Manage Appeals
Petition Type: New
ID: 14165
Submitted: April 13, 2026 at 3:32:56 PM
First Name: Aaron
Last Name: Dominico
Pronoun: He/Him
Preferred Name: Aaron
Student Number: 20475679
Email: 23pnq4@queensu.ca
Degree Program: BScH
Plan: General Science
Level of Study: 2
Petition Categories
Petition Categories: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Code: MATH 112
Term: Winter
Year: 2026
Petition Category: Drop a course after the academic deadline
Level 1 Status
Status: DeniedLevel 2
Appeal Type: Level 2
ID: 363
Submitted: April 30, 2026 at 1:41:57 PM
Relevant Petition: 14165
Decision(s) Being Appealed: Drop a course after the academic deadline: MATH 112, Winter 2026
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: The Associate Dean’s decision was not reasonable and did not follow procedural fairness because it relied on an incorrect interpretation of the course syllabus.
In the decision letter, it is stated that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy and grading scheme would have been outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the term.” However, the syllabus does not state that the best two quizzes are counted for all students. It only specifies that two quizzes will count in cases where a student misses a quiz for a legitimate reason.
This is very critical. A general “best 2 of 3” grading policy was not part of the original syllabus and was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. As a result, the decision is based on a factual inaccuracy.
Because the decision relies on an incorrect claim about the syllabus, it is not supported by the evidence and therefore does not meet the standard of a reasonable decision.
Additionally, the late change to the grading structure impacted my ability to make an informed decision before the academic drop deadline. Without prior knowledge that one quiz would be dropped automatically, I was required to assess my standing based on only two quizzes, representing 30% of the course grade at the time which was barely half of the course total information.
For these reasons, I believe the decision did not sufficiently follow university standards for fairness and reasonableness, and should be reconsidered.
In the decision letter, it is stated that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy and grading scheme would have been outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the term.” However, the syllabus does not state that the best two quizzes are counted for all students. It only specifies that two quizzes will count in cases where a student misses a quiz for a legitimate reason.
This is very critical. A general “best 2 of 3” grading policy was not part of the original syllabus and was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. As a result, the decision is based on a factual inaccuracy.
Because the decision relies on an incorrect claim about the syllabus, it is not supported by the evidence and therefore does not meet the standard of a reasonable decision.
Additionally, the late change to the grading structure impacted my ability to make an informed decision before the academic drop deadline. Without prior knowledge that one quiz would be dropped automatically, I was required to assess my standing based on only two quizzes, representing 30% of the course grade at the time which was barely half of the course total information.
For these reasons, I believe the decision did not sufficiently follow university standards for fairness and reasonableness, and should be reconsidered.
Appeal Letter
Appeal Letter: I am submitting this appeal in response to the denial of my petition to drop MATH 112 (W26) after the academic deadline.
My appeal is based on a discrepancy between the course syllabus and a grading policy that was introduced later in the term, as well as the impact this had on my ability to make an informed decision before the drop deadline.
The decision letter states that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy” was outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the course. However, after reviewing the syllabus carefully, this is not true. The syllabus only states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining two quizzes will count for the full 45%. It does not state that the best two quizzes will be counted for all students.
This distinction is important because the general “best 2 of 3” policy was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. This represents a change to the evaluation structure after the course had already begun.
Prior to the academic drop deadline, I only had access to my Quiz 1 and Quiz 2 grades. Under the original understanding of the grading scheme, these accounted for 30% of the course grade. Without knowing that one quiz would later be dropped automatically, I did not have a complete or accurate understanding of how my performance would be evaluated.
The decision letter suggests that my first two quiz results provided a strong enough basis to assess my standing in the course. However, I respectfully disagree. Evaluating my performance based on only 30% of the course grade, without knowledge of a later adjustment to how that grade would be calculated does not provide a reasonable or complete basis for making an informed academic decision.
Once I received my Quiz 3 result and understood how the revised grading structure applied to my final grade, I acted immediately by submitting my petition because it was released after the drop date. This demonstrates that I made my decision as soon as I had full and accurate information.
My appeal is not based on academic performance alone, but on the fact that the grading structure used to evaluate that performance was not clearly or accurately communicated at the start of the course, and that this directly impacted my ability to make a timely and informed decision.
Because the denial of my petition relies on the assumption that the grading policy was clearly stated in the syllabus when it was not, I believe the decision is not supported by the evidence and should be reconsidered.
Thank you for you're time.
My appeal is based on a discrepancy between the course syllabus and a grading policy that was introduced later in the term, as well as the impact this had on my ability to make an informed decision before the drop deadline.
The decision letter states that the “best 2 of 3 quiz policy” was outlined in the syllabus at the beginning of the course. However, after reviewing the syllabus carefully, this is not true. The syllabus only states that if a quiz is missed for a legitimate reason, the remaining two quizzes will count for the full 45%. It does not state that the best two quizzes will be counted for all students.
This distinction is important because the general “best 2 of 3” policy was only introduced later through a course announcement on March 19, 2026. This represents a change to the evaluation structure after the course had already begun.
Prior to the academic drop deadline, I only had access to my Quiz 1 and Quiz 2 grades. Under the original understanding of the grading scheme, these accounted for 30% of the course grade. Without knowing that one quiz would later be dropped automatically, I did not have a complete or accurate understanding of how my performance would be evaluated.
The decision letter suggests that my first two quiz results provided a strong enough basis to assess my standing in the course. However, I respectfully disagree. Evaluating my performance based on only 30% of the course grade, without knowledge of a later adjustment to how that grade would be calculated does not provide a reasonable or complete basis for making an informed academic decision.
Once I received my Quiz 3 result and understood how the revised grading structure applied to my final grade, I acted immediately by submitting my petition because it was released after the drop date. This demonstrates that I made my decision as soon as I had full and accurate information.
My appeal is not based on academic performance alone, but on the fact that the grading structure used to evaluate that performance was not clearly or accurately communicated at the start of the course, and that this directly impacted my ability to make a timely and informed decision.
Because the denial of my petition relies on the assumption that the grading policy was clearly stated in the syllabus when it was not, I believe the decision is not supported by the evidence and should be reconsidered.
Thank you for you're time.
Documentation
Document: Syllabus-2.pdf
Document: Annoucement-0.pdf