Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13183
Submitted: May 16, 2025 at 7:15:18 PM
First Name: Tiana
Last Name: Tsoukalas
Pronoun: she/her
Student Number: 20343362
Email: 21tpt2@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: PSYC
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: PSYC342
Term: Winter
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Minqian Shen
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 337
Submitted: August 14, 2025 at 4:25:47 PM
Relevant Petition: 13183
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: PSYC342, Winter 2025 (Minqian Shen)
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 appealing the Associate Dean’s decision on the grounds that it was not reasonable under Appeal Regulation 3.4. The decision was based on an incomplete account of the relevant facts, as important medical documentation supporting my petition was not considered. At the time of my original submission, I did not provide this documentation because I believed the impact of the PSAC Local 901 strike alone would be sufficient grounds for granting Credit Standing, based on information provided by a professor. I also believed I could recover academically after the midterm. However, my medical circumstances significantly affected my academic performance, particularly on the February midterm and continued to impact my coursework in combination with the strike disruption. Because the decision concluded there was no extenuating circumstance affecting my midterm without the benefit of this documentation, I believe it is not reasonable. I am now providing official medical evidence for full and fair consideration.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: I am writing to appeal the Associate Dean’s decision regarding my petition for Credit Standing in PSYC 342 (Winter 2025), on the grounds that the decision was not reasonable and therefore did not meet the standard of procedural fairness as outlined in Appeal Regulation 3.4.
In the decision letter, the Associate Dean concluded that there was no extenuating circumstance affecting my performance on the February midterm exam, which was identified as my lowest grade in the course. This conclusion was reached without the benefit of full and relevant evidence. I am now providing additional documentation from my healthcare provider that confirms I experienced significant medical circumstances during that period, which directly impaired my ability to prepare for and perform on that exam.
When I submitted my original petition, I did not include this medical documentation. At the time, I had been informed by one of my professors that, in light of the PSAC Local 901 strike, students could receive Credit Standing if they requested it. Believing this to be sufficient grounds for my petition, I chose not to disclose my medical circumstances, as I expected the strike-related disruption to be recognized as the primary factor affecting my performance. Additionally, I believed I could recover academically after the midterm and did not anticipate the full extent to which my earlier medical condition would continue to affect my coursework.
In reality, my medical circumstances played a substantial role in my academic performance, particularly on the February midterm, which occurred before the strike began. The combination of my ongoing health issues and the later strike disruption compounded the challenges I faced, leading to a final grade that was substantially lower than my typical academic performance. My medical documentation now clearly supports that these were circumstances beyond my control, meeting the Faculty’s definition of “extenuating circumstances” as outlined in Regulation 1.1 and the conditions for Credit Standing described in Regulation 1.7.1.4.
Procedural fairness requires that decisions be reasonable; that is, based on complete evidence, logically reasoned, and adequately explained. In my case, the decision rested on the assumption that no extenuating circumstances impacted my midterm performance, when in fact such circumstances existed and are now documented. Without considering this evidence, the conclusion reached cannot be said to fully meet the reasonableness standard.
I respectfully request that the Board of Studies reconsider my petition in light of this new and relevant evidence. My request is not to reopen the entire case on speculative grounds, but to ensure that the decision is based on a complete and accurate record, as fairness requires. I believe that when my medical circumstances and the strike disruption are both fully considered, my situation meets the established criteria for Credit Standing.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
In the decision letter, the Associate Dean concluded that there was no extenuating circumstance affecting my performance on the February midterm exam, which was identified as my lowest grade in the course. This conclusion was reached without the benefit of full and relevant evidence. I am now providing additional documentation from my healthcare provider that confirms I experienced significant medical circumstances during that period, which directly impaired my ability to prepare for and perform on that exam.
When I submitted my original petition, I did not include this medical documentation. At the time, I had been informed by one of my professors that, in light of the PSAC Local 901 strike, students could receive Credit Standing if they requested it. Believing this to be sufficient grounds for my petition, I chose not to disclose my medical circumstances, as I expected the strike-related disruption to be recognized as the primary factor affecting my performance. Additionally, I believed I could recover academically after the midterm and did not anticipate the full extent to which my earlier medical condition would continue to affect my coursework.
In reality, my medical circumstances played a substantial role in my academic performance, particularly on the February midterm, which occurred before the strike began. The combination of my ongoing health issues and the later strike disruption compounded the challenges I faced, leading to a final grade that was substantially lower than my typical academic performance. My medical documentation now clearly supports that these were circumstances beyond my control, meeting the Faculty’s definition of “extenuating circumstances” as outlined in Regulation 1.1 and the conditions for Credit Standing described in Regulation 1.7.1.4.
Procedural fairness requires that decisions be reasonable; that is, based on complete evidence, logically reasoned, and adequately explained. In my case, the decision rested on the assumption that no extenuating circumstances impacted my midterm performance, when in fact such circumstances existed and are now documented. Without considering this evidence, the conclusion reached cannot be said to fully meet the reasonableness standard.
I respectfully request that the Board of Studies reconsider my petition in light of this new and relevant evidence. My request is not to reopen the entire case on speculative grounds, but to ensure that the decision is based on a complete and accurate record, as fairness requires. I believe that when my medical circumstances and the strike disruption are both fully considered, my situation meets the established criteria for Credit Standing.
Thank you for your time and attention to this matter.
Documentation
Document: 600 SHERBOURNE ST SUITE 309.pdf