Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13828
Submitted: January 3, 2026 at 4:51:54 PM
First Name: Vanessa
Last Name: Vine
Pronoun: She/her
Preferred Name: Vanessa
Student Number: 20400270
Email: vanessa.vine52@gmail.com
Degree Program: BSc
Plan: BIOL
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Code: MATH 121
Term: Summer
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses
Instructor's Name: Ping Li
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 352
Submitted: February 18, 2026 at 9:17:12 PM
Relevant Petition: 13828
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request credit (CR) standing in a course or courses: MATH 121, Summer 2025 (Ping Li)
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.
Appeal Grounds Details: I am appealing the Associate Dean’s decision on the grounds that it was not reasonable in light of the full factual context and that key elements of the decision are not supported by the evidence.
The decision states that unresolved technical difficulties during online exams are expected to be addressed through Queen’s IT Services and suggests that this responsibility was not fulfilled. However, I did contact Queen’s IT Services during the disruptions. Their involvement did not resolve the issue, as the problem originated within the ProctorU platform itself. I remained actively engaged with both ProctorU support and Queen's IT while under time constraints during a live, high-stakes examination. Despite these efforts, the disruptions persisted and ultimately resulted in the exam timing out.
The implication that the matter could have been resolved had I contacted IT does not reflect the reality of the situation. I took reasonable and proactive steps both before and during the examinations. Prior to the final exam, I even requested to write in person due to concerns about repeated technical instability. This request was denied. I completed all required system checks, switched computers, and logged in early. The issues that occurred were not due to neglect or failure on my part.
Additionally, the prolonged delays and repeated troubleshooting during both examinations imposed significant cognitive and psychological strain. During the midterm, I was delayed approximately three hours and remained under surveillance for nearly six consecutive hours without the ability to properly step away, reset, or re-energize (eat or drink). During the final exam, I was disconnected 45 minutes into the assessment and spent the remainder of the exam window attempting to regain access while the exam clock continued running. This created acute stress, time pressure, and mental fatigue that materially impaired my ability to demonstrate my knowledge.
Regulation 1.1 refers to “significantly extenuating circumstances… beyond a student’s control and debilitating to academic performance.” While medical events are common examples, the regulation does not restrict extenuating circumstances exclusively to medical documentation. The prolonged technical failures, compounded by the mental strain of repeated system breakdowns during high-stakes evaluations, were beyond my control and directly debilitating to my academic performance.
The decision appears to treat these disruptions as ordinary technical inconvenience rather than extraordinary interference with assessment conditions. However, the pattern of repeated failures across both major examinations demonstrates that this was not an isolated minor issue. The cumulative impact significantly altered my testing environment, compromised fairness and the ability for concentration.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the decision did not fully consider the documented steps I took, the involvement of Queen’s IT, or the substantial psychological strain caused by the prolonged technical disruptions. I therefore request that the Board reconsider my petition for a CR designation in MATH 121.
The decision states that unresolved technical difficulties during online exams are expected to be addressed through Queen’s IT Services and suggests that this responsibility was not fulfilled. However, I did contact Queen’s IT Services during the disruptions. Their involvement did not resolve the issue, as the problem originated within the ProctorU platform itself. I remained actively engaged with both ProctorU support and Queen's IT while under time constraints during a live, high-stakes examination. Despite these efforts, the disruptions persisted and ultimately resulted in the exam timing out.
The implication that the matter could have been resolved had I contacted IT does not reflect the reality of the situation. I took reasonable and proactive steps both before and during the examinations. Prior to the final exam, I even requested to write in person due to concerns about repeated technical instability. This request was denied. I completed all required system checks, switched computers, and logged in early. The issues that occurred were not due to neglect or failure on my part.
Additionally, the prolonged delays and repeated troubleshooting during both examinations imposed significant cognitive and psychological strain. During the midterm, I was delayed approximately three hours and remained under surveillance for nearly six consecutive hours without the ability to properly step away, reset, or re-energize (eat or drink). During the final exam, I was disconnected 45 minutes into the assessment and spent the remainder of the exam window attempting to regain access while the exam clock continued running. This created acute stress, time pressure, and mental fatigue that materially impaired my ability to demonstrate my knowledge.
Regulation 1.1 refers to “significantly extenuating circumstances… beyond a student’s control and debilitating to academic performance.” While medical events are common examples, the regulation does not restrict extenuating circumstances exclusively to medical documentation. The prolonged technical failures, compounded by the mental strain of repeated system breakdowns during high-stakes evaluations, were beyond my control and directly debilitating to my academic performance.
The decision appears to treat these disruptions as ordinary technical inconvenience rather than extraordinary interference with assessment conditions. However, the pattern of repeated failures across both major examinations demonstrates that this was not an isolated minor issue. The cumulative impact significantly altered my testing environment, compromised fairness and the ability for concentration.
For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the decision did not fully consider the documented steps I took, the involvement of Queen’s IT, or the substantial psychological strain caused by the prolonged technical disruptions. I therefore request that the Board reconsider my petition for a CR designation in MATH 121.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: I am respectfully appealing the Associate Dean’s decision denying my petition for a CR designation in MATH 121 (Summer 2025). I understand that petitions under Academic Regulation 1.1 are granted only where significantly extenuating circumstances exist that are beyond a student’s control and debilitating to academic performance. I believe that the repeated and severe technical disruptions I experienced during both major examinations meet this threshold, and that the decision did not fully consider the extent, impact, and documentation of these events.
The decision letter notes that unresolved technical difficulties during online exams are expected to be addressed through Queen’s IT Services and suggests that this responsibility was not fulfilled. I would like to clarify that I did contact Queen’s IT Services during the disruptions. However, the issue stemmed from the ProctorU platform itself, and IT Services was unable to resolve the underlying malfunction. Throughout both examinations, I was actively engaged with ProctorU technical support while under live proctoring conditions and severe time constraints. Despite these efforts, the disruptions persisted.
During the midterm examination in June, I was unable to access the exam at the scheduled start time due to repeated system errors. I worked with multiple ProctorU support agents and was ultimately delayed approximately three hours before beginning the exam. By the time I completed it, I had been seated in the same room under surveillance for nearly six consecutive hours. I was unable to properly step away, eat, or reset mentally without violating proctoring conditions. The prolonged delay created substantial mental fatigue and stress before I was even able to begin writing.
In preparation for the final examination, I took additional proactive steps to prevent recurrence. I switched computers, completed all required equipment checks well in advance, logged in early, and contacted my instructor beforehand to request the opportunity to write in person due to concerns about the instability experienced during the midterm. This request was denied. Despite these precautions, approximately 45 minutes into the final exam I was abruptly disconnected. I then spent the remainder of the three-hour exam window working with nearly a dozen ProctorU support personnel while the exam clock continued running. By the time access was restored, the exam had automatically timed out. I was informed that no further action could be taken on their end and my professor was unable to continue the exam for me.
These were not minor or momentary technical inconveniences. They fundamentally altered the conditions under which I was required to complete two high-stakes assessments. The extended delays, uncertainty, and pressure of troubleshooting during timed examinations created significant psychological strain that directly impaired my ability to demonstrate my knowledge. Regulation 1.1 refers to significantly extenuating circumstances beyond a student’s control that are debilitating to academic performance. While medical events are common examples, the regulation does not restrict extenuating circumstances exclusively to medical documentation. The repeated failure of a mandatory third-party proctoring system, despite my reasonable and proactive efforts, was entirely beyond my control and had a debilitating effect on my performance.
The Associate Dean’s decision appears to rely heavily on the expectation that contacting IT Services would have resolved the matter. However, I did seek IT assistance, and the issue remained unresolved because it originated within the proctoring system. Additionally, I took preventative steps prior to the second exam, demonstrating responsibility and good faith. The pattern of disruption across both examinations indicates that this was not an isolated, ordinary technical issue but an extraordinary circumstance that materially compromised assessment fairness.
Despite these challenges, I met with my professor during office hours in September in an effort to improve my standing in the course. However, due to the incompleteness of the final examination submission, opportunities for partial credit were extremely limited. These circumstances were entirely beyond my control and do not reflect a lack of preparation or effort on my part. The repeated technical disruptions and extensive troubleshooting significantly interfered with my exam performance and directly contributed to a final grade that does not accurately represent my academic ability or understanding of the course material.
I respectfully submit that the full severity, repetition, and cognitive impact of these disruptions were not fully weighed in the initial decision. Given the documented technical difficulties, I am requesting MATH 121 to be designated as CR on my transcript. Granting this request would allow my academic record to more accurately reflect my true performance.
Thank you,
Vanessa
The decision letter notes that unresolved technical difficulties during online exams are expected to be addressed through Queen’s IT Services and suggests that this responsibility was not fulfilled. I would like to clarify that I did contact Queen’s IT Services during the disruptions. However, the issue stemmed from the ProctorU platform itself, and IT Services was unable to resolve the underlying malfunction. Throughout both examinations, I was actively engaged with ProctorU technical support while under live proctoring conditions and severe time constraints. Despite these efforts, the disruptions persisted.
During the midterm examination in June, I was unable to access the exam at the scheduled start time due to repeated system errors. I worked with multiple ProctorU support agents and was ultimately delayed approximately three hours before beginning the exam. By the time I completed it, I had been seated in the same room under surveillance for nearly six consecutive hours. I was unable to properly step away, eat, or reset mentally without violating proctoring conditions. The prolonged delay created substantial mental fatigue and stress before I was even able to begin writing.
In preparation for the final examination, I took additional proactive steps to prevent recurrence. I switched computers, completed all required equipment checks well in advance, logged in early, and contacted my instructor beforehand to request the opportunity to write in person due to concerns about the instability experienced during the midterm. This request was denied. Despite these precautions, approximately 45 minutes into the final exam I was abruptly disconnected. I then spent the remainder of the three-hour exam window working with nearly a dozen ProctorU support personnel while the exam clock continued running. By the time access was restored, the exam had automatically timed out. I was informed that no further action could be taken on their end and my professor was unable to continue the exam for me.
These were not minor or momentary technical inconveniences. They fundamentally altered the conditions under which I was required to complete two high-stakes assessments. The extended delays, uncertainty, and pressure of troubleshooting during timed examinations created significant psychological strain that directly impaired my ability to demonstrate my knowledge. Regulation 1.1 refers to significantly extenuating circumstances beyond a student’s control that are debilitating to academic performance. While medical events are common examples, the regulation does not restrict extenuating circumstances exclusively to medical documentation. The repeated failure of a mandatory third-party proctoring system, despite my reasonable and proactive efforts, was entirely beyond my control and had a debilitating effect on my performance.
The Associate Dean’s decision appears to rely heavily on the expectation that contacting IT Services would have resolved the matter. However, I did seek IT assistance, and the issue remained unresolved because it originated within the proctoring system. Additionally, I took preventative steps prior to the second exam, demonstrating responsibility and good faith. The pattern of disruption across both examinations indicates that this was not an isolated, ordinary technical issue but an extraordinary circumstance that materially compromised assessment fairness.
Despite these challenges, I met with my professor during office hours in September in an effort to improve my standing in the course. However, due to the incompleteness of the final examination submission, opportunities for partial credit were extremely limited. These circumstances were entirely beyond my control and do not reflect a lack of preparation or effort on my part. The repeated technical disruptions and extensive troubleshooting significantly interfered with my exam performance and directly contributed to a final grade that does not accurately represent my academic ability or understanding of the course material.
I respectfully submit that the full severity, repetition, and cognitive impact of these disruptions were not fully weighed in the initial decision. Given the documented technical difficulties, I am requesting MATH 121 to be designated as CR on my transcript. Granting this request would allow my academic record to more accurately reflect my true performance.
Thank you,
Vanessa