Graduate Department Academic Appeals

Before making an appeal, students must communicate with the instructor to discuss the work at issue. The purpose of the discussion is to provide clarification and context for the grade assigned. To this end, the instructor shall re-read the written work or review the non-written work and discuss it with the student, offering reasons for the grade. This discussion may be in writing or verbal, at the discretion of the instructor. Students and instructors are encouraged to have this discussion in a timely way, keeping in mind the 8-week deadline for the filing of an appeal.

If, after meeting with the instructor, the student believes that there is an error in the mark awarded, the student can request from their instructor that the assessment be re-graded. Instructors who receive such a request should then submit a grade change request only if they find that a significant factual or calculation error was made in determining the student’s grade.  When an instructor believes a significant error has been made, he or she shall submit a written explanation of the error to the Associate Dean and request their approval for a different grade.  An instructor may ask to have a student’s grade increased or decreased. Absent the approval of the Associate Dean, Graduate Programs, instructors may not change a grade.  If approved, the grade change will be communicated to the student by the Assistant or Associate Dean, Graduate Programs.

If the instructor elects not to change the grade after re-marking the assessment and/or the student remains unsatisfied that the grade assigned was reasonable, the student shall ask the Assistant Dean, Graduate Programs to arrange for the assessment or exam to be reviewed by a second reader. The student must explain, in brief,  the grounds for their request. Such explanations should rarely exceed two pages.

The student’s grounds for the request should center on the academic merit of the work at issue. In requesting that their exam or assessment be reviewed by a second reader, the student must explain the error in principle that supports a grade change. Examples of what are not grounds for appeal include the fact that the:

• Student is applying for a job or degree program that requires excellent marks and the mark in question may negatively impact such application(s);
• Student was surprised or disappointed by mark; 
• Student’s other marks are higher;
• Student believes that the mark is discretionary and should not have been assigned; or
• Student does not believe the grade reflects the amount of effort put into preparing for the exam or producing the assessment in question. 

Where a student is appealing a grade based on non-written work, the appeal should be initiated with the Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee directly (see information about the GDAAC appeal process below). Grade appeals related to participation marks or assessments in the absence of written work require especially clear grounds given the lack of opportunity to review the work in respect of which the student complains.

Upon receiving a request for a second reader, the Assistant Dean shall  provide the instructor with the student’s grounds for the request, along with the relevant exam or assessment, and request the instructor’s written rationale for the mark.  The response, if any, should be provided within 7-10 calendar days of the instructor’s receipt of the materials. If a written explanation of the grade has already been provided to the student, the instructor may choose to rely on it.

Upon receiving a student’s request for a second reader, the Assistant Dean, Graduate Programs shall ask the Chair of the Graduate Departmental Academic Appeals Committee (GDAAC) to appoint a second reader. To make the appointment, the GDAAC Chair will be provided with the name of the course, the type of assignment to be re-read (e.g. examination, essay, etc.), the program that the student is in (but not the identity of the student), and the name of the original course instructor. The GDAAC Chair’s appointment of a second reader may not be appealed.

Once a second reader has been appointed, the Assistant Dean shall provide the second reader with the student's grounds for the request, the instructor’s rationale for the mark (if any has been provided), the assignment instructions or exam questions, the grading rubric (if one exists) and any additional relevant materials to the second reader. Such materials may include, at the discretion of the Associate Dean, clean, anonymized copies of other student papers from the same assessment, which represent the range of grades assigned on the assessment. The Associate Dean may also provide additional materials relating to the course. The student will also be provided with a copy of all materials provided to the second reader, aside from other student work.   

The second reader shall render a decision on the written work within 7 to 10 calendar days of receiving the materials.  

• If, after reviewing the grade appeal record, the second reader decides that a reasonable marker could not have reached the same conclusion as the instructor, the second reader shall indicate the grade that he or she believes a reasonable marker would have assigned. The second reader must specifically identify the error in principle made by the original marker.  A second reader may recommend that the grade be increased or decreased . Any such change will be reflected in the student’s academic record as soon as possible.
• If, after reviewing the grade appeal record, the second reader decides that a reasonable marker could have reached the same conclusion as the instructor, the second reader shall not recommend a change to the grade. 
  The Assistant Dean will communicate the second reader’s recommendation to both the student and the instructor, at which point the student may accept the recommendation of the second reader or proceed with filing an appeal of the instructor’s original grade to the GDAAC. If the student does not file an appeal and does not respond to the Assistant Dean’s communication, they will be deemed to have accepted the second reader’s recommendation.

If, despite having a second reader reassess their written work or exam, a student believes that the grade they received on an assessment is unreasonable, they may initiate an appeal of the original grade assigned by the course instructor to (GDAAC). Such appeal may only be commenced once the student has completed the steps outlined above and must be commenced within 8 weeks of the instructor releasing the original grade on the assessment to the student.

The GDAAC is established under the authority of the Graduate Chair of a Graduate Department. At the law school, it is the Dean who establishes the GDAAC and the Associate Dean of Graduate Programs to whom decision-making authority is generally delegated. The recommendations of the Committee are advisory to the Associate Dean, who is not bound by the Committee’s recommendation. 

The Committee follows the GDAAC Guidelines, which can be reviewed here. In addition, the Committee has emphasized that the standard of review on a grade appeal is reasonableness. The Graduate Department Academic Appeals Committee has explained this standard as follows:

“It needs to be emphasized that initiating an appeal is a very serious matter. The process involved is a heavy one involving instructors, administrators, and a committee of four faculty members and a fellow graduate student. It should not be brought to bear in the absence of an appeal advancing serious substantial grounds.The appeal should set out the grounds and evidence in support.  The burden on the appellant is a high one – that no reasonable instructor could have awarded the grade being questioned.
We would also note the following.Faculty members of the committee are senior academics with years of experience in marking. Students should recognize that grading involves comparing all responses and assessing their relative merit. The key judgements are about which letter grade to award (which category in which to place the student) and not about marginal numerical allocations and differences. Revising a single grade is, given these realities, simply not something that can be done lightly or often.”