Submit an Academic Petition or Appeal

Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,

I am writing to appeal the decision of the Associate Dean (Academic) regarding my petition for a further deferred final exam in CHEM 281 (Summer 2025). I am appealing on the grounds of procedural fairness and unreasonableness, as outlined in Appeal Regulation 3.4.

I have a documented chronic illness and disability and am formally registered with QSAS. I provided complete medical documentation confirming I was medically unable to write the deferred exam due to a flare-up of my condition. The Associate Dean’s decision letter acknowledges that my circumstances prevented me from completing the exam during both the scheduled and deferred periods. Despite this, my petition was denied solely because the instructor declined to support an additional deferral.

1. Breach of Procedural Fairness — Instructor Preference Was Given More Weight Than Medical Evidence:
The decision placed my access to disability accommodations at the discretion of an individual instructor, which is incompatible with both university policy and the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Code requires that students with disabilities be accommodated to the point of undue hardship, and instructor preference or scheduling constraints do not meet that threshold.

My physician, who understands my condition, provided medical documentation verifying I could not write during the deferred period. The instructor is not a medical professional, yet his availability ultimately carried more weight than the medical evidence supporting my accommodation request. Accommodation decisions should be grounded in medical need and institutional responsibility, not instructor availability.

By deferring entirely to the instructor’s refusal and not independently assessing what accommodations were feasible and appropriate, the decision lacked fairness, neutrality, and proper consideration of the medical evidence. This constitutes a breach of procedural fairness.

2. Unreasonable Decision — Not Grounded in Evidence or Policy:
A reasonable decision must be logically supported by the evidence and aligned with policy. In my case, the evidence clearly established that I was medically unable to write during the deferred period. The Associate Dean acknowledged this, yet still denied my request solely because of the instructor’s unwillingness to facilitate further exams.

Although I was offered two deferred exam dates (August 6 and September 5), both of these options fell entirely within the period during which I was medically unfit to write, as confirmed by my physician. Providing exam dates that occur within a medically restricted period does not constitute meaningful or accessible accommodation. A student cannot be considered accommodated simply because dates were offered if those dates fall during timelines the University knew—through medical evidence—I could not meet.

Once the University was aware that I remained medically unable to write during both deferred periods, it had an obligation to explore additional, reasonable forms of accommodation, such as:
• scheduling a written exam later in the term,
• offering a proctored online exam,
• arranging an alternate invigilator, or
• assigning an “incomplete” grade with completion at a later date.

None of these options were considered or offered, despite their alignment with Queen’s accessibility policies and the duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship. Instead, the only option presented to me was to drop the course. This outcome disregards my documented medical limitations, overlooks the professional medical evidence submitted, and effectively penalizes me for circumstances entirely outside my control.

3. Failure to Consider the Instructor’s Earlier Indication That a Later Exam Was Possible:
In early August, the instructor communicated to me that if another deferral were required, it would likely be arranged several weeks into the Fall term, once he returned to campus and was able to accommodate it. This directly contradicts the conclusion that the instructor was “unable” to offer further deferrals. His communication indicated both an expectation and a willingness to arrange an additional deferred assessment later in the Fall term.

This reasonable and feasible option was never explored or acknowledged during the petition process, despite being identified by the instructor himself before the decision was made. The omission of this relevant information further contributes to the unreasonableness and procedural unfairness of the decision.

For clarity, I have summarized the instructor’s communication and can provide the full email upon request. I have not attached it here only because the appeal form specifies submitting professional supporting documentation.

4. Failure to Apply Accessibility Principles:
Queen’s policies require that students who provide appropriate medical documentation should not be academically disadvantaged due to disability-related impacts. I followed every required procedure, submitted timely documentation, and acted in good faith. Yet the final outcome denied me the opportunity to demonstrate my learning, even though my inability to write the exam was medically verified.

5. The Consequences Are Inherently Unfair:
I am not seeking special treatment or academic advantage. I am simply asking for the chance to complete an exam I was medically unable to write due to a documented flare-up of a chronic illness I have managed since I was seventeen. I would understand resistance if I were requesting something unreasonable, but I am only asking for a fair and accessible opportunity to complete the course.

I also believe it is important to provide context regarding my interactions with the course instructor. Throughout the summer, when I communicated openly about my disability-related health challenges, I was repeatedly encouraged to drop the course rather than be supported in pursuing accommodations. This pattern left me feeling discouraged and unsupported, and contributed to an environment in which my medical needs felt like an inconvenience rather than a legitimate basis for accommodation.

With a prestigious institution such as Queen’s, it is disheartening that in 2025 I still find myself having to fight for equitable access to education. As a student with a documented disability, it is deeply upsetting to feel that the very systems intended to support me instead created additional barriers to my academic success. I am hopeful that through this appeal, the University will reaffirm its commitment to accessible, fair, and disability-informed processes.

I respectfully request that the Board of Studies permit me to complete the CHEM 281 final exam during the upcoming exam period through either a further deferral or an alternative, written and accessible method of evaluation.

Thank you very much for your time and careful consideration of my appeal.

Sincerely,
Meera Feerasta