Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Compliance with internal university policies (Policy 162 and Policy 168) regarding grade reassessment and appeals was central to the dispute.

• Timeliness and procedural requirements for seeking reassessment and filing appeals were scrutinized.

• The scope and grounds for academic appeals, including the distinction between academic merit and procedural or discriminatory concerns, were examined.

• Application and interpretation of the Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (DHPP) in the context of the complaint were considered.

• Allegations of procedural unfairness and bias throughout the university’s internal processes were evaluated.

• The reasonableness and transparency of the university’s decisions, as well as the adequacy of procedural fairness, were judicially reviewed.

Factual background

Jason Bell, a former graduate student at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU), was enrolled in the Master of Building Science program and took the required course BL8102: Ecological and Resource Efficient Design in Fall 2022. The course had four graded components, and Mr. Bell failed primarily due to a poor grade on Assignment 3, which he submitted over three weeks late without a pre-arranged extension. Following his failure, Mr. Bell sought to challenge his grade through several internal university processes.

University policies and internal appeal mechanisms

TMU’s academic policies provided three main avenues for students to challenge grades: Policy 162 (grade reassessment of a course component), Policy 168 (whole course grade or standing appeal), and the Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy (DHPP) for discrimination claims. Policy 162 required students to seek reassessment from the instructor within 10 days of receiving the grade, and only allowed appeals on procedural grounds. Policy 168 permitted appeals on limited grounds, such as course management, procedural error, or prejudice based on protected characteristics, but not on the basis of academic merit alone. The DHPP allowed complaints of discrimination related to protected grounds under the Human Rights Code.

Procedural history and university decisions

Mr. Bell did not comply with the 10-day requirement under Policy 162 to seek reassessment from his instructor. When the instructor declined to reassess the work voluntarily, Mr. Bell attempted to appeal the whole course grade under Policy 168. Although he missed the initial deadline, he was granted an extension. The Department denied his appeal, and subsequent appeals to the Faculty and the Senate Appeal Committee (SAC) were also dismissed. The SAC found that Mr. Bell’s submissions did not meet the grounds for a hearing and that new evidence he provided was not relevant.

Separately, Mr. Bell filed a complaint with TMU’s Human Rights Services (HRS), alleging discrimination. HRS determined that his complaint did not identify any connection between his alleged poor treatment and a protected personal characteristic, and therefore did not proceed with the complaint.

Judicial review application and court’s analysis

Mr. Bell sought judicial review of the university’s decisions, alleging procedural unfairness, unreasonable decisions, and improper application of university policies. The court permitted Mr. Bell to amend his application to include review of the Associate Dean’s decision not to refer his coursework for reassessment.

The court reviewed whether the decisions under Policies 162 and 168, as well as the HRS decision, should be set aside. It found that Mr. Bell had not complied with the procedural requirements of Policy 162, and that the Associate Dean’s decision was reasonable and in accordance with the policy. The Faculty and SAC appeals were also found to be reasonable, transparent, and consistent with university policy. The court held that the HRS decision was reasonable, as Mr. Bell’s complaint did not allege discrimination based on a protected ground.

Regarding procedural fairness, the court determined that Mr. Bell was given multiple opportunities to present his case, submit evidence, and respond to deficiencies. The processes were found to be fair, impartial, and open, and there was no evidence of a breach of procedural fairness.

Outcome and costs

The court dismissed Mr. Bell’s application for judicial review, finding no basis to interfere with the university’s decisions. Costs were awarded in favor of TMU, with Mr. Bell ordered to pay $7,500 within 30 days. No monetary award was granted to Mr. Bell; instead, he was required to pay costs to the university.