the professor, Dr. Campbell, would have copies of all of the exams written and a record of the marks received.
Although it would not be in keeping with procedural fairness to request additional evidence from me that I attended and completed the exam, as I signed the sign-in sheet and completed the physical exam, I have also searched for other evidence to assist the Associate Dean and the Board on this point. I was able to review my personal records and, on the day of the exam, I exchanged text messages with my mother before and after the exam confirming that I had completed the exam and providing details regarding the exam. I then confirmed the same with two of my housemates and my aunts after the exam, again, confirming that I had completed it and providing details. I have included the relevant time-stamped portions of these texts in Attachment 3. I have redacted irrelevant portions of these communications as you do not need to know that I borrowed feta cheese from my housemate or that my aunts ordered sushi for dinner.
Based on the above, it would therefore be unfair to conclude that I did not meet Regulation 1.7.1.4 as I attended and completed the final exam. In addition to my statements here, there should be a physical record of my signature and a physical exam among the university’s exam records.
Further, based on the mark breakdown, a final exam weighted at 50% would have been necessary to obtain the passing mark which I obtained in this course. Again, it is not clear that the Associate Dean had the benefit of reviewing the exam sign-in sheet, my exam, my exam mark or the contemporaneous texts provided, and therefore her decision may not have been based on all of the available evidence.
Fairness and Reasonableness
As noted in the Associate Dean’s decision, she kindly acknowledged my circumstances but denied this petition for credit standing in BCMH 315 (F24) based on a concern that the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 had not been met.
To summarize the detailed information provided above, I completed the required number of quizzes, both midterms, and the final exam, and I received a passing grade, which is consistent with the conditions for credit standing under Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4. To read the Academic Regulation otherwise is procedurally unfair as I relied on the course syllabus to complete the required number of quizzes and I attended and completed all tests including the final exam.
A conclusion that I have not completed all course requirements and do not meet the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 would not meet the test of procedural fairness and would require an interpretation of Regulation 1.7.1.4 and the evidence available in a way that does not support my right to procedural fairness and would not be a reasonable decision based on all of the available evidence.
It is also important to note that, in my experience, final exam grades are not uploaded to OnQ, which may explain the discrepancy in the course records. As mentioned above I would welcome the opportunity for the Board to confirm my attendance through official university exam logs.
In accordance with procedural fairness, the Associate Dean’s decision was required to take into account all of the relevant information and to apply the rules and regulations in a manner that afforded a fair process. I appreciate that the Associate Dean kindly acknowledged my circumstances and noted that the only deficiency was a technical one based on Regulation 1.7.1.4. I also appreciate the opportunity to clarify and to provide the included information so that either the Associate Dean can review this additional information and reconsider her decision or this decision can be reviewed by the Board of Studies.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alison Staples
I am so grateful for the time and care taken by the Associate Dean Academic, Dr. Naaman, and others in reviewing my petition for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24). The decision, dated August 25, 2025, concluded that I was not eligible for credit standing due to the fact that my OnQ records showed that I did not complete all of the required components for BCHM 315 (F24) in accordance with Academic Appeal and Petition Regulation 1.7.1.4. I appreciate the opportunity to file this appeal to clarify that I have in fact completed all of the required components to satisfy Regulation 1.7.1.4.
I am therefore writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision regarding my petition for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) on the basis that the decision did not follow the rules of procedural fairness as the decision failed to follow university rules and regulations in a way that supported my right to a fair process, and that the decision was not a reasonable decision supported by the available evidence.
Background:
On August 25, 2025, I received a decision from Dr. Naaman that my request for credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) was not granted due to a technical concern. Specifically, Dr. Naaman kindly acknowledged my circumstances, but noted that I was not eligible for credit standing due to the fact that my OnQ records showed that I had not completed all of the required components of the course.
When I responded to the Academic Petitions team, they responded as follows:
“Your onQ grades show Quiz #3 and the Final Exam as missing so it would be helpful if you could include a copy of the syllabus to show that one quiz wasn’t required, and proof that you wrote the final exam.”
I appreciate this guidance from the Academic Petitions team and will provide that missing material with this package to ensure that the decision in regard to my petition to receive credit standing in BCHM 315 (F24) is fairly reviewed and any decision meets the requirements of procedural fairness.
Quiz #3
The Associate Dean’s decision notes that my OnQ record showed one missing quiz (specifically Quiz #3). Due to my circumstances, as outlined in my petition, I was only able to complete 4 out of the 5 quizzes that were set in the course as one quiz (Quiz #3) timed out before I could complete it.
Based on the syllabus, it was my understanding that I had completed all of the course requirements as only 4 of the 5 quizzes were required. To assist, I have included a screen capture of the course syllabus as Attachment 1. As you will read, the 5 quizzes mentioned in the syllabus are subject to a footnote that states: “Only the top 4 out of 5 quiz marks will be used in the final grade calculation. The quizzes are designed to help you to assess your own understanding of concepts”. Further, the final paragraph only speaks to absences from “tests” and “exams”.
As I was unable to complete one of the quizzes during the time frame (further to my circumstances) I do not believe that I have missed a required component of the course. The syllabus confirmed that only 4 of the 5 quizzes were required to complete that component of the grade. Although I may not receive a potential advantage because of this, I want to point out that I was not missing a component. Further, Dr. Campbell provided an email to the class on November 22, 2024, included as Attachment 2, which clarified the grade breakdown. It notes that the mark includes 10% for the quizzes and this was consistent with the syllabus, which noted that 10% would be tabulated based on 4 out of 5 quizzes.
While it is true that I was unable to complete one quiz due to circumstances described in my petition, the course syllabus explicitly states that only the top 4 of 5 quizzes were required to tabulate that portion of my grade. It would therefore be unfair to conclude that I did not meet Regulation 1.7.1.4 as I completed all of the required quizzes as set out in the syllabus. Further, it is not clear that the Associate Dean had the benefit of reviewing the course syllabus and the associated email from the Professor, and, therefore, her decision may not have been based on all of the available evidence.
Final Exam
The decision also indicated that there was no record of me writing the final exam. I am baffled by this conclusion and do not understand how the University and/or the professor do not have a record of my writing this final exam and a copy of the exam that I completed. I can respectfully clarify that despite my circumstances, I did attend and write this exam, as I have all of my exams at Queen’s University. The exam took place on December 16, 2024 at 8:30am. I presented my student card, signed the attendance sheet, and complied with all exam procedures, including turning off my Garmin watch and phone. I do not have access to the exam attendance sheet that I signed but I would welcome the opportunity for the Associate Dean or the Board to review the official university exam logs to confirm my signature.
I then proceeded to complete the exam as is evidenced by my passing mark in the course. I do not have a copy of the exam as it was graded after the course was completed and would hope that the professor, Dr. Campbell, would have copies of all of the exams written and a record of the marks received.
Although it would not be in keeping with procedural fairness to request additional evidence from me that I attended and completed the exam, as I signed the sign-in sheet and completed the physical exam, I have also searched for other evidence to assist the Associate Dean and the Board on this point. I was able to review my personal records and, on the day of the exam, I exchanged text messages with my mother before and after the exam confirming that I had completed the exam and providing details regarding the exam. I then confirmed the same with two of my housemates and my aunts after the exam, again, confirming that I had completed it and providing details. I have included the relevant time-stamped portions of these texts in Attachment 3. I have redacted irrelevant portions of these communications as you do not need to know that I borrowed feta cheese from my housemate or that my aunts ordered sushi for dinner.
Based on the above, it would therefore be unfair to conclude that I did not meet Regulation 1.7.1.4 as I attended and completed the final exam. In addition to my statements here, there should be a physical record of my signature and a physical exam among the university’s exam records.
Further, based on the mark breakdown, a final exam weighted at 50% would have been necessary to obtain the passing mark which I obtained in this course. Again, it is not clear that the Associate Dean had the benefit of reviewing the exam sign-in sheet, my exam, my exam mark or the contemporaneous texts provided, and therefore her decision may not have been based on all of the available evidence.
Fairness and Reasonableness
As noted in the Associate Dean’s decision, she kindly acknowledged my circumstances but denied this petition for credit standing in BCMH 315 (F24) based on a concern that the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 had not been met.
To summarize the detailed information provided above, I completed the required number of quizzes, both midterms, and the final exam, and I received a passing grade, which is consistent with the conditions for credit standing under Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4. To read the Academic Regulation otherwise is procedurally unfair as I relied on the course syllabus to complete the required number of quizzes and I attended and completed all tests including the final exam.
A conclusion that I have not completed all course requirements and do not meet the requirements of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 would not meet the test of procedural fairness and would require an interpretation of Regulation 1.7.1.4 and the evidence available in a way that does not support my right to procedural fairness and would not be a reasonable decision based on all of the available evidence.
It is also important to note that, in my experience, final exam grades are not uploaded to OnQ, which may explain the discrepancy in the course records. As mentioned above I would welcome the opportunity for the Board to confirm my attendance through official university exam logs.
In accordance with procedural fairness, the Associate Dean’s decision was required to take into account all of the relevant information and to apply the rules and regulations in a manner that afforded a fair process. I appreciate that the Associate Dean kindly acknowledged my circumstances and noted that the only deficiency was a technical one based on Regulation 1.7.1.4. I also appreciate the opportunity to clarify and to provide the included information so that either the Associate Dean can review this additional information and reconsider her decision or this decision can be reviewed by the Board of Studies.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
Alison Staples
Documentation
Document: Supporting Documents-1.pdf