Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Appeal Grounds Details: April 16, 2026
Appeal of Petition to the Board of Studies of the Decision of Associate Dean Dorit Naaman (Associate Dean Academic) dated April 02, 2026.

Appeal Ground Details:
Student Name: Philippe de Courville Nicol Baril
Student Email: philippedecn@gmail.com, 23gsct@queensu.ca
Course: POLS 261
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor: Dr. Zainab Olaitan

As stated in my cover letter, I am appealing the decision of Associate Dean Naaman refusing my
request for Credit Standing (“CR”) in POLS 261 (F25) on the basis of the following two errors, which
alone or in combination amount to a breach of procedural fairness:

1) Disregarding my overall final passing grade and imposing an obligation to have met “all
learning outcomes”.

2) Imposing on the student experiencing extenuating personal circumstances such as
significant health issues, the obligation to seek assistance and/or to withdraw from the course
before a final grade is known; and to understand and anticipate the evolution and impact of
their health issues.

Each is discussed in turn below.

1) Disregarding my overall final passing grade and imposing an obligation to have met “all
learning outcomes”:

The Associate Dean disregarded the fact that completed all of the work of the class including the final
examination and that I achieved a passing grade (D-) in the course. Instead, it appears she reviewed
the individual grades/assessments I had received on various assignments/components of the course I
completed throughout the semester. She denied my request on the grounds that “all of the learning
outcomes of the course weren’t met” (emphasis added).

Respectfully, this is not the test for CR standing that is explicitly set out in the Regulation. The
Associate Dean exceeded her jurisdiction by setting aside the specific language of the Regulation and
substituting her own threshold for the granting of a CR standing.

The relevant section of the regulation is as follows:

“Credit standing is reserved for a course in which a student who has completed all of the work
of the class, including the final examination, and achieved a passing grade in the class, but
due to illness or other extenuating circumstances beyond their control, earned a substantially
lower grade than might have been expected. Normally CR standing is only awarded for a
grade of C or lower. A medical certificate or other documentation outlining how the personal
extenuating circumstances affected the student’s academic performance must be provided
with the petition (see Academic Regulation 10). (Emphasis added)
1.7.1.4 – To Request Credit (CR) Standing in a Course 

- 2 -

The requirement as set out in the Regulation is not to “meet all of the learning outcomes”, a term that
the Associate Dean does not explain or define in her decision. Rather, the Regulation specifically
refers to the need for the student to: “complete all the work of the class, including the final examination
and achieve a passing grade in the class”.

The language of the Regulation is specific, and presumably deliberate. It is more permissive than the new threshold set out in the Associate Dean’s decision. In fact, I did complete all the work, I did complete the final examination, and I did achieve a passing grade in the class. Unfortunately, my grade (D-) was a much lower grade than I expected and
not to the level of my abilities. The conditions set out in the Regulation are therefore met.

As mentioned, the Associate Dean’s decision does not set out or particularize which “learning
outcome(s)” was or were not met. The term “learning outcome” is found nowhere in the Regulation
1.7.1.4. Likewise, it is not found in Academic Regulation 10.1.1 – Long Descriptors, which provide a
more detailed guide to what each grade letter signifies.

It is not possible to understand from her decision how she came to this conclusion when I received an
official passing grade on this course. This failure to explain and particularize the “learning outcomes” I
allegedly did not complete - despite achieving a passing grade - constitutes a breach of procedural
fairness in that I had no notice of this new standard and no opportunity to address it. I have no way of
knowing which “learning outcomes” I did not complete or of responding to this argument. In fact, I did
complete all of the course work, I did attend as many of the classes and tutorials I could in my
circumstances, and I did take the final examination.

Respectfully, the Associate Dean’s new standard of “achieving all learning outcomes” effectively
imposes a new CR threshold of C-. A review of Academic Regulation 10.1.1 (Grade Long descriptors)
indicates that all D grades signal “unsatisfactory comprehension of course materials” but nonetheless
award the credit. It is implicit in a D grade that not all learning outcomes have been achieved,
otherwise the grade would be higher. The grade of C- is the first grade that signals “a minimally
acceptable comprehension of course materials” which one could potentially interpret as all learning
outcomes having been met. The drafters of Academic Regulation 1.7.1.4 knew this when they set out
the requirements for CR Standing. They deliberately set the threshold at a “passing grade”. They
understood that a passing grade could be awarded where comprehension of course materials was not
satisfactory. They did not set the threshold at C- or a C.

I respectfully submit that it was not open to the Associate Dean to “look behind” my passing grade and
retroactively, without notice, determine I had not met “all learning outcomes”. Presumably, if I had met
all learning outcomes, I would not have obtained a D-. Again, the Associate Dean’s adoption of a new
eligibility standard exceeds her jurisdiction.

While the Associate Dean does not explicitly say so in her reasons (another breach of procedural
fairness), she appears to rely on a “Note” regarding petition for CR standing. This Note entitled:
“Advice for students:” is not part of the Regulation and should not be relied upon in support of the new
“learning outcomes” standard the Associate Dean relies on. The Advice for Student Note reads:
“A student who did not complete each and every component in the class would not be eligible
for Credit Standing and may want to consider repeating the course in a future term if they are
concerned with the impact their grade has on their cumulative GPA (emphasis added).”

The Associate Dean’s decision is not consistent with this “Advice to Students”. The Note does not
refer to or speak of “learning outcomes”. Rather, the Note refers to completing the components of the
course. The Note does not set out a requirement that the student “pass” each component of the
course but rather that the student “complete each of them. Completion of a course component is an
identifiable objective metric. A “learning outcome” is neither. I may not have obtained a stellar grade

- 3 -

on each and every component of the course, but that is not the standard set out in the Regulation. I
completed each component and I obtained a passing grade in the course.
The Associate Dean’s approach unduly restricts the availability of a CR Standing to a very narrow set
of circumstances where a student battling illness or other personal extenuating circumstances, must
meet “all learning outcomes”, which appears to mean obtaining a satisfactory grade on all components
of the course and obtaining a final grade higher than a D- but lower than a C (generally acceptable
comprehension).

Respectfully, this approach is not realistic. It does not align with the text of the Regulation or with the
overarching objective of the CR policy which is to assist students who are facing extenuating
circumstances and are struggling with their academic load and performance.
In those circumstances, it is entirely foreseeable that a student who stumbles on some of the
tests/assignments would nonetheless persevere in the reasonable hope that they will be able to “make
up” their grade on a final examination.

The Associate Dean’s approach imposes an academic standard for a CR standing which is not found
in the Regulation, and which is not consistent with how final grades are typically determined. A
student can perform poorly on one or more examination(s) or assignment(s) and makeup marks on a
subsequent test(s)/assignment(s) or final exam and obtain a good or very good grade. Ultimately, the
conclusion that I did not meet “all of the learning outcomes” is not relevant to the proper analysis as I
was awarded a passing grade.

The Associate Dean exceeded her jurisdiction and erred in setting aside the clear and specific
language of the Regulation which requires “a passing grade in the class” (an objective standard) and
substituting it with a new indeterminate and subjective standard which is not found in the relevant
sections of Regulation namely that the student must have met “all learning outcomes of the course”.

This new requirement improperly and unnecessarily narrows the scope of the remedy the University
has chosen to offer students who have been affected by extenuating personal circumstances.

2) Imposing on the student experiencing personal extenuating circumstances, such as a
significant health issue the obligation to seek assistance and/or withdraw from the course
before a final grade is known and; to anticipate the evolution and impact of their health issue
on their grade:

In her decision, the Associate Dean acknowledged my extenuating circumstances. Specifically, she
stated:

“Regarding your request for Credit Standing in POLS 261 (F25), I
acknowledge the extenuating circumstances you described in your petition
letter and I understand how the injury you sustained affected you during
the 2025 Fall term, as confirmed by the documentation you supplied.”

1 Having acknowledged the nature of my injury did give rise to extenuating circumstances, (as set out in
my initial petition), the Associate Dean nonetheless concluded that it was incumbent upon me, in my
injured state, to have accessed academic supports and/or dropped the course because I was having
difficulty.

1 The sufficiency of those extenuating circumstances is further evidenced by the fact that the Associate Dean
found them sufficient to grant my request for CR Standing in connection with POLS 211.

- 4 -

“Students are responsible for monitoring their progress in a course and
making use of the academic supports and options available, such as
accommodations through QSAS or short-term Academic Consideration. It is
also the student’s responsibility to pause and evaluate the impact of
extenuating circumstances on their coursework prior to the drop deadline
of the term.”

With respect, this approach is not compatible with the spirit or objective of the Regulation or with the
reality of my situation, nor is it compatible with the reality of accessing scarce resources and support
available to students facing an unexpected multifaceted and evolving health situation. This approach
also fails to take into account the significant financial cost to students who choose to drop a course
after the initial deadline. In this case, the no-cost drop date was Sept. 15, 2025 and I was injured on
Oct 28, with the full scope and severity of the injury not being clear until the result of my initial MRI
being obtained on Nov. 20, 2025.

A CR standing is meant to be available to students who, through no fault of their own are going
through a personal or medical crisis during a semester. While the expectations/responsibilities
outlined by the Associate Dean might be reasonable vis-à-vis students who are having academic
trouble but are not in crisis, they are not reasonable or appropriate where a student such as myself is
struggling with potentially life-altering injuries and the consequences thereof.

As mentioned above, I am attaching to this Appeal Petition a letter of support from Ms. Brenda Leifso
dated April 10, 2026. Ms. Leifso is a psychotherapist at the Queen’s Student Wellness Clinic. I began
seeing her on Feb 13, 2006, after I submitted my initial Petition for a CR. Despite multiple efforts, I
was not able to access those support services before then and therefore was not able to include her
information in my initial petition.

I respectfully submit that her evidence is highly relevant and should
be considered. Her letter sets out, amongst other things, the impact of my injury and its effect on my
ability to meet the Associate Dean’s expectations. Notably, Ms. Leifso explains that:

“In addition to these physical limitations, the student developed clinically significant
depressive symptoms consistent with a stressor-related depressive presentation (i.e.,
features consistent with Major Depressive Episode within the context of medical illness
and functional impairment). These symptoms included persistent low mood,
anhedonia, reduced motivation, fatigue, impaired concentration, and decreased
cognitive efficiency. The interaction between ongoing pain and depressive
symptomatology is well established to compound functional impairment.

Importantly, these symptoms extended beyond mood disturbance and included cognitive
impacts. The student experienced difficulty with attention, information processing, and
executive functioning. The level of psychological distress and physiological strain during
this period would reasonably be expected to impair clear judgment and decision-making
capacity, particularly in high-pressure academic contexts such examinations,
deadlines, and evaluating his own health and capacity to make sound decisions
regarding his course load and ability to participate fully in classes. (emphasis
added)

This period of acute difficulty directly overlapped with the examination period. Despite these
challenges, the student attempted to continue his academic responsibilities; however, the

- 5 -

level of stress and impairment associated with his condition significantly interfered with his
academic performance.”

The Associate Dean’s refusal to grant a CR standing is in part motivated by her finding that it was
incumbent upon me to recognize and appreciate the impact upon me of my injury and to pre-
emptively determine that I should seek assistance and/or abandon the course. As clearly set out in
Ms. Leifo’s letter, this expectation is not reasonable where one of the consequences of the injury
includes psychological distress and impaired executive functions, judgment and decision-making
capacity/ability.

While this specific evidence was not before the Associate Dean, I respectfully submit that
psychological distress stemming from an acute, potentially life-altering injury is not the exception,
it is more likely the norm. My initial petition specifically refers to my level of distress which
became apparent to me only in hindsight. The Associate Dean’s approach is blind to the impact of
injury on a student’s ability or rather inability to access academic support and/or make an informed
decision regarding dropping a course.

These same cognitive difficulties and psychological distress prevented me from recognizing my dire
situation and seeking urgent assistance. While I did seek and obtain some physical therapy through
the Athletic program, those resources did not recognize nor address the psychological distress I
was experiencing.

2 I did the best I could under frightening circumstances. It was only once the
semester was over and after receiving my lower-than-expected grades that I started to appreciate
how much I had been affected. I went home exhausted and defeated and sought counsel and
comfort from my family. After the Christmas holiday break, having benefited from rest and recovery,
I reached a point where I was able to acknowledge my difficulties and recognize that I required
professional psychological assistance and support. I then set about trying to obtain this from the
Queens Student Wellness Clinic and sought the earliest available appointment.

At no point during the semester did any member of the faculty (including my TA) advise me that I was
at risk of failing, nor did any member of the faculty enquire as to my status or intention, nor did any
member of the faculty offer any assistance or caution. I was left entirely to my own devices and
struggled to persevere, turn in every assignment and attend as many lectures and tutorials as I could.
The Associate Dean’s finding that I should have recognized I was at risk of failing and dropped the
course trivializes the efforts I made to persevere in the face of significant adversity. This approach
effectively penalizes a student for attempting to work through injury in the hope of achieving a
reasonable grade. In my state of psychological distress 3 , I thought I could push through and I tried.
Unfortunately, I did not perform to the best of my ability, and I did not obtain the final grade I had
expected in the final examination.

2 My initial petition sets out the extent of my injury as well as the efforts I made to obtain support and treatment.
3 My initial petition specifically refers to my state of emotional distress during the relevant times.

- 6 -

This approach also fails to recognize and give weight to the difficulty in accessing scarce student
resources, even more so during exam periods. It also fails to consider and make any allowance for the
enormous struggle that comes with overcoming the shame and stigma that (unfortunately) remains
associated with seeking counselling or psychological support.

Conclusion:

I respectfully submit that the two errors I have identified and discussed herein, alone or in
combination, are such that the Associate Dean’s decision does not fall within the range of “reasonable
decision” that should be upheld by the Board of Studies.

The Associate Dean went beyond her jurisdiction in adopting a new CR eligibility standard not found in
the Regulation. This means that her decision is not anchored in the applicable Regulation and as such
it warrants no deference. The adoption of such a new amorphous standard/threshold also amounts to
a breach of procedural fairness in that students such as me would not have clarity as to what test they
need to meet to be eligible for CR Standing.

The Regulation sets out clear identifiable criteria for eligibility for CR. I met them. A Queen’s official
passing grade should not be set aside as irrelevant. To do so would raise a number of issues that go
well beyond the four corners of this appeal.

Furthermore, and in addition to the “legal” errors in the Associate Dean’s decision, her expectation of
clear and methodical thinking and insight from students struggling through crisis is not and should not
be the standard against which to evaluate a request for CR standing.

I acknowledge the Associate Dean did not have the benefit of Ms. Leifso’s letter of support when she
rendered her initial decision. That said, my initial Petition clearly set out the efforts I had made to seek
medical assistance. My initial petition also specifically acknowledged that, in hindsight, my decision to
try and persevere was clouded and ultimately not in my best interest.

As I stated in my initial petition:

“In summary, during the Fall 2025 term I sustained a significant injury participating in varsity
sports. I fractured one of my lumbar vertebrae and suffered from a bulging disc. The injury
turned out to be much more severe than initially thought which led to some delay in diagnosis
and treatment. I chose to persevere and opted to stay the course rather than go back home to
Ottawa. In hindsight, it’s clear that the physical and psychological sequelae of the fractures
directly and significantly interfered with my ability to attend classes, participate in required
academic activities, concentrate, study and perform at my usual academic level in all my
classes, but particularly in POLS 211 and POLS 261.”

Ms. Leifso’s letter confirms that my level of distress during the relevant time interfered with my ability
to make sound decisions regarding accessing additional resources (which may or may not have been
available) and make sound decisions regarding withdrawing or persevering.

I respectfully submit that Ms. Leifso’s letter brings about clarity to the extent of the extenuating circumstances I was facing and makes it clear that the expectations set out in Associate Dean’s decision are not reasonable or
appropriate in the circumstances of my case.

I respectfully request that my appeal be allowed and that I receive a CR standing in POLS 261 (F25).

Sincerely, 
Philippe de Courville Nicol Baril 
20476230