Academic Regulations

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RULE 1: ACADEMIC REGULATIONS AND ATTENDANCE

RULE 2: Methods of Evaluation

RULE 3: TAKING COURSES IN OTHER FACULTIES (revised - September 2016)

RULE 4: Examinations

RULE 5: INVIGILATION OF EXAMINATIONS (revised - May 2012)

RULE 6: ADVANCE SCHEDULING OF EXAMINATIONS (revised - September 2017)

RULE 7: DEFERRAL OF EXAMINATIONS (revised - May 2012 and September 2017)

RULE 8: abolished May 2012

RULE 9: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS

RULE 10: MAJOR PAPER REQUIREMENT

RULE 11: DIRECTED RESEARCH PROJECTS

RULE 12: STUDENT-PROPOSED INTERNSHIPS

RULE 13: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS (revised - September 2017)

RULE 14: PROLONGED DEFERRALS AND EXTENSIONS (revised - September 2016)

RULE 15: REVIEW OF GRADES

RULE 16: CONFIDENTIALITY OF STUDENT GRADES

RULE 17: GRADING (revised - September 2016)

RULE 18: GRADING GUIDELINES

RULE 19: PASSING AND FAILURE (revised - September 2016)

RÈGLE 20 : PROGRAMME DE COMMON LAW EN FRANÇAIS ET PROGRAMME DE DROIT CANADIEN (revised - September 2016)

RULE 21: NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON ACCREDITATION AND SPECIAL STUDENTS

RULE 22: CLASS CANCELLATION

RULE 23: MATTERS OF STUDENT CONCERN

RULE 24:      ACADEMIC FRAUD

APPENDIX A - UNIVERSITY REGULATION ON ACADEMIC FRAUD


RULE 1: ACADEMIC REGULATIONS AND ATTENDANCE

1.1       Conditions of Admission and Attendance

Candidates are admitted subject to, and during attendance are bound by, all academic, disciplinary and other regulations of the University and the Common Law Section, as well as any amendments thereto.

1.2       Attendance

Full-time attendance is required during the 30 teaching weeks of each academic year, during which Enrollment in other academic or professional programs is prohibited. Irregular attendance, employment in excess of 20 hours per week, or lack of effort may result in compulsory withdrawal.

1.3       Interruption of Studies

Students who interrupt their studies for less than 24 consecutive months, with the permission of the Assistant Dean, may pursue their program with no additional requirement, by completing the relevant Enrollment form available from the Common Law Student Centre.

1.4       Re-admission after Prolonged Interruption of Studies

Students wishing to return after a voluntary withdrawal of 24 consecutive months or more from the Section or the University must present a new application for admission and are subject to the admission requirements in force at that time.

RULE 2: Methods of Evaluation

2.1       Statement of Policy

The chief purpose of student evaluation in a course is to form a fair and accurate assessment of each student's mastery of the course.

The method of evaluation chosen should reflect the range of materials covered and the skills taught in the course accurately and comprehensively.

In so far as possible evaluation methods should also have a pedagogic value for the students.

2.2       Choice of Method

The method of evaluation for a course is determined by the instructor, subject to the following.

  1. All full year courses in first year must provide some form of mid-term evaluation for which students receive feedback. This evaluation must take place prior to or during the December examination period. Feedback may take any appropriate form including comments on student papers, sample or model answers, review sessions or personal interviews.
  2. Where students are to be evaluated in whole or in part on the basis of their oral performance or participation in class, the instructor must keep a written record of or written commentary on each student's performance or participation sufficient to justify the grade assigned.
  3. Where students are to be evaluated in whole or in part on the basis of a joint presentation or assignment, if feasible the instructor should give students who object to joint evaluation the option of working alone.

2.3       Disclosure of Method of Evaluation

  1. Instructors must forward a description of the method of evaluation to be used in their upper year courses to the Academic Operations Supervisor in sufficient time for inclusion in the Enrollment materials sent to students in the spring. Where a method of evaluation to be used is an examination, the description of this method shall specify the format and value of the examination. The deadline for submitting this material will be fixed by the Academic Operations Supervisor.
  2. At the beginning of each upper year course, before the end of the course change period, instructors must confirm to students in writing the method of evaluation that will be used in the course. Where a method of evaluation to be used is an examination, instructors must also confirm the format and value of the examination.
  3. In each first year course, the instructor must confirm to students in writing the method of evaluation that will be used in the course before the end of the first regularly scheduled class in the course. Where a method of evaluation to be used is an examination, the instructor must also confirm the format and value of the examination.
  4. For purposes of this subsection and subsection 2.4, “format” means the duration of an examination, the open-book vs. closed-book nature of an examination, and whether an examination is a take-home examination

2.4       Changes to a Method of Evaluation

  1. After the distribution of upper year Enrollment materials to students, the method of evaluation set out in the materials, including the format and value of any examinations, should not be changed without good reason.
  2. In upper year courses, the instructor may not change the method of evaluation, including the format and value of any examinations, after the course change period if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.
  3. In first year courses, once the method of evaluation has been confirmed in the first regularly scheduled class, the instructor may not change the method of evaluation, including the format and value of any examinations, if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.

RULE 3: TAKING COURSES IN OTHER FACULTIES

3.1       General Rules

  1. In fulfilling the requirements of their law school program, students may take courses offered by the English or the French programs of the Common Law Section or by the Civil Law Section. Students who wish to take courses in Faculties other than the Faculty of Law must obtain prior permission to do so from the Assistant Dean.
  2. Students who take courses in Faculties other than the Faculty of Law are subject to the rules of the Faculty in which the courses are taken in matters relating to the courses, including entitlement to special and supplemental examinations.
  3. Notwithstanding the foregoing, National Program students are not permitted to take courses offered by the Civil Law Section in order to satisfy the 30 units required by the Common Law Section to satisfy JD degree requirements.
  4. For courses completed in addition to JD program requirements (courses in Faculties other than the Faculty of Law), the symbol “CR” (credited) will be listed on the student’s transcript. “CR” has no numeric value and will not affect the student’s grade point average in the JD program.

3.2       Exception for Civil Law Courses

Students who take courses in the Civil Law Section are subject to the rules of the Civil Law Section in matters relating to the courses, except for entitlement to special examinations and supplemental evaluation. The rules of the Common Law Section govern the entitlement of Common Law students to special examinations and supplemental evaluation.

3.3       Exception for January Term

Notwithstanding the foregoing, students are only permitted to take courses offered by the Common Law Section in satisfaction of January Term course requirements.

Rule 4: Examinations

4.1       Administration by Common Law Professor's Support

  1. All examinations scheduled during official examination periods, including take-home examinations, must be administered through the Common Law Professor's Support.
  2. For examinations scheduled during official examination periods, all instructors must submit their examination questionnaires to the Common Law Professor's Support not later than five working days prior to the scheduled date for the examination.

4.2       Scheduling Examinations

  1. Mid-year examinations for full year courses, including take-home examinations, should normally be scheduled during the official December examination period.
  2. No examinations may be scheduled during the final two weeks of classes in a term.
  3. To the extent possible, all advance, deferred, special and supplemental examinations in a given course shall be scheduled at the same time and in the same place.

4.3       Reusing Old Examinations

In light of the potential problems arising from repeating previously used examination questions, instructors are discouraged from doing so.

4.4       Length and Format of Examinations

The following rules apply to both mid-term and final examinations, excluding take-home examinations.

  1. In drafting examination instructions, instructors should follow the format prepared by the Common Law Professor's Support.
  2. Examinations that are scheduled during the official examination period must be set for either two hours or three hours inclusive of any reading time.
  3. Mandatory reading periods, during which students are not permitted to write or are denied access to their examination booklets, should be avoided.

4.4    Length of Take-Home Examinations

Except where special permission has been granted by the Vice-Dean of the relevant program, take-home examinations should not exceed 6 hours’ duration and should be scheduled to begin and end on the same day.

4.5       Co-Examiners

  1. Instructors must arrange for a co-examiner to review each examination given in the course. The co-examiner may be a full or part time member of faculty or some other suitable person. Where an instructor is unable to arrange for a co-examiner, the Academic Operations Supervisor will do so on his or her behalf.
  2. In reviewing an examination, the co-examiner should consider, in so far as possible,
    • the clarity of the instructions and the accuracy of any arithmetic,
    • the intelligibility and consistency of the problems or questions,
    • whether the length of the examination and the examination techniques used are appropriate;
    • the suitability to the understanding and knowledge of the students in the course.

4.6       Examination Timetable Conflicts

  1. In selecting courses, students are responsible for ensuring that no examination timetable conflicts are created. Where a conflict is created, the student is not entitled to have one of the examinations rescheduled. This rule applies equally to regular and take-home examinations.
  2. Although not encouraged, students may select courses with concurrent or overlapping take-home examinations. Similarly, students may select courses where a take-home examination overlaps with a regular examination. A student who does so voluntarily abridges the time that will be available to him or her to prepare for and complete the concurrent or overlapping examinations, and is not entitled to have any of the examinations rescheduled or extended.
  3. In selecting courses, students are responsible for creating an examination timetable that accommodates their study and travel needs. Where the relevant timetable information has been made available to the student in advance, requests to reschedule examinations will not be allowed except in accordance with the grounds and procedures provided for in Rules 6 and 7.

4.7       Attendance at Examinations

  • Although practice examinations are not compulsory, students are urged to take them and prepare for them seriously.
  • The instructor shall determine whether a fail-safe examination is or is not compulsory.
  • When disclosing the method of evaluation for the course pursuant to Rule 2.3, the instructor shall disclose to students and the Academic Operations Supervisor whether a fail-safe examination is or is not compulsory and, if compulsory, any penalties for non-attendance at the examination. Thereafter, the instructor may not change the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of a fail-safe examination or any penalties for non-attendance at the examination if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.

RULE 5: INVIGILATION OF EXAMINATIONS (revised as of May 2012)

5.1       Invigilators

  1. All instructors, including part-time instructors, are obliged to invigilate their exams; instructors must be present in the examination room and not merely available in or near the building. Part-time instructors who cannot fulfill this obligation must notify the Academic Operations Supervisor as soon as possible so that a substitute can be found.
  2. Where required, the Academic Operations Supervisor shall designate additional invigilators.

5.2       Invigilation Rules

Invigilators must apply the following rules.

  1. No student may be admitted to the examination room before the time announced for admission of all students to the room. Invigilators must admit students to the room no later than 15 minutes prior to the scheduled examination time. In the case of students hand-writing their examinations, these 15 minutes are to be used for writing all necessary identification information on the front of their examination booklets. In the case of students typing their examination, these 15 minutes are to be used for setting up their computer according to the instructions for computerized examinations. If a student encounters technical problems in setting up their computer within these 15 minutes, they must use the examination booklets provided and proceed by hand-writing.
  2. If the examination is closed book, students are not permitted to bring books, notes or other materials into the examination room, subject to the exception concerning dictionaries.
  3. Students are entitled to bring French, English or French-English language dictionaries into the examination room for use during an examination regardless of the type of examination.
  4. If the examination is partially open book, each student must be checked to ensure compliance with the description of permissible materials set out in the examination. After the students are seated and before the examination begins, the instructor and invigilators must examine the materials brought in for examination use by each student and must remove any materials which do not meet the description.
  5. In accordance with University regulation, during examinations, students are prohibited from using electronic devices or any other communication tool that has not been approved beforehand.
  6. Students must present their student identification card to the invigilator. Each booklet or electronic examination file  must be identified using only the student number. The student’s name must not be written in or on any examination booklet or electronic examination file .
  7. Before the examination begins, the invigilators must circulate the class list for student signature. Students whose names do not appear on the list should add their names at the end.
  8. Before the examination begins the invigilators must announce the time at which the examination will begin and end and must remind students of their obligation to close their examination booklets or electronic examination file immediately upon being told to do so.
  9. During the examination only one student at a time may leave the room. A student who has temporarily left the examination room may not consult materials outside the room or discuss the examination with another person.
  10. If in the opinion of the invigilators an examination has been substantially disrupted (by a fire alarm, for example, or persistent noise of construction), the invigilators must consult with the Common Law Student Centre to determine whether an extension of the examination period for a certain length of time is appropriate.
  11. An examination period may not be extended in response to representations or perceptions that the examination is unduly long or difficult.
  12. If a student who is typing his/her examination encounters technical problems in the middle of the examination and is not able to continue using his/her computer, he/she must notify the invigilators and use the examination booklets provided to continue writing by hand. Unless authorized by the Common Law Student Centre, no extra time will be accorded on the basis of technical problems related to computerized examinations. At the end of the examination, the invigilators will provide assistance in confirming that all of the student’s work is recovered and submitted successfully.
  13. The invigilators must announce the final thirty and the final fifteen minute periods of the examination and students must be advised that they cannot leave the room during this period but must remain seated until the end of the examination.
  14. The invigilators must announce the end of the examination and instruct students to close their examination booklets and put down their pens or exit the computerized exam software and stop typing, and to remain seated until the invigilator gives students permission to leave the room.
  15. Students may not continue to write in their examination booklets or type on their computers after the instruction to stop. The invigilators must record the student number of any student who ignores this rule and inform the student that his or her student number has been recorded. The penalty for continuing to write after the instruction to stop is to subtract 10% of the value of the examination from the student's grade. If an examination is worth 60% of the final grade in the course, for example, six points would be subtracted from the student's grade.
  16. At the end of the examination, if a student has not written his or her student number or any other information required on an examination booklet cover, he or she must only record the missing information under the supervision of an invigilator.
  17. After announcing the end of the examination the invigilators must pick up all booklets (used and unused) and all questionnaires. The number of sets of used booklets must be counted and tested against the number of students who signed the attendance sheet. Students may leave only after all used booklets are accounted for.
  18. It is the responsibility of each student who is hand-writing his/her examination to ensure that all examination booklets are handed in at the end of the examination. A student who fails to hand in any or all booklets before leaving the examination room will not be permitted to do so subsequently.
  19. It is the responsibility of each student who is typing his/her examination to ensure that the electronic examination file has been uploaded successfully according to the instructions for computerized examinations. If a student encounters technical problems or is not certain that the file has been uploaded, he/she must notify the invigilators who will provide assistance in confirming that all of the student’s work is submitted successfully.
  20. The invigilators must not write anything in or on a used examination booklet.

RULE 6: ADVANCE SCHEDULING OF EXAMINATIONS

6.1       Grounds for Advance Scheduling

  1. A student may apply to have an examination moved forward on one or more of the following grounds:
    1. illness or other medical condition;
    2. religious belief;
    3. death in the immediate family;
    4. other compassionate grounds.
  2. Advance scheduling is available due to necessity caused by extraordinary circumstances only, as provided in paragraph 6.1(a), and will not be granted to accommodate travel plans or rental arrangements or to improve a student's examination schedule.
  3. The onus is on the student to prove that grounds exist that justify the remedy sought.
  4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, students are not entitled to apply for advance scheduling of a January term examination.

6.2       Procedure for Requesting Advance Scheduling

In the absence of compelling excuse, a student who seeks to have an examination moved forward must comply with the following requirements.

  1. The student must prepare an application in writing addressed to the Assistant Dean which sets out the remedy sought and the grounds for the remedy. Where possible, this application should be submitted four weeks prior to the beginning of the examination period.
  2. Students requesting a remedy on medical grounds must submit with their application a medical certificate with the date of the medical examination and the date the certificate was issued. This medical certificate must be signed by a physician and must specify in detail that the student cannot complete their exam.
  3. Students requesting a remedy on other grounds must submit appropriate supporting documentation with their application.

Applications will be referred to the Assistant Dean who will determine whether the student has established grounds for a remedy.

The Assistant Dean may refer any application to the Examinations Committee for decision.

6.3       Scheduling of Advance Examinations

  1. A student who is granted advance scheduling of an examination shall be required to write the examination at a time and place to be determined by the Assistant Dean in consultation with the Academic Operations Supervisor.
  2. In determining the timing of the advance examination, the Assistant Dean shall have regard to the grounds justifying the advance scheduling of the examination, and shall consult with the instructor.
  3. To the extent possible, all students granted advance scheduling of an examination in a given course shall be required to write the examination at the same time and in the same place.
  4. Exceptions to paragraph 6.3(c) may be made by the Assistant Dean on the basis of one or more of the grounds enumerated in paragraph 6.1(a). The onus is on the student to prove that grounds exist that justify any such exception.

6.4       Appeals

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Assistant Dean may appeal to the Examinations Committee.

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Examinations Committee may appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee.

6.5      Value and Format of Advance Examinations

Advance examinations shall be of the same value and format as the regular examination in the course. For purposes of this rule, “format” means the duration of an examination, the open-book vs. closed-book nature of an examination, and whether an examination is a take-home examination.

RULE 7: DEFERRAL OF EXAMINATIONS (revised as of May 2012)

7.1       Grounds for Deferral of Examination

  1. A student may apply for deferral of an examination on one or more of the following grounds:
    1. illness or other medical condition;
    2. religious belief;
    3. death in the immediate family;
    4. other compassionate grounds.
  2. The onus is on the student to prove that grounds exist that justify the remedy sought.
  3. Students who intend to request a deferral because of illness or other medical condition must consult a physician and obtain a medical certificate (described below), and where possible, do so within twenty-four hours of the examination to be deferred.

Students may find it convenient to consult one of the physicians at the University Health Service currently located at 100 Marie-Curie, 3rd Floor. The telephone number is 564-3950.

7.2       Procedure for Requesting Deferral of Examination

In the absence of compelling excuse, a student who seeks a deferral must comply with the following requirements.

  1. Where possible, the student should notify the Common Law Student Centre of his or her intention to apply for a deferral before or on the day of the examination to be deferred.
  2. The student must submit an application in writing addressed to the Assistant Dean which sets out the remedy sought and the grounds for the remedy. This application must be submitted within five working days of the end of the examination period.
  3. Students requesting a deferral because of illness or other medical condition must submit with their application a medical certificate with the date of the medical examination and the date the certificate was issued. This medical certificate must be signed by a physician and must specify in detail that the student cannot complete their exam.
  4. Students requesting a deferral on other grounds must submit appropriate supporting documentation with their application.
  5. Applications will be referred to the Assistant Dean who will determine whether the student has established grounds for a remedy.
  6. The Assistant Dean may refer any application to the Examinations Committee for decision.

7.3       Scheduling of Deferred Examination

  1. A student who is granted a deferral will be required to write a special examination at a time and place to be determined by the Assistant Dean in consultation with the Academic Operations Supervisor.
  2. In the case of deferral of a December examination, the special examination shall be written during the Winter study week.
  3. In the case of deferral of a January or April examination for a non-graduating student, the special examination shall be written between mid-June and mid-July.
  4. In the case of deferral of a January or April examination for a graduating student, the special examination shall be written in late May.
  5. All students granted deferral of an examination in a given course in each of the categories referred to in paragraphs 7.3(b), (c) and (d) shall be required to write the special examination at the same time and in the same place.
  6. Exceptions to paragraphs 7.3(b), (c), (d) and (e) may be made by the Assistant Dean on the basis of one or more of the grounds enumerated in paragraph 7.1(a). The onus is on the student to establish that grounds exist to justify any such exception.

7.4       Appeals

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Assistant Dean may appeal to the Examinations Committee.

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Examinations Committee may appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee.

7.5      Value and Format of Deferred Examinations

Deferred examinations shall be of the same value and format as the regular examination in the course. For purposes of this rule, “format” means the duration of an examination, the open-book vs. closed-book nature of an examination, and whether an examination is a take-home examination.

RULE 8:  abolished May 2012

RULE 9: WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS

9.1       Double Submission

Students may not submit the same or substantially the same written assignment for more than one course.

9.2       Submission of Papers

Whenever possible, written assignments are to be submitted by students in class, directly to the instructor. Where an instructor cannot receive papers in class, timely notice must be given to the Academic Operations Supervisor so that a suitable submission procedure can be arranged.

9.3       Fixing and Disclosure of Deadlines

The date for the submission of written assignments is fixed by the instructor, subject to the following.

  1. All assignments must be due no later than the final day of the official examination period for the term, except in the cases of CML 4200 “Selected Topics for January Term and Winter Term Part II” and CML 4600 “Problèmes choisis pour les sessions de janvier et d'hiver partie II”, in which cases all assignments must be due no later than the final day of the official examination period for the Winter term.
  2. In upper year courses, where a written assignment is worth 30% or more of the final grade, the instructor must disclose the deadline for submission of the assignment before the end of the course change period. Thereafter, the instructor may not change the deadline for submission of the assignment if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.
  3. In first year courses, where a written assignment is worth 30% or more of the final grade, the instructor must disclose the deadline for submission of the assignment before the end of the first regularly scheduled class in each term. Thereafter, the instructor may not change the deadline for submission of the assignment if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.
  4. Instructors must not grant extensions of submission deadlines. Requests for an extension of a deadline must be directed to the Assistant Dean as set out below in Rule 13.

9.4       Penalty for Late Submission

  1. A written assignment is liable to be penalized if it is submitted after the deadline for submission (or, where an extension has been granted by the Assistant Dean, after the extended deadline).
  2. In upper year courses, instructors must formulate a policy on penalties for late submission and must announce this policy to students before the end of the course change period. Thereafter, the instructor may not change the policy if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.
  3. In first year courses, instructors must formulate a policy on penalties for late submission and must announce this policy to students before the end of the first regularly scheduled class in the course. Thereafter, the instructor may not change the policy if any student registered in the course objects to the proposed change.
  4. In cases where instructors fail to formulate a policy on penalties for late submission as required under paragraphs (b) and (c) above, a penalty of 10% of the value of the assignment shall apply for every day or part thereof by which the assignment is late.

RULE 10: MAJOR PAPER REQUIREMENT

10.1     Definition of Major Paper

  1. A major paper must be completed in the context of a course worth at least three units and should:
    1. present an original thesis, reform proposal or critique regarding a particular legal issue or area of law so as to provide a reader familiar with the issues with valuable knowledge or insights; or
    2. synthesize the existing literature (cases, legislation and commentary) relating to a particular area of law in order to either clarify a difficult area, speculate as to the application to new issues, or evaluate the existing law.
  2. The presentation should be clear and finished.
  3. The paper should comprise 5,000 to 10,000 words (approximately 20 to 40 typed, double-spaced pages, excluding footnotes and bibliography). An instructor may authorize an exception to the length of a paper when its originality and importance warrant it.
  4. A major paper should count for not less than 50% of the grade assigned in the course for which the paper is written.

10.2     Passing Grade

To satisfy the major paper requirement, the student must receive a passing grade on the major paper itself. It is not sufficient to pass the course for which the major paper is written.

RULE 11: DIRECTED RESEARCH PROJECTS

11.1     Definition

A Directed Research Project may be undertaken by any student who wishes to further enhance his or her knowledge of a specific area of the. A Directed Research Project can take the form of either a directed research paper or another type of research project.

11.2     Enrollment

  1. In order to register for a Directed Research Project, a student must file, with the Common Law Student Centre, a completed Directed Research Project Enrollment Form, including a description of the research project, as approved by the project Supervisor.
  2. In the case where the project Supervisor is not a regular full-time professor, the project will be presented to the Assistant Dean for approval.

11.3     Guidelines for Directed Research Projects

A Directed Research Project may qualify for two, three or four units. Where the project is a research paper, the recommended lengths for such papers, excluding footnotes and bibliography, are as follows:

  • 2 units: 5000 to 7500 words (approximately 20 to 30 typed, double-spaced pages)
  • 3 units: 7500 to 10000 words (approximately 30 to 40 typed, double-spaced pages)
  • 4 units: 10000 to 12500 words (approximately 40 to 50 typed, double-spaced pages)

Lorsque le projet de recherche est d’un autre genre, le travail que l’étudiant doit consacrer à ce projet devrait être comparable en quantité à ce qu’exige la préparation d’un travail de recherche selon les critères précités

11.4     Grading

Grading for Directed Research Projects will be by letter grade unless otherwise approved by the Assistant Dean.

RULE 12: STUDENT-PROPOSED INTERNSHIPS

12.1     Definition

An internship can be proposed by any student who wishes to further enhance his or her knowledge of a specific area of law while gaining workplace-related skills.

12.2     Enrollment

In order to register for an internship, a student must file, with the Career and Professional Development Centre, a completed Internship Enrollment Form, including a description of the project or duties which will be assigned to the student within the organization he or she will be joining.

The internship proposal must be submitted to the Career and Professional Development Centre for approval. Approval will only be granted if it is demonstrated that the internship is pedagogically worthwhile for the student and that the organization or individual supervising the student understands its obligations to provide the student with legal work experiences which will enhance the student’s knowledge of a specific area of the law.  In order to ensure the pedagogical value of the internship, the student must submit a final report to the Career and Professional Development Centre. These reports must be signed by the internship supervisor.

12.3     Guidelines for Student-Proposed Internships

An internship will qualify for three units if the student spends the equivalent of a minimum of 125 hours with the organization.

12.4     Grading

Grading for student-proposed internships will be on a Satisfactory/Non-Satisfactory basis.

RULE 13: EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMITTING WRITTEN ASSIGNMENTS

13.1     Grounds for Extension of Deadline

  1. A student may apply for an extension of the deadline for submission of a written assignment on any of the following grounds:
    • illness or other medical condition;
    • religious belief;
    • death in the immediate family;
    • other compassionate grounds.
  2. The onus is on the student to prove that grounds exist that justify the remedy sought.
  3. Students who intend to request an extension because of illness or other medical condition must consult a physician and obtain a medical certificate (see 13.2 b) below), where possible, immediately prior to or within twenty-four hours of the deadline to be extended.

Students may find it convenient to consult one of the physicians at the University Health Services currently located at 100 Marie-Curie, 3rd Floor. The telephone number is 564-3950.

13.2     Procedure for Requesting Extension

In the absence of compelling excuse, a student who seeks an extension must comply with the following requirements.

  1. The student must submit an application in writing, addressed to the Assistant Dean which sets out the remedy sought and the grounds for the remedy. This application must be submitted before or on the day of the deadline to be extended.
  2. Students requesting an extension because of illness or other medical excuse must submit with their application a medical certificate with the date of the medical examination and the date the certificate was issued. This medical certificate must be signed by a physician and must set out in sufficient detail when the student can resume their course work.
  3. Students requesting an extension on other grounds must submit appropriate supporting documentation with their application.

Applications will be referred to the Assistant Dean who will determine whether the student has established grounds for a remedy.

The Assistant Dean may refer any application to the Examinations Committee for decision.

13.3     Appeals

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Assistant Dean may appeal to the Examinations Committee.

A student who is dissatisfied with the decision of the Examinations Committee may appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee.

RULE 14: PROLONGED DEFERRALS AND EXTENSIONS

14.1     Deadline for Completion

  1. All deferred examinations or papers must be completed within 12 months of the original date set for the evaluation.
  2. A course for which the evaluation is, for valid reasons, not completed by the student at the end of the 12 months of the original date set for the evaluation will be graded as “NC” in the student’s academic record. This grade has no numeric value and will not, therefore, affect the student’s grade point average in the JD program. The course will either have to be repeated or replaced with other units.
  3. A course for which the evaluation is, without good cause, not completed by the student at the end of the 12 months of the original date set for the evaluation will be graded as EIN (incomplete) in the student’s academic record. This grade, the numerical equivalent of a failure, will remain on a student’s transcript.
  4. A student wishing to obtain an extension beyond the 12 month limit must apply in writing to the Examinations Committee prior to the expiry of this period and provide detailed grounds for the request.

14.2     Restrictions on Further Enrollment

A student with more than one deferred examination or paper at the beginning of an academic year will not be permitted to register in any additional course until all deferred examinations and papers are complete and grades have been entered.

RULE 15: REVIEW OF GRADES

15.1     Mechanical Error

  1. Where an arithmetical, transcription or other mechanical error is discovered, the student should bring the error to the attention of the instructor.
  2. If the error affects the student's grade, the instructor must immediately forward the corrected examination or assignment to the Academic Operations Supervisor along with an explanation of the error.
  3. If satisfied that the error is mechanical in nature, the Academic Operations Supervisor shall correct the student’s grade. In case of doubt, the Academic Operations Supervisor shall consult with the Chair of the Examinations Committee before determining whether the error is mechanical in nature.
  4. Where it is determined that the error is not mechanical in nature, the student may nevertheless apply for review of his or her grade in accordance with the procedure described below.

15.2     Review of Grades

  1. Students may not apply for review of a grade unless, in so far as possible, a serious attempt has been made by the student to obtain an explanation of the grade from the instructor.
  2. Instructors must provide a reasonable explanation for any grade given to a student. A reasonable explanation may take a variety of forms, including, without limitation:
    • written commentary on the student’s work
    • oral feedback at the time of a student presentation or exercise
    • distribution of a model or sample answer or work
    • distribution of a marking key or guide
    • subsequent review of an examination or assignment in class
    • correspondence with a student setting out an explanation for the student’s grade
    • meeting with a student to provide an explanation for the student’s grade.

     

    In providing an explanation, instructors must be mindful of the deadline for students to submit a request for a review of a grade (within ten working days after the grade in question becomes official).                                                                                                                                                                
     
    Even where other forms of explanation have been provided, instructors are encouraged to make themselves reasonably available to meet with students in order to answer students’ questions and provide further reasonable explanation for the grade assigned.
     
    Where a student is unable, despite a serious attempt, to obtain an explanation of a grade from the instructor, the appropriate recourse is to bring the matter to the attention of the Assistant Dean, Vice Deans or Dean, as appropriate, pursuant to Rule 23.   
     
  3. Students must not attempt to negotiate a change in their grade with their instructor. Instructors have no jurisdiction to change a grade once it has been submitted to and approved by Faculty Council.
  4. After obtaining an explanation of the grade from the instructor, or having failed to obtain such an explanation notwithstanding a serious attempt to do so, a student who believes that the grade assigned to his or her work is the result of a significant error or injustice may apply to the Examinations Committee for review.
  5. Students may apply for review of any grade that is taken into account in determining the final grade in a course.
  6. Students may not apply for review of a grade until the final grade for the course has been determined.

15.3     Grounds for Granting Review

  1. Where it appears that the grade assigned to a student's work may be the result of a significant error or injustice, the student is entitled to have the grade reviewed.
  2. The onus is on the student to identify specific facts or evidence suggesting that a significant error or injustice may have occurred. Examples of such facts or evidence may include, without limitation:
    • facts raising a reasonable apprehension of bias on the part of the instructor;
      facts showing that the student received materially different treatment in the evaluation process in comparison with that received by other students;
    • facts showing a clear and significant departure from a marking key or other evaluation guide in the evaluation of the student’s work;
    • facts showing a clear and demonstrable error of law made in the evaluation of the student’s work;
    • the written opinion of the instructor that a significant error or injustice occurred in his or her evaluation of the student’s work;
    • any other facts or evidence suggesting that a significant error or injustice may have occurred.
  3. The following are examples of facts which will not be accepted as evidence that a significant error or injustice may have occurred:
    • the grade does not reflect the amount of work the student put into the course;
    • other students who did less or similar work received a better grade;
    • the student tutored a colleague who received a better grade.
  4. A student is not entitled to review of a grade merely on the basis that the instructor has not fully justified the grade to the student’s satisfaction or that the student does not understand how the grade was arrived at.

15.4     Application for Review

  1. To apply for review, students must apply in writing to the Chair of the Examinations Committee. The application must describe, in detail:
    • the efforts made to obtain an explanation of the grade from the instructor, or the student’s reasons for failing to make this effort;
    • the grounds for believing that the grade received may be the result of a significant error or injustice.

    The application must be accompanied by a copy of all documentary evidence in the student’s possession and on which the student wishes to rely in support of the application.

  2. Applications for review must be submitted to the Chair of the Examinations Committee within ten (10) working days after the grade in question becomes official (see the University calendar for the exact date).   

15.5     Review Procedure

  1. Where it appears to the Examinations Committee that a significant error or injustice may have occurred, it must arrange for review of the student's work by two reviewers. In the case of examinations, the reviewers will normally be the original instructor and the co-examiner. In the case of other forms of evaluation, the reviewers will normally be the original instructor and another person selected by the Committee.
  2. Each reviewer must read the student's work and recommend, with appropriate explanation, one of the following:
    • the grade should be raised or lowered to ___
    • the grade should not be changed.

    A reviewer should recommend raising or lowering the grade only if she or he concludes that the original evaluation of the student's work suffered from serious error or was clearly unreasonable or unfair.

  3. The recommendations of the reviewers must be submitted to the Committee for approval. If the recommendations do not coincide, the Committee will decide the student's final grade.

15.6     Appeals

A student who is dissatisfied with the outcome of an application for review may appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee.

RULE 16: CONFIDENTIALITY OF STUDENT GRADES

Student grades and transcripts are confidential and may not be released or revealed to anyone other than the student without the student's consent, subject to the following exceptions:

  1. Each instructor may receive a decoded class list that reveals the grades received by the students in his or her own course.
  2. Faculty Committees may have access to student grades where necessary to carry out the work of the Committee.
  3. The Dean, Vice-Deans, the Assistant Dean and their respective administrative staff may have access to student grades where necessary to carry out administrative duties.
  4. The Faculty Editors of the University of Ottawa Law Review and the Tech Law Journal may have access to student grades for the purpose of selecting candidates.
  5. Instructors of first year small group sections may have access to the grades of students in their section.
  6. Access to student grades is permitted for the purpose of conducting research or compiling statistics for the Faculty or the University.

RULE 17: GRADING

17.1     Instructor to Grade Examinations and Assignments

  1. Grading of all examinations and assignments to be taken into account in determining the final grade in a course is to be carried out by the instructor.
  2. Notwithstanding paragraph 17.1(a), an instructor may have a properly instructed research assistant, internship supervisor or similar person grade part or all of an examination or assignment to be taken into account in determining the final grade in a course if expressly permitted to do so by the Vice Dean. In all such cases, the instructor nevertheless remains responsible for ensuring the appropriateness and accuracy of the final grade assigned.

17.2     Grades Provisional until Approved by Faculty Council

Grades on assignments, papers and examinations that are disclosed to students prior to approval of official grades by Faculty Council are provisional grades only and subject to adjustment by the instructor in order to satisfy the grading guidelines set out in Rule 18.

17.3     Letter Grades

The University of Ottawa’s official grading system is alphanumeric. It must be applied to all courses except in cases approved by the University Senate (for example, where the expected learning outcomes of a course require a Satisfactory/Not satisfactory or a Pass/Fail grading scheme).

Letter Numerical Percentage
A+ 10 90-100
A 9 85-89
A- 8 80-84
B+ 7 75-79
B 6 70-74
C+ 5 65-69
C 4 60-64
D+ 3 55-59
D 2 50-54
F 0 0-49
ABS 0 Absent
EIN 0 Failure/Incomplete

Other non-numerical grades – do not affect the student’s average

CR - Credited Course
NC - No credits
P - Pass
S - Satisfactory
NS - Not satisfactory

17.4     Student Grade Point Average

  1. Grade point

      The grade point represents a student's performance in a course and takes the number of units as well as the numerical value of the letter grade into account.

      To determine grade points, the number of units for the course is multiplied by the numerical value of the letter grade.

  2. Cumulative grade point average (CGPA)

      The cumulative grade point average (CGPA) represents the student's performance over all courses taken (successfully or not) by the student.

      To calculate the cumulative grade point average (CGPA), the sum of all grade points is divided by the sum of all course units taken (successfully or not) by the student.

      The CGPA is rounded to two decimal places.

      Decimals are rounded to the next highest number if the third decimal is 5 or higher and to the next lowest number if the third decimal is 4 or lower.

  3. Term grade point average (TGPA)

      The term grade point average (TGPA) represents a student's overall performance for all courses in a given term.

      To calculate the term grade point (TGPA) average, the sum of all grade points is divided by the sum of all course units taken by the student during the term.

17.5     Satisfactory/Non Satisfactory

  1. The Examinations Committee may approve courses in which students are graded on a satisfactory/non satisfactory basis or satisfactory/non satisfactory/satisfactory with distinction basis.
  2. Where students are graded on this basis, the student receives credit for the course but the course units are not included in computing the student's grade point average.

17.6     Dean’s Honour List

The Dean’s Honour List is determined each term.

Only full-time students who have maintained a term grade point average (TGPA) of 7.5 or higher without any failures and who have completed at least 9 units with alphanumeric grades during the term will have their name placed on the Dean’s Honour List.

“Dean’s Honour List” is indicated on the transcript for the term when it was awarded.

17.7     Abolished effective  Sept 1, 2016

17.8     Abolished effective  Sept 1, 2016

17.9     Graduating With Distinction

Citations are awarded to students who complete the requirements of their degree according to the following cumulative grade point averages:

SUMMA CUM LAUDE : 8.5 and above

MAGNA CUM LAUDE : 8.0 – 8.4

CUM LAUDE : 7.0 – 7.9

17.10   Abolished effective Sept 1, 2016

RULE 18: GRADING GUIDELINES

18.1     Course Grade Point Average

The grade point average for a course is calculated by dividing the sum of the grade points achieved by students in the course by the number of students.

18.2     Course Grade Point Average Guidelines

  1. A course grade point average guideline is fixed for the following categories:
    • elective (“thematic”) first year courses (English Program only)
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution CML 1106/Introduction à la résolution des différends CML 1506
    • other first year courses
    • upper year seminar courses
    • upper year non-seminar courses

    For the purpose of these guidelines, a seminar course is a course with enrolment under twenty-five in which there is no final examination worth more than 40% of the final grade.

  2. Course grade point average guidelines are fixed by Faculty Council and may be changed from time to time. The following guidelines currently apply:
    • elective (“thematic”) first year courses (English Program only):        6.5
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution CML 1106/Introduction à la
      résolution des différends CML 1506:                                                   6.5
    • other first year courses:                                                                       6.0
    • upper year seminar courses:                                                                6.5
    • upper year non-seminar courses:                                                         6.0
  3. For greater clarity, no course grade point average guideline is applicable to the following categories of courses:
    • courses with less than 10 registered students
    • courses graded on a satisfactory/not satisfactory basis
    • competitive moots
    • directed reading or research courses
    • internships
    • courses in which Enrollment depends on success in a competitive selection process
    • other categories of courses as may be determined by Faculty Council from time to time.

18.3     Application of Guidelines

  1. Before submitting the grades in a course, instructors shall calculate the course grade point average and compare this result to the applicable guideline.
  2. Where the course is sectioned, the grade point average for each section of the course should fall within .4 of the applicable guideline.
  3. Notwithstanding paragraph 18.3(b), where the course is sectioned, the difference between the grade point average for each section of the course and the applicable guideline may be as high as .8, provided that the spread between the grade point averages of the different sections of the course does not exceed .8.
  4. Where the course is not sectioned, the grade point average for the course should fall within .8 of the applicable guideline.
  5. For the purpose of these guidelines, a course is sectioned if there is more than one English section or more than one French section of the course in a term.

18.4     Failure to Comply

  1. Instructors who do not comply with the guideline policy shall submit a written explanation to the Academic Operations Supervisor for presentation to and consideration by Faculty Council.
  2. Where the course taught is a sectioned course, instructors who do not comply with the guideline policy are also asked to give notice of their non-compliance to the other instructors of the course.

RULE 19: PASSING AND FAILURE

19.1     Passing the Common Law Program

  1. To successfully complete the Common Law program, students must pass first, second and third year and must fulfill all program requirements and (where applicable) French language program requirements.
  2. National Program students must achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher in at least 30 units in order to fulfill JD degree requirements.
  3. It is the responsibility of all students to:
    • become familiar with the specific requirements of their program and with academic regulations;
    • ensure that the courses chosen meet all program requirements and the requirements for graduation;
    • ensure that they have completed prerequisites of chosen courses;
    • ensure that the courses they have chosen are not given simultaneously;
    • meet all the deadlines indicated in these regulations, published by the Common Law Student Centre, and indicated in the sessional dates section of the University timetable.
  4. Any questions or uncertainties should be brought to the attention of the Academic Operations Supervisor.

19.2     First Year

  1. In first year, students must take the required first year program as set out in the calendar for that year.
  2. To pass the year, students must receive credit for all attempted courses and achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher.

19.3     Courses in upper years

  1. Depending on the Program :

    (i)    In the second and third year of the English Common Law Program, the French Common Law Program and the National Program, students take 13 to 17 units in the fall term, 3 or 4 units in the January term, 10 to 14 units in the winter term and a minimum of 30 units for the year.

    (ii)   In the second year of the Programme de droit canadien, students take 6 units in the summer term, 15 to 18 units in the fall term, 15 to 18 units in the winter term and a minimum of 39 units for the year. In the third year of the Programme de droit canadien, students take 15 to 18 units in the fall term, 15 to 18 units in the winter term and a minimum of 33 units for the year.

  2. To pass the year, full-time students must receive credit for courses totalling at least 30 units and achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher.

    2.1 To pass the year, part-time students must receive credit for all attempted courses and achieve a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher.

19.4     Enrollment for Degree

In order for their names to be submitted to the Senate, students who expect to complete their degree requirements must fill in the Enrollment for Degree and Request for Diploma form, and send it to the Office of the Registrar no later than March 31 for spring convocation and no later than September 15 for fall convocation.

All final grades needed to complete the degree requirements must be received by the faculty before May 15 for students registered for spring convocation and before September 15 for students registered for fall convocation.

Students are responsible for ensuring that they meet all their degree requirements.

19.5     Receiving credit for a Course

To receive credit for a course, students must receive a final grade in the course of D or higher (after any supplemental examination) or its non-numerical equivalent (credited course, pass, satisfactory)

19.6     Entitlement to Supplemental Examination

  1. A student who achieves a cumulative grade point average of 3.5 or higher is entitled to a supplemental examination in any course failed by the student in that year.
  2. A student who achieves a cumulative grade point average below 3.5 fails the year and is not entitled to supplemental examinations.

19.7     Method of Supplemental Examination

  1. In courses where a final examination was given, the supplemental examination normally consists of a written examination set by the instructor covering the entire course.
  2. In courses where no final examination was given, the supplemental examination normally consists of a substantial written assignment set by the instructor.
  3. Instructors who wish to vary the normal form of supplemental examination may do so with the permission of the Examinations Committee.

19.8     Scheduling of Supplemental Examinations (revised as of May 2012)

  1. Supplemental examinations shall be written at a time and place to be determined by the Common Law Student Centre.
  2. Supplemental examinations for first year courses shall be written in mid-June.
  3. Supplemental examinations for upper year courses, in the case of non-graduating students, shall be written in mid-June
  4. Supplemental examinations for upper year courses, in the case of graduating students, shall be written in late May.
  5. All students permitted to write a supplemental examination in a given course in each of the categories referred to in paragraphs 19.8 (b), (c) and (d) shall be required to write the supplemental examination at the same time and in the same place.
  6. Exceptions to paragraphs 19.8 (b), (c), (d) and (e) may be made by the Assistant Dean on the basis of one or more of the grounds enumerated in paragraph 7.2(a). The onus is on the student to prove that grounds exist that justify any such exception.

19.9     Result of Supplemental Examination (revised as of May 2012)

  1. a. The grade obtained after the supplemental examination appears on the student’s transcript and is used in the calculation of averages. However, a note on the transcript will indicate that this grade was obtained as a result of a supplemental examination.
  2. Students who refuse to attempt or who attempt and fail the supplemental examination receive no credit for the course.

19.10   Failing the Year

  1. A student fails first year if he or she achieves a grade point average for the year that is below 3.5 or fails, after supplemental examination, to receive credit for all first year courses.
  2. A student fails second or third year or the National Program if he or she achieves a grade point average for the year that is below 3.5 or fails, after supplemental examination, to receive credit for courses totalling at least 30 units.

19.11   Consequences of Failure

  1. A student who fails first year is not entitled to repeat the year, but may apply to the Admissions Committee for re-admission.
  2. A student who fails second or third year or the National Program may apply to the Examinations Committee for re-admission. The Examinations Committee will decide whether to re-admit the student and the terms for re-admission in light of the following guidelines:
    • Upper year students who apply for re-admission will normally be re-admitted, but students with a record of failure may be refused.
    • A student who fails because he or she did not achieve a grade point average for the year of 3.5 will normally be required to repeat the year.
    • A student who achieves a grade point average for the year of 3.5 or higher 
      but fails to successfully complete the required number of units will normally be required to make up the units.

RÈGLE 20 : PROGRAMME DE COMMON LAW EN FRANÇAIS

20.1      Promotion du Programme de common law en français et du Programme de droit canadien

Les conditions de la promotion au Programme de common law en français et au Programme de droit canadien sont décrites au paragraphe 20.2 du présent règlement. La personne admise à un ou l’autre de ces programmes doit se conformer à toutes ces exigences, sous réserve des exceptions prévues aux paragraphes 20.3 et 20.4.

20.2    Exigences de la promotion

L’étudiant doit :

a) suivre tous les cours de première année en français et obtenir la note de passage dans chacun;

b) suivre tous les cours obligatoires en français et obtenir la note de passage dans chacun;

c) pour les cours facultatifs, selon le cas,

    • s’il est inscrit au Programme de common law en français, suivre un maximum de 15 crédits dans une langue autre que le français ;
    • s’il est inscrit au Programme de droit canadien, suivre un maximum de 12 crédits dans une langue autre que le français ;

d) satisfaire à l’exigence de la plaidoirie en français;

e) rédiger un mémoire de recherche en français dans un cours suivi en français;

f) rédiger en français tous les travaux et les examens exigés dans les cours suivis en français;

g) satisfaire à toutes les exigences de la promotion du programme de J.D. énoncées à la règle 19 du présent règlement.

20.3     Dérogation à la règle des crédits de deuxième et troisième année en français

Dans des cas très exceptionnels seulement, le doyen adjoint, en consultation avec le vice-doyen peut autoriser une dérogation à la règle prévue à l’alinéa 20.2 b).  La demande doit être présentée par écrit, en précisant les raisons motivant la mesure recherchée.

20.4     Programmes conjoints

a) «programme conjoint » Pour les fins de la règle 20, s’entend d’un programme d’étude offert conjointement par la Section de common law et i) une faculté de l’Université d’Ottawa autre que la Section de droit civil, ou ii) une autre université.» 

 

b) Le sous-alinéa 20.2 c)(i) s’applique aux étudiants des programmes conjoints. Le doyen adjoint, en consultation avec le vice-doyen, approuve le choix de cours de ces étudiants en conformité avec l’esprit de la règle 20.

20.5     Dérogation à la règle du mémoire de recherche en français

Exceptionnellement, le doyen adjoint, en consultation avec le vice-doyen, peut permettre à un étudiant de rédiger son mémoire de recherche en français dans un cours en anglais, si le professeur est en mesure d’évaluer la qualité de la rédaction française. L’étudiant doit obtenir cette autorisation avant la date fixée par le bureau des Affaires scolaires pour la remise du formulaire d’inscription du mémoire de recherche.

20.6     Attestation d’études en français

Lorsque l’étudiant inscrit au Programme de common law en français ou à un programme conjoint a satisfait à toutes les exigences de la promotion énumérées au paragraphe 20.2, l’attestation suivante apparaîtra sur son relevé de notes :

« a satisfait aux exigences du Programme de common law en français de l’Université d’Ottawa ».

Lorsque l’étudiant inscrit au Programme de droit canadien a satisfait à toutes les exigences de la promotion énumérées au paragraphe 20.2, l’attestation suivante apparaîtra sur son relevé de notes :

« a satisfait aux exigences du Programme de droit canadien de l’Université d’Ottawa ».

20.7   Changement de programme d’études

Un étudiant peut demander le transfert au programme de common law en anglais en présentant une demande d’admission au Comité des admissions du programme anglais avant la date limite fixée. Un facteur déterminant sera si la personne était admissible au programme anglais au moment de son admission initiale. Un changement de programme ne peut se faire durant la première année d’études.

RULE 21: NATIONAL COMMITTEE ON ACCREDITATION AND SPECIAL STUDENTS

21.1     Receiving credit for a Course

To receive credit for a course, National Committee on Accreditation (‘NCA’) and special students must receive a final grade in the course of D or higher, a “Satisfactory” grade or pass a supplemental examination.

21.2     Entitlement to Supplemental Examination

  1. In order to be eligible for a supplemental examination, an NCA or special student must achieve a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.5 at the end of the term during which the student failed the course in question or, in the case where the student is taking first-year courses, at the end of the academic year.
  2. All other aspects of the supplemental examination are governed by the general regulations to that effect in Rule 19

21.3     Maintaining Standing

  1. An NCA or special student must achieve a cumulative grade point average of at least 3.5 at the end of each academic term during which she or he is registered in a course in order to maintain standing and be permitted to take courses in subsequent terms. If the student is taking first-year courses, the determination of standing will be made at the end of the academic year. Failure to achieve the minimum grade point average will result in withdrawal from the Section.
  2. An NCA or special student who is withdrawn under this Regulation may apply to the Examinations Committee for re-admission. The Examinations Committee will decide whether to re-admit the student and the terms for re-admission.

RULE 22: CLASS CANCELLATION

22.1     General Provisions

  1. Instructors are expected to teach all of their scheduled classes and should only cancel classes in exceptional circumstances.
  2. Instructors should give notice to students of any proposed cancellation at least one week in advance when feasible.
  3. Instructors should give notice of all class cancellations to the Common Law Professor's Support.
  4. Instructors should reschedule all cancelled class hours with the assistance of the Common Law Professor's Support.
  5. Make-up classes should be rescheduled so as to avoid conflict with other scheduled regular and make-up classes. Instructors should not schedule make-up classes for the last three weeks of the term, except for the purpose of replacing classes missed in that period.
  6. Instructors may not schedule make-up classes for hours lost due to statutory or University holidays.
  7. Instructors may schedule extra sessions to be attended on a purely voluntary basis by the students subject to the following limitations:
    • extra sessions should not be used to cover additional substantive materials but their use may extend to providing students with opportunities to practice their problem-solving skills;
    • extra sessions should be scheduled through the Common Law Professor's Support and must not conflict with other scheduled regular or make-up classes.

22.2     Particular Provisions Applicable to January Term

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 21.1, the following provisions shall apply to January term courses:

  1. No make-up classes shall be scheduled during the last week of the January term.
  2. Instructors shall not schedule make-up classes for more than two days of missed instruction.
  3. Instructors may provide for an equivalent to classroom instruction in lieu of scheduling a make-up class, provided that the combined total of such equivalents and any make-up classes does not correspond to more than two days of missed instruction.

RULE 23: MATTERS OF STUDENT CONCERN

23.1     Student Evaluation

Questions or problems concerning any aspect of student evaluation should be brought to the attention of the Assistant Dean or the Academic Operations Supervisor.

23.2     Teaching

Questions or problems concerning the content or teaching of courses or related matters should be brought to the attention of the Dean or the Vice Deans.

RULE 24:      ACADEMIC FRAUD

Academic fraud is governed by the University Regulation on Academic Fraud, appended hereto as Appendix A.

APPENDIX A

UNIVERSITY REGULATION ON ACADEMIC FRAUD

(Approved by the Senate on November 24, 2014)

Preamble

Academic integrity is a fundamental value at the core of all academic activities. The regulation on academic fraud defines the acts that can compromise academic integrity, and outlines the consequences of such acts and the formal disciplinary procedures in place. Further information on academic integrity is available in the University of Ottawa’s Academic Integrity Student Guide.

Beyond educational measures that professors may take, the University of Ottawa has two processes in place for handling cases of academic fraud —the regular process and the accelerated process.

The University is committed to upholding the integrity of the process for handling academic fraud. Disclosure of the identity of any student accused of academic fraud or the person(s) alleging academic fraud is limited by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). Only the results of the investigation can be disclosed to the person who submitted an allegation of academic fraud.

Definition

1. Any act by a student that may result in a distorted academic evaluation for that student or another student. Academic fraud includes but is not limited to activities such as: 

a) plagiarising or cheating in any way;

b) submitting work not partially or fully the student’s own, excluding properly cited quotations and references. Such work includes assignments, essays, tests, exams, research reports and theses, regardless of whether the work is in written, oral or another form;

c) presenting research data that are forged, falsified or fabricated.

d) attributing a statement of fact or reference to a fabricated source;

e) submitting the same work or a large part of the same piece of work in more than one course, or a thesis or any other piece of work submitted elsewhere without the prior approval of the appropriate professors or academic units;

f) falsifying or misrepresenting an academic evaluation, using a forged or altered supporting document or facilitating the use of such a document;

g) taking any action aimed at falsifying an academic evaluation.

Sanctions

Note: For cases involving graduate courses, the following sanctions are imposed by the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS).

2. Students who commit or attempt to commit academic fraud, or who are a party to academic fraud, are subject to one or more of the sanctions below. All sanctions are effective immediately, notwithstanding an appeal. If a student withdraws from a course following an allegation of fraud filed against the student, the University may re-register the student in the course in question.

Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(a) to 2(f) inclusively, are imposed by the faculty offering the course. Sanctions should be accompanied by a follow-up mechanism, such as mandatory meetings with appropriate persons or services, e.g. the mentoring centre, the Academic Writing Help Centre (AWHC), etc

a) a written warning;

b) zero for part of the work in question;

c) zero for the work in question;

d) zero for the work in question and the loss of additional marks for the course in question;

e) zero for the work in question, with a final grade no higher than the passing grade for the course in question;

f) an F grade for the course in question.

Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(g) to 2(i) inclusively are imposed by the faculty offering the course, after consulting with the student’s home faculty.

g) the addition of another 3 to 30 units to the student’s program requirements or to the requirements of any program at the same level in which the student subsequently registers.

h) suspension of a University of Ottawa or faculty scholarship for a specified period;

i) the loss of any faculty or University scholarship opportunity;

Sanctions stipulated in sections 2(j) to 2(n) inclusively are imposed by the Senate Appeals Committee upon recommendation of the student’s home faculty. The decision of the Senate Appeals Committee takes effect immediately.

j) suspension from the University for a maximum of two years. No course taken at the University of Ottawa or elsewhere during the suspension period will be recognized by the University and no tuition fees will be refunded. Once the suspension ends, the student can re-register in the program and is subject to the program requirements in place at that time.

k) inclusion of a permanent statement on the student’s official transcript: Sanction pursuant to contravention of the University regulation on fraud.

l) expulsion from the University of Ottawa and permanent statement on the student’s official transcript indicating the student was expelled from the University for committing academic fraud. Three years following the date of expulsion, the student is eligible to make a request to the Senate Appeals Committee to have the expulsion set aside, including the possibility, where applicable, of having the mention removed from the student’s transcript. If the student reapplies to the University of Ottawa, the regular admission process applies.

m) cancellation or revocation of a degree, diploma or certificate conferred prior to the University becoming aware of academic fraud;

n) any other sanction considered appropriate for the circumstances.

Procedures

3. Allegations of fraud in an undergraduate course must be submitted in writing with supporting documentation, to the dean of the faculty offering the course in question; allegations of fraud in a graduate course are handled by the dean of the Faculty of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (FGPS).

4. Within ten (10) working days of receiving an allegation of academic fraud, the dean or the dean’s representative decides whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the allegation is founded, indicate the process for which the student is eligible and begin this process. The dean or the dean’s representative:

a) informs the student in writing of the allegation being made; if the allegation involves an examination, the student has the right to consult the exam in question at the faculty, in a diligent manner.

b) provides a copy of the present regulation;

c) The student has five (5) working days to provide a response. If the student does not reply, the regular process is started.

Accelerated process

By agreeing to the accelerated process, the student acknowledges having contravened the academic regulations and accepts that one or more sanctions will be imposed.

Sanctions possible are those indicated in sections 2(a) to 2(g).

5. A student alleged to have committed academic fraud is eligible for the accelerated process except in allegations involving:

a) a repeat offence;

b) an allegation serious enough to merit any of the sanctions indicated in sections 2(h) to 2(n);

c) more than one student.

6. A meeting is arranged between the person in charge of handling the accelerated process for academic fraud cases and the student as soon as possible. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the situation, determine the sanction(s) to be imposed and sign an agreement whereby the student acknowledges having committed a contravention, of the academic regulation and accepts the imposed sanction(s) listed.
At this meeting, the student has the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice. The person accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist the student during the meeting keeping in mind that the exchange is, first and foremost, between the faculty and the student. The person in charge of handling the accelerated process for cases of academic fraud can also be accompanied during the meeting. In advance of the meeting, each party must provide the other party with the name of any accompanying person.

The student has two (2) working days after the meeting to sign and return the agreement to the person responsible for the accelerated process.

7. Within five (5) working days, the person in charge of the accelerated process forwards the decision reached during the accelerated process along with details of the sanction(s) imposed to the professor of the course in which the allegation of fraud was made and to the director of the academic unit involved.

8. The accelerated process for an allegation of academic fraud should be completed within fifteen (15) working days of the date the allegation is made.

9. The student can decide to stop the accelerated process at any time prior to signing an agreement, in which case the regular process is followed.

10. The person in charge of the accelerated process can also end the process if it is unlikely an agreement can be reached, for example in the following situations:
* The student does not reply to emails or return phone calls or tries to unduly prolong the process.
* The student refuses to acknowledge having committed academic fraud.
* The student refuses to accept the sanction.
* The student does not attend the meeting.

11. If the regular process is subsequently initiated:

* All information disclosed by a student during the accelerated process is considered confidential and is not to be disclosed during the regular process.
* The fact that the accelerated process was used or that the student had considered it cannot be disclosed to the inquiry committee established under the regular process.
* No person (other than the student) involved in the accelerated process can be a member of the inquiry committee established under the regular process, unless the student has agreed.

Regular process

12. If the student is not eligible for the accelerated process or chooses the regular process, or if the accelerated process was abandoned, within five (5) working days of receiving the student’s reply, the dean or the dean’s representative forwards the file to an inquiry committee composed of at least three individuals, appointed by the dean. The dean or the dean’s representative is not eligible to sit on the committee.

In a case involving a student in a program offered by more than one faculty (e.g., joint, integrated), the dean can ask a representative of the faculty or faculties in question to sit on the committee.

In a case involving a student from another faculty, the dean can ask a representative from the other faculty to sit on the committee.

13. The inquiry committee:

a) asks the student to submit in writing, within ten (10) working days, all information and documents relevant to the allegation and asks the student to appear before the committee. The student can be accompanied by a person of their choice when appearing before the committee (in cases of alleged fraud involving more than one student, the accompanying person cannot be one of the other students involved in the case). The person accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist the student during the meeting, keeping in mind that the exchange is, first and foremost, between the faculty and the student.

b) requests any other information it considers relevant.

c) Once the student has been given the opportunity to be heard in writing and/or in person, the inquiry committee can conclude that the allegation is not sufficiently founded, in which case no further action is to be taken or that the allegation is founded, in which case it has five (5) working days from the date of the meeting to submit a report to the dean, including a recommendation for the appropriate sanction(s).

14. Within five (5) working days of receiving the inquiry committee’s report, the dean or the dean’s representative sends a copy of the report to the student. The dean informs the student that the student has the right submit written comments to the committee’s report, particularly with respect to any sanctions being imposed, within ten (10) working days.

15. The committee’s report and, if applicable, the student’s written comments are submitted to the faculty’s executive committee (or its equivalent). Any new evidence provided by the student should be submitted to the inquiry committee. The executive committee makes a decision on the sanction(s) (in the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the faculty) or recommends sanction(s) to the Senate Appeals Committee (in the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the Senate Appeals Committee).

16. In the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the faculty, the decision of the faculty’s executive committee, or equivalent, takes effect immediately, notwithstanding an appeal.

17. Within five (5) working days following the decision of the faculty’s executive committee, the dean or the dean’s representative informs the student in writing of the executive committee’s decision or recommendation and provides details of the appeal procedure.

Appeal

Accelerated process

18. A student wishing to file an appeal after having signed the agreement must submit the appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee within ten (10) working days of having signed the agreement. Under the accelerated process, an appeal can be launched only in cases of procedural error.

Regular process

19. A student who decides to appeal the decision of faculty’s executive committee (or its equivalent) or its recommendation to the Senate Appeals Committee, must inform the Office of the Vice-President, Governance and provide the reasons for the appeal in writing, within ten (10) working days of being notified of the executive committee’s decision or recommendation.

The Senate Appeals Committee procedure is posted here.

The decision of the Senate Appeals Committee is final and cannot be appealed.

Cases involving multiple students

20. When the allegation of fraud involves several students from different faculties, the case is submitted to the faculty that offers the course, in accordance with the procedure set out in this regulation. At the graduate level, allegations of academic fraud are submitted to the dean of the FGPS.

21. Cases involving more than one student registered in a course offered by more than one faculty, including courses offered at both undergraduate and graduate level (cross-listed courses), are submitted to the deans responsible for the courses in question. If the allegation is deemed to be founded, the deans will strike a joint inquiry committee.

Back to top