Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 13888
Submitted: January 16, 2026 at 3:39:21 PM
First Name: Holly
Last Name: Gomes
Pronoun: she/her
Student Number: 20334599
Email: 21hamg@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BAH
Plan: PSYC
Level of Study: 3
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Request an extension of an exam deferral
Code: CHEM 281
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request an extension of an exam deferral
Instructor's Name: John Carran
Component: Final Exam
Code: PSYC 301
Term: Fall
Year: 2025
Petition Category: Request an extension of an exam deferral
Instructor's Name: Leandre Fabrigar
Component: Final Exam
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 353
Submitted: February 27, 2026 at 1:22:14 PM
Relevant Petition: 13888
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Request an extension of an exam deferral: CHEM 281, Fall 2025 (John Carran): Final Exam
Request an extension of an exam deferral: PSYC 301, Fall 2025 (Leandre Fabrigar): Final Exam
Request an extension of an exam deferral: PSYC 301, Fall 2025 (Leandre Fabrigar): Final Exam
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: Ground: The Associate Dean did not make a reasonable decision in my appeal.
The decision letter states that my petition did not include documentation confirming that an extenuating circumstance prevented me from writing the exams during the 2025 Fall term as originally scheduled.
However, my petition was not seeking to justify my absence during the original Fall 2025 exam period. I had already deferred those examinations through QSAS accommodations due to my registered disability in Ventus.
My petition concerned my inability to write the deferred January sitting due to a separate health-related illness. The medical documentation submitted confirms that I was unwell and unable to write my upcoming examinations, and that accommodations to reschedule would be required.
Because the decision appears to assess whether documentation was provided for the Fall 2025 exam period, rather than the January deferred sitting that was the subject of my petition, I respectfully submit that the rationale does not directly address the request made.
A reasonable decision must be based on the relevant facts and must logically correspond to the issue under consideration. I therefore respectfully request reconsideration of my petition with specific reference to the January deferred examination period and the attached medical documentation supporting my inability to write at that time.
The decision letter states that my petition did not include documentation confirming that an extenuating circumstance prevented me from writing the exams during the 2025 Fall term as originally scheduled.
However, my petition was not seeking to justify my absence during the original Fall 2025 exam period. I had already deferred those examinations through QSAS accommodations due to my registered disability in Ventus.
My petition concerned my inability to write the deferred January sitting due to a separate health-related illness. The medical documentation submitted confirms that I was unwell and unable to write my upcoming examinations, and that accommodations to reschedule would be required.
Because the decision appears to assess whether documentation was provided for the Fall 2025 exam period, rather than the January deferred sitting that was the subject of my petition, I respectfully submit that the rationale does not directly address the request made.
A reasonable decision must be based on the relevant facts and must logically correspond to the issue under consideration. I therefore respectfully request reconsideration of my petition with specific reference to the January deferred examination period and the attached medical documentation supporting my inability to write at that time.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: Dear Members of the Board of Studies,
I am respectfully appealing the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my petition for an exam deferral in CHEM 281 and PSYC 301.
In the decision letter, it is stated that my petition “did not include documentation to confirm that an extenuating circumstance beyond [my] control prevented [me] from writing these exams during the 2025 Fall term as originally scheduled.” I respectfully submit that this rationale does not fully align with the basis of my petition.
I did not seek to justify my absence during the original Fall 2025 examination period through this petition. Those examinations were formally deferred through QSAS accommodations due to my registered disability, which is documented in Ventus. The January sitting was therefore already a deferred examination period.
My petition concerned my inability to write the January deferred examinations due to a separate health-related illness. At the time of the January sitting, I was assessed in clinic and provided medical documentation confirming that I was unwell and unable to write my upcoming exams, and that accommodations to reschedule would be required once I was feeling better. That documentation was submitted with my petition and is reattached here.
The Associate Dean’s decision appears to assess whether documentation was provided to justify missing the original Fall 2025 examinations. However, that was not the subject of my petition. The subject of my petition was my inability to write during the January deferred examination period due to illness.
A reasonable decision must be grounded in the relevant facts and must logically correspond to the issue under review. In this case, the central reason for denial focuses on the absence of documentation related to the Fall 2025 examination period, rather than evaluating whether sufficient documentation was provided to support my inability to write during the January deferred sitting.
The medical documentation I provided confirms that I was medically unable to write examinations at that time and would require accommodations to reschedule. I understand that Regulation 1.1 requires significantly extenuating circumstances supported by official documentation. My illness during the January sitting constituted a circumstance beyond my control and was supported by documentation from a healthcare provider.
I fully recognize the seriousness of requesting a second deferral and the importance of maintaining academic standards. My request was not made lightly. However, my inability to write during the January deferred period was due to documented illness, not personal choice or convenience.
Given that the rationale for denial focuses on a time period that was not the subject of my petition, I respectfully submit that the decision does not reflect a full and contextual assessment of the issue under consideration. I therefore request that my petition be reconsidered with specific reference to the January deferred examination period and the accompanying medical documentation.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Holly Gomes
Student Number: 20334599
I am respectfully appealing the Associate Dean’s decision to deny my petition for an exam deferral in CHEM 281 and PSYC 301.
In the decision letter, it is stated that my petition “did not include documentation to confirm that an extenuating circumstance beyond [my] control prevented [me] from writing these exams during the 2025 Fall term as originally scheduled.” I respectfully submit that this rationale does not fully align with the basis of my petition.
I did not seek to justify my absence during the original Fall 2025 examination period through this petition. Those examinations were formally deferred through QSAS accommodations due to my registered disability, which is documented in Ventus. The January sitting was therefore already a deferred examination period.
My petition concerned my inability to write the January deferred examinations due to a separate health-related illness. At the time of the January sitting, I was assessed in clinic and provided medical documentation confirming that I was unwell and unable to write my upcoming exams, and that accommodations to reschedule would be required once I was feeling better. That documentation was submitted with my petition and is reattached here.
The Associate Dean’s decision appears to assess whether documentation was provided to justify missing the original Fall 2025 examinations. However, that was not the subject of my petition. The subject of my petition was my inability to write during the January deferred examination period due to illness.
A reasonable decision must be grounded in the relevant facts and must logically correspond to the issue under review. In this case, the central reason for denial focuses on the absence of documentation related to the Fall 2025 examination period, rather than evaluating whether sufficient documentation was provided to support my inability to write during the January deferred sitting.
The medical documentation I provided confirms that I was medically unable to write examinations at that time and would require accommodations to reschedule. I understand that Regulation 1.1 requires significantly extenuating circumstances supported by official documentation. My illness during the January sitting constituted a circumstance beyond my control and was supported by documentation from a healthcare provider.
I fully recognize the seriousness of requesting a second deferral and the importance of maintaining academic standards. My request was not made lightly. However, my inability to write during the January deferred period was due to documented illness, not personal choice or convenience.
Given that the rationale for denial focuses on a time period that was not the subject of my petition, I respectfully submit that the decision does not reflect a full and contextual assessment of the issue under consideration. I therefore request that my petition be reconsidered with specific reference to the January deferred examination period and the accompanying medical documentation.
Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely,
Holly Gomes
Student Number: 20334599
Documentation
Document: Doctor Note -2.pdf