Guide to Common Law Section Grade Review Process

Introduction

Under the Common Law Section Regulations, the grade review process is the responsibility of the Examinations Committee, which is composed of one professor acting as chair (currently Professor Gilbert), the Vice-Deans of the English and French Programs, two other professors from each of the English and French Programs, and three administrators: the Assistant Dean (Academic Affairs), the Manager of Academic Affairs and the Assistant Dean (Student Services).

The Committee treats every application for review seriously, seeks to ensure that each student's concerns are given due consideration and that all applications are disposed of in a fair manner. The Committee recognizes that in order for students to feel confident in the grade review process, it must be open and well understood. With this in mind, the Committee provides the following guide to the process. You should read through this Guide before filing an appeal.

Overview of the Grade Review Process

The procedure to be followed for grade reviews depends upon whether the error complained about is mechanical or substantive in nature.

Mechanical errors are corrected expeditiously on the basis of a direction to the Academic Administrator from the instructor in the course who gave the grade.
Substantive errors can only be corrected through the grade review process. Instructors have no jurisdiction to change grades after they have been assigned. Students must apply in writing to the Examinations Committee setting out in detail the grounds upon which they rely. If the Committee finds sufficient merit in the student’s application, the grade is sent for review by the instructor in the course and a second reviewer. This is followed by a decision of the Committee based on the results of these reviews.

Mechanical Errors

Mechanical errors include errors in transcription, arithmetic and failure by an instructor to see an answer or part of an answer provided by the student. If a student believes that a mechanical error has been made in the grade assigned, he or she should bring the error to the attention of the instructor. If the instructor agrees that a mechanical error was made and the error affects the student’s grade, the instructor must send a written explanation of the mechanical nature of the error and of the change required to the Academic Administrator. If the Academic Administrator is satisfied that the error is mechanical in nature, the grade will be changed accordingly. In case of doubt as to the mechanical nature of the error, the Academic Administrator may confer with the Chair of the Committee before deciding whether to accept the proposed change. If the Academic Administrator determines that the error is not mechanical in nature, the student will be so informed and will be required, if he or she still wishes to have the grade changed, to submit an application for grade review as outlined below.

Substantive Errors

Students are entitled to apply to the Examinations Committee if they believe the final grade assigned was the result of a significant error or injustice. Only final grades may be reviewed. In order to seek review of interim assessments, it is necessary for the student to wait until the final grade in the course is received.

The review process involves the following steps.

Step 1. Attempt to obtain an explanation of your grade from your instructor

The student must make a serious attempt to obtain an explanation of his or her grade with the instructor. The purpose of this step is to help the student understand how the grade was determined. Students should not attempt to negotiate a change of their grade with the instructor. Instructors have no authority to change grades.
Instructors should provide a reasonable opportunity for students to obtain an explanation of the basis for their grade.

Step 2. Apply to Examination Committee

If, after complying with Step 1, the student still believes that a significant error or injustice has occurred and wishes to apply for review of the grade, the student must write a letter setting out the grounds for review (i.e., the specific facts and/or evidence showing that a significant error or injustice has occurred in assigning the student's grade). Any supporting documentation or evidence should be appended to the letter. If possible, the letter and supporting documentation should be submitted by e-mail to the Chair of the Committee (Professor Gilbert, e-mail address Daphne.Gilbert@uottawa.ca ). Otherwise it may be left, in a sealed envelope addressed to Professor Gilbert, at the Common Law Secretariat (FTX 105).
The onus is on the student to provide specific facts and/or evidence regarding the significant error or injustice.
The standard to be applied by the Committee (significant error or injustice) means that not all errors are sufficient to merit review.
Grade review is based on the evaluation itself. Specific grounds for the Committee to consider may include the following:
- a significant error in the application of the grading criteria (e.g. the instructor’s marking sheet refers to a point and the student addressed the point but received no credit);
- facts raising a reasonable apprehension of bias;
- facts raising a reasonable apprehension of unfair treatment; or
- facts showing a clear and demonstrable error of law made in the evaluation of the student's work.
It is not sufficient to state only that
- a significant error or injustice has occurred,
- the instructor has not fully justified the grade to the student’s satisfaction,
- the student does not understand how the grade was arrived at, or
- there is a significant discrepancy between the grade complained of and the student’s other grades (i.e., the grade received is significantly below all other grades received by the student in law school). Although insufficient in itself to justify a review, grading discrepancy will lend support to allegations, based on other facts, that a significant error or injustice occurred.
Grounds which are extraneous to the fairness of the evaluation itself are not relevant in the grade review process and should not be included in the student’s application. Examples of irrelevant grounds include allegations that:
- 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; and
- the student tutored a colleague who received a better grade.
It is not appropriate to express concerns about the instructor as a teacher in an application for grade review. Such concerns should be addressed to the Vice Dean's office. Applications which contain such concerns will not be considered by the Committee.
In submitting applications for review, students should bear in mind that the application may be sent to the instructor for his or her response.
Requests for review should be submitted to the Secretariat addressed to the Chair of the Examinations Committee (Professor Gilbert), before the following deadlines:
- Fall Term: February 15
- January Term: March 15
- Winter Term: September 15
Applications received after the applicable deadline will be rejected unless the student can show that he or she is not responsible for the delay. The categories of information to be included in applications for review are set out in Appendix 1 to this Guide.

Step 3. Consideration of student applications by the Examinations Committee

The Examinations Committee reviews student applications to determine whether it appears that a significant error or injustice may have occurred (the “prescribed standard”). In assessing the student’s application, the Committee will not inquire beyond what the student has submitted in his or her application and, normally, does not consult with the instructor. The Committee deals with the applications based upon the information filed.
The Committee will consider the application and the submissions from the student to determine if the application has met the prescribed standard. The internal procedure followed by the Committee is described in Appendix 2 to this Guide. Based on its consideration of the application, the Committee may do one of the following:
1. Decide that the case does not warrant a review and accordingly reject the application.
2. Decide that the case has met the prescribed standard.

If the Committee decides that the application has met the prescribed standard, it will send the examination or paper to the instructor who gave the grade and to a second reviewer. The second reviewer is normally the co-examiner if the application relates to an examination and some other person knowledgeable about the subject matter of the evaluation in other cases. Reviewers are provided with the evaluation and, where available, the instructor’s grading criteria but not with the student’s application.

When a review by a second reviewer is impossible (such as in cases involving oral examinations and assessments of class participation), the Committee will ask the instructor who gave the grade to review it to ensure that the student’s grade was determined on a basis comparable to that on which other students in the course were graded.

In each case, the aim of the review is to provide a reconsideration of the evaluation as a whole, rather than the specific concerns of the student. This approach has been adopted in the regulations of the Common Law Section in order to ensure that the student’s grade is determined on a basis comparable to that on which other students in the course were graded to the extent possible.

Step 4. Review by Instructor and Second Reviewer

Both the instructor and the second reviewer are asked to read the student’s work and to determine whether the grade should be increased or decreased or left the same. A change should be recommended only if the grade assigned suffered from serious error or was clearly unreasonable or unfair. Both the instructor and the second reviewer must provide a written response to the Committee including an explanation for their recommendations. These responses are not made available to the student.
When a review by a second reviewer is impossible (such as in cases involving oral examinations and assessments of class participation), the original instructor must review the grade assigned and provide the Examination Committee with a written response including (1) an explanation of the general grading process followed and the criteria applied, and the specifics of the grading of the case at hand and (2) a recommendation and explanation for the same.

Step 5. Review of recommendations by the Examinations Committee

Once the review by the instructor and the second reviewer are complete, the Committee meets to consider their recommendations. If the instructor and the reviewer make the same recommendation, the Committee will accept the recommendations. If the instructor and the reviewer make different recommendations, the Committee will consider the recommendations and the explanations given and make a decision about whether the grade should be changed.
In cases of review involving oral evaluations or assessments of class participation, the Committee meets to consider the recommendation and explanation given by the instructor and makes a decision about whether the grade should be changed.

Step 6. Report to Student

The Committee’s decision is reported to the student in writing. Written reasons are not provided.

Time Frame for Reviews for Substantive Error

Because of the various steps required, reviews for substantive error often take two or three months and sometimes more to complete from the time the student’s application is submitted.

Appeal to Senate

A student may appeal the Committee’s decision on an application for grade review to the Senate Appeals Committee.

Further Information

Further information regarding the review process can be obtained from your Student Representative, the Academic Administrator or the Committee Chair, Professor Daphne Gilbert.

Appendix 1- Information Required in Applications for Grade Review

The student’s name, address (including telephone number and email address) and student number.
The name and course code of the course in relation to which grade review is sought and the name of the instructor.
The grounds and evidence on which the student relies to show a significant error or injustice.

Appendix 2- Examination Committee Practice

The Chair convenes and presides at all meetings of the Committee.
At Examination Committee meetings, five persons constitute a quorum.
A decision made by a majority of the quorum is regarded as a decision of the Committee. In practice most decisions are taken by consensus.
In considering applications for review, the Chair may, in lieu of a meeting, request that Committee members provide their comments in writing. If all members agree on the disposition of the case, the Chair will dismiss the application or initiate the review of the grade subject of the application by the instructor and the second reviewer, as the case may be. If all members do not agree, a meeting is called to consider the application.
If an application involves a grade assigned by a professor who is a member of the Committee, that professor does not take part in the review of that particular case.

Quick Picks

Common Law Section