Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14124
Submitted: April 5, 2026 at 4:15:11 PM
First Name: Mia
Last Name: Dewdney
Pronoun: she/her
Student Number: 20387129
Email: 22lrl2@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BA
Plan: EMPR
Level of Study: 2
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Waive the 21-day or one term deadline
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 366
Submitted: May 11, 2026 at 1:39:18 PM
Relevant Petition: 14124
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Waive the 21-day or one term deadline
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 grounds set out in Appeal Regulation 2.1, specifically that the decision failed to follow the rules of procedural fairness and was not reasonable.
On April 4, 2025, before withdrawing from POLS 112, I contacted academic advising because I had received little to no feedback in the course and no information regarding the final exam or remaining coursework due to the PSAC labour disruption. I was advised that it would be safer to drop the course rather than risk failing it and appealing afterward. Acting in good faith and relying on this advice, I withdrew from the course.
The following day, on April 5, the course instructor informed students that the final exam had been cancelled and that all students would receive an additional 25 days to submit outstanding coursework, regardless of how much work had previously been completed. Had this information been communicated prior to my withdrawal, I would not have dropped the course.
I respectfully submit that the decision was procedurally unfair because it did not adequately address the impact of the timing of the April 5 announcement. Students who remained enrolled for one additional day received accommodations that fundamentally changed the course requirements, while I was excluded solely because I relied on the information and advice available at the time.
I also submit that the decision was unreasonable because it relied heavily on the fact that approximately 10% of the coursework had been completed at the time of withdrawal, without fully considering that the course requirements were materially altered on April 5 when the final exam was cancelled and extensions were granted to all students. Regulation 1.7.1.5 states that such requests are “normally” considered in certain circumstances, which indicates discretion may be exercised in exceptional cases. I respectfully submit that the labour disruption, lack of course communication, reliance on academic advising, and immediate post-withdrawal course changes constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a fair and flexible application of the regulation.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board reconsider the decision and permit my reinstatement into the course so that I may receive the same opportunity afforded to other students following the April 5 course modifications.
On April 4, 2025, before withdrawing from POLS 112, I contacted academic advising because I had received little to no feedback in the course and no information regarding the final exam or remaining coursework due to the PSAC labour disruption. I was advised that it would be safer to drop the course rather than risk failing it and appealing afterward. Acting in good faith and relying on this advice, I withdrew from the course.
The following day, on April 5, the course instructor informed students that the final exam had been cancelled and that all students would receive an additional 25 days to submit outstanding coursework, regardless of how much work had previously been completed. Had this information been communicated prior to my withdrawal, I would not have dropped the course.
I respectfully submit that the decision was procedurally unfair because it did not adequately address the impact of the timing of the April 5 announcement. Students who remained enrolled for one additional day received accommodations that fundamentally changed the course requirements, while I was excluded solely because I relied on the information and advice available at the time.
I also submit that the decision was unreasonable because it relied heavily on the fact that approximately 10% of the coursework had been completed at the time of withdrawal, without fully considering that the course requirements were materially altered on April 5 when the final exam was cancelled and extensions were granted to all students. Regulation 1.7.1.5 states that such requests are “normally” considered in certain circumstances, which indicates discretion may be exercised in exceptional cases. I respectfully submit that the labour disruption, lack of course communication, reliance on academic advising, and immediate post-withdrawal course changes constituted exceptional circumstances warranting a fair and flexible application of the regulation.
For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Board reconsider the decision and permit my reinstatement into the course so that I may receive the same opportunity afforded to other students following the April 5 course modifications.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: This petition is not a matter of asking for special considerations or accommodations. I am arguing procedural unfairness and unequal access to accommodations that were announced only after I withdrew based on the Academic Advising offices advice.
To begin, the Associate Dean’s letter argues that “only 10% of the course work had been completed” at the time of my unenrollment from the course. The issue is not whether I had completed the majority of the coursework by April 4th under ordinary course conditions. The issue is that on April 5th, the course requirements and deadlines were substantially modified for all remaining students to the labour disruptions. Had I remained enrolled for one additional day, I would have received the same 25-day extension to complete outstanding work regardless of prior completion status.
Second, the Associate Dean argues that I “would not have qualified even if the petition was submitted earlier.” This argument relies on the assumption that the original course structure remained in effect. However, the professor subsequently cancelled the final exam and extended deadlines for all remaining coursework. As a result, the academic requirements relevant to successful completion of the course materially changed following my withdrawal.
Third, the Associate Dean applies Academic Petitions and Appeals Regulation 1.7.1.5., which suggests that “students unable to complete the majority of work should consider dropping the class. The Dean fails to recognize that I did follow that guidance and advice from the Academic Advising office before acting; I withdrew specifically to avoid academic harm in the absence of information from the professor. I acted reasonably and in good faith based on the information available to me at the time and the advice provided by the guidance office, which the Associate Dean acknowledges. However, I should not be disadvantaged because critical information regarding altered course requirements and extensions was communicated only after the course drop deadline had effectively passed.
Fourth, the associate dean acknowledges that I “dropped the course in good faith” but doesn’t fully apply the implications. The timing of the April 5th email is central to this appeal. The information necessary to make an informed academic decision was not available to me before I withdrew. The very next day, students who remained enrolled were granted accommodations that fundamentally changed the course completion requirements. Procedurally fairness supports allowing me access to the same opportunity that would have been available had this information been communicated earlier.
Fifth, the Associate Dean acknowledges the strike and disruption, but fails to fully consider its practical impact, especially on students like myself who are registered with the Queen’s Student Accessibility Services. With the strike came a lack of feedback, uncertainty around grading, uncertainty around examinations, absence of communication, and a strict reliance on the Academic Advising office as a result of that uncertainty. As such, this was not a situation in which a student simply fell behind. The course itself was in flux due to the labour disruption.
As a result of this flux, I made an irreversible decision based on incomplete institutional information and university advice, one day before accommodations were universally extended to all remaining students. I am not requesting special treatment beyond what was already offered to every other student enrolled in POLS 112. My request is simply to be restored to the same position I would have occupied had the relevant information been communicated prior to my withdrawal.
To begin, the Associate Dean’s letter argues that “only 10% of the course work had been completed” at the time of my unenrollment from the course. The issue is not whether I had completed the majority of the coursework by April 4th under ordinary course conditions. The issue is that on April 5th, the course requirements and deadlines were substantially modified for all remaining students to the labour disruptions. Had I remained enrolled for one additional day, I would have received the same 25-day extension to complete outstanding work regardless of prior completion status.
Second, the Associate Dean argues that I “would not have qualified even if the petition was submitted earlier.” This argument relies on the assumption that the original course structure remained in effect. However, the professor subsequently cancelled the final exam and extended deadlines for all remaining coursework. As a result, the academic requirements relevant to successful completion of the course materially changed following my withdrawal.
Third, the Associate Dean applies Academic Petitions and Appeals Regulation 1.7.1.5., which suggests that “students unable to complete the majority of work should consider dropping the class. The Dean fails to recognize that I did follow that guidance and advice from the Academic Advising office before acting; I withdrew specifically to avoid academic harm in the absence of information from the professor. I acted reasonably and in good faith based on the information available to me at the time and the advice provided by the guidance office, which the Associate Dean acknowledges. However, I should not be disadvantaged because critical information regarding altered course requirements and extensions was communicated only after the course drop deadline had effectively passed.
Fourth, the associate dean acknowledges that I “dropped the course in good faith” but doesn’t fully apply the implications. The timing of the April 5th email is central to this appeal. The information necessary to make an informed academic decision was not available to me before I withdrew. The very next day, students who remained enrolled were granted accommodations that fundamentally changed the course completion requirements. Procedurally fairness supports allowing me access to the same opportunity that would have been available had this information been communicated earlier.
Fifth, the Associate Dean acknowledges the strike and disruption, but fails to fully consider its practical impact, especially on students like myself who are registered with the Queen’s Student Accessibility Services. With the strike came a lack of feedback, uncertainty around grading, uncertainty around examinations, absence of communication, and a strict reliance on the Academic Advising office as a result of that uncertainty. As such, this was not a situation in which a student simply fell behind. The course itself was in flux due to the labour disruption.
As a result of this flux, I made an irreversible decision based on incomplete institutional information and university advice, one day before accommodations were universally extended to all remaining students. I am not requesting special treatment beyond what was already offered to every other student enrolled in POLS 112. My request is simply to be restored to the same position I would have occupied had the relevant information been communicated prior to my withdrawal.
Documentation
Document: emailfromprofPDF.pdf