Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 12060
Submitted: June 14, 2024 at 11:08:47 PM
First Name: Payton
Last Name: Ford
Pronoun: She/Her
Student Number: 20180605
Email: 19pcf@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: CLST
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Waive the requirement to withdraw for a minimum of three years
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 282
Submitted: July 27, 2024 at 12:52:40 PM
Relevant Petition: 12060
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Waive the requirement to withdraw for a minimum of three years
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:
- 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 requesting to appeal the decision of the Associate Dean as I feel the decision was unreasonable. In Dr Stephenson’s letter, there are multiple instances in which she makes statements that demonstrate a misunderstanding or misrepresentation of the information provided in my initial appeal. In her statement: “I acknowledge that the documentation that you supplied dated June 16, 2024 confirms academic impacts during the 2023 Fall and 2024 Winter terms however, it also suggests that the extenuating circumstances are chronic and not unexpected during these terms. I want to let you know that the petition process is not meant to be used to manage a chronic condition.” Dr Stephenson implies that my appeal has been made to manage my chronic extenuating circumstances and that I returned to studies knowing my health would be of extreme detriment to my academic success. This is not the case; she demonstrates a misunderstanding of the unpredictable and ambiguous nature of chronic illness and a misunderstanding of the facts presented by myself and my healthcare practitioners in the documents provided. I also feel that Dr Stephenson did not provide adequate reasons or explanations for the reasons provided in her letter. Dr Stephenson states: “I have denied this request as your petition did not demonstrate to me that your extenuating circumstances are being managed in a way that would allow you to be successful in future classes.” This is followed by her expressing her hopes that I can make changes to improve my situation. In the documentation provided changes and improvements were detailed and future plans and recommendations/accommodations were outlined as well. The contact information for both my Physician and my Psychotherapist were provided as a means to further discuss the facts of the situation if Dr Stephenson had any questions and concerns or required clarity on any of the documents or information provided. I will elaborate further on the grounds of my appeal in my appeal letter.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear members of the Board of Studies,
I am writing to you to request an appeal of the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my request to waive the the Faculty ruling that I be
I am writing to you to request an appeal of the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my request to waive the the Faculty ruling that I be
Documentation
Document: BT Payton Ford Letters.pdf

