Academic Calendar 2022-2023

Master of Digital Product Management

Class of 2023

For students beginning the Master of Digital Product Management program in September 2022. 


1.1 Purpose

The purpose of the Academic Calendar is to acquaint students with the academic requirements, regulations, policies, procedures and expectations of the Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) program.  It is the responsibility of the student to read and understand the entire Academic Calendar.  Questions about any of its contents should be directed to the Program Director.

1.2 Acknowledgement of Territory

Queen’s University in Kingston is situated on traditional Anishinaabe and Haudenosaunee Territory. To acknowledge this traditional territory is to recognize its longer history, one predating the establishment of the earliest European colonies.  It is also to acknowledge this territory’s significance for the Indigenous peoples who lived, and continue to live, upon it – people whose practices and spiritualties were tied to the land and continue to develop in relationship to the territory and its other inhabitants today.  The Kingston Indigenous community continues to reflect the area’s Anishinaabek and Haudenosaunee roots.  There is also a significant Métis community and there are First Peoples from other Nations across Turtle Island present today.

Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science operates on sacred land that has been a site of human activity for 15,000 years. This land is the territory of the Huron-Wendat and Petun First Nations, the Seneca, and most recently, the Mississaugas of the Credit River. The territory was the subject of the Dish with One Spoon Wampum Belt Covenant, an agreement between the Iroquois Confederacy and Confederacy of the Ojibwe and allied nations to peaceably share and care for the resources around the Great Lakes. Today, the meeting place of Kingston is still the home to many Indigenous people from across Turtle Island and we are grateful to have the opportunity to work in the community on this territory.


2.1 Jurisdiction

Students of Smith School of Business and the School of Computing in the Faculty of Arts and Science at Queen’s University are governed by the regulations, policies and practices of this institution. 

It is the responsibility of every student in the program to read and understand these policies, regulations, and requirements as well as those of their home, exchange and double degree universities. 

2.2 Program Format

The Senate and Board of Trustees of the University, and the Ontario Council approve the Queen’s Master of Digital Product Management Program for Graduate Studies.  Upon graduation, students receive a Masters of Management (MOM) Degree in Digital Product Management.

The Master of Digital Product Management (MDPM) will be offered by Smith School of Business in partnership with Queen’s School of Computing as a specialized inter- disciplinary program at the intersection of digital business, product management, and computing. It is unique as it creates a novel set of knowledge and skills related to digitalization that when applied effectively, can deeply disrupt existing business models and produce fundamentally new value opportunities. This term also encapsulates the growing popularity of digital services and platforms that span across traditional organizational boundaries through open technologies (e.g., open APIs) transforming user experiences and enabling business ecosystems.

The program’s curriculum was designed to achieve six (6) educational goals and related learning outcomes that align to the school-level academic goals as well as the Queen’s Academic Framework and Strategic Plan. The first goal is to offer an innovative, academically rigorous program that synthesizes theoretical concepts and practices in topics related to design and systems thinking. Second, inspire innovation, promote student engagement, and enhance financial sustainability through an inter-disciplinary offering that is dedicated to experiential learning. Third, supply industry with skills that help accelerate the digitalization of traditional organizational practices. Although this is a practice- oriented program, students will identify, explore and evaluate digital product opportunities using appropriate methods of qualitative and quantitative inquiry. Lastly, multiple learning outcomes are defined to help students develop highly effective communication skills as well as personal responsibility, effective problem solving, and ethical behavior and practice. The objective of the MDPM program is to address this skills gap by offering an inter- disciplinary academic program that fuses together critical skills in business and computing.

The MDPM is a practice-oriented program where graduates will develop the ability to apply qualitative and quantitative research methods to identify user needs, create discovery hypotheses, analyze data to generate insights, apply design principles, and create a prototype solution. Research will also be conducted to evaluate the impact (e.g., through analytics and experimentation) of the digital product on anticipated outcomes. Students will also be introduced to thought leadership in digital product management as many faculty teaching in the program do both research and work with industry.

A unique graduate degree-level expectation (GDLE) for this program is the cross-disciplinary integrated learning.  Adding this GDLE is imperative to develop graduates capable of developing work-ready skills that merge technical and business domains.  Essential to enabling cross-disciplinary integrated learning is the experiential learning stream and the removal of coding as a degree level expectation for this program. The MDPM program will adopt no-code development (NCD) by providing students with drag-and-drop development tools and pre-built templates to apply specialized knowledge across phases of the digital product management lifecycle. Tools involving coding will be used only when faculty are confident the students have sufficient understanding of programming to effectively use the tool. 

2.2.1 Program Delivery

The Smith MDPM program is an online program structured to allow students to work while studying. The program delivers an average of two classes each week (Tuesday and/or Wednesday evenings, Saturday morning), supplemented by one on campus residential session. During the first residential period, students are introduced to their Team Coach, network support staff, instructors, and program staff. Students will be introduced to virtual team training as part of the transition to online workshop. Teams (6-8 inter-disciplinary students) will be formed during the in-residence session and will work together throughout the entire program.

Team Coaches will have regular check points with teams at critical times during the program to make sure they are working together effectively, and no student is left behind. In addition to a team coach, each team will also be assigned a practicum advisor to support the 9-month practicum. If the team faces a technical challenge that goes beyond their depth and breadth of knowledge or applied understanding, the practicum faculty member from the School of Computing will assig a teaching assistant from the School of Computing to help the team.

The courses require individual and team preparation and are delivered primarily through a virtual communication platform (Zoom).  The online learning environment will be fostered by using the Queen’s Learning Management System (LMS) – D2L Brightspace as well as a standardized set of virtual learning tools managed by the School of Computing. Online materials (written, audio and video) and assignments will be posted and completed work submitted through this system.

Students will 1) complete a 9-month practicum that requires a deliverable at each stage of the product management lifecycle and 2) demonstrate an understanding of relevant faculty research and explain how it can be mobilized to influence digital product management practice. The program will consider the implications of students developing products for businesses and agencies who are not their employers. Confidentiality and intellectual property will be examined. 

2.3 Timeframe

The Smith MDPM program is normally completed in 12 consecutive months, beginning mid-September and ending in early September the following year. Once registered in the program, the student is expected to complete all degree requirements without interruption. 

2.4 Degree Requirements and Courses

The Smith Master of Digital Product Management program is a 12-month program in which students complete 19 courses (3 term-length (full) courses, 16 half courses) including one residential session in Kingston. The program is structured into two learning streams (knowledge foundation & application learning) and a practicum. The knowledge foundation stream includes 10 courses that introduce concepts in digital business, product management, and computing. The application learning stream includes 7 courses that apply knowledge to the core activities in the digital product lifecycle. The practicum (2 courses) begins in October and requires student teams to discover, design, and build a digital product for a real client. Teams have nine months to complete five project milestones that will be carefully managed by faculty and a dedicated practicum advisor. Each full course is 3.0 credit units and half-course is 1.5 credit units for a total of 33 credit units for the program.

Applicants will hold a bachelor’s degree from a recognized university or equivalent, with an average minimum B+ (77%) on the last two years of university study. Successful applicants must also have a minimum of two years’ work experience in a business-technology-related role. Applicants must also have English language communication skills as demonstrated by standardized language tests and in an admissions interview. The previous degree can be in any area of study, but students must have completed an entry level course (or equivalent) in introduction to digital business, introduction to marketing, introduction to data analysis, and introduction to computation thinking.

Students must uphold and/or meet each of the Academic Regulations (Section 3 of this document). Admission standards will follow Queen’s School of Graduate Studies equity admission regulation:  

2.4.1 Required and Elective Courses

All required courses for the Program must be completed at Queen’s in the year that the student is registered in the Program. There are no elective courses in the MDPM program. Required Courses

All students must complete the following required courses in accordance with the Academic Regulations and Standing set out in Section 3 of this document. 


MDPM 800 Introduction to Digital Product Management

MDPM 880 Design Thinking and Discovery

MDPM 881 Systems Thinking and Digitalization

MDPM 801 Digital Strategy and Innovation

MDPM 822 Emerging Computing Technologies

MDPM 883 Prototyping and Evaluation

MDPM 884 Product Analytics

MDPM 850 Digitalization and Ethics

MDPM 830 Data-Driven Decision Making

MDPM 802 Organizational Experimentation

MDPM 824 Software Systems Security

MDPM 826 Gamification and Usability

MDPM 887 Architecture Integration & Technical Operations

MDPM 888 Scaling the Digital Product for Growth

MDPM 885 Optimizing the User Experience

MDPM 840 Systems Leadership

MDPM 860 Digital Product Management


MDPM 900 DPM Practicum - Discovery, Design & Build

MDPM 910 DPM Practicum - Build, Scale & Operate

2.4.2 Course Substitutions

Students must complete all required courses at Smith within the required timeframe to graduate from the program.

If extenuating circumstances prevent a student from completing the program in the required timeframe, the student will be required to complete outstanding courses as directed by the Program Director or Academic Progress Committee.  Normally, if one or more of the missed courses is not offered again in the year the student is registered in the program, the student will be permitted to take the course in the subsequent year when the course is offered again.

2.4.3 Auditing Courses

A student may request to audit a course.  A formal written request to audit must be made to the Program Director at least seven days before the first session of the course to be audited.  Requests to audit courses will be considered depending on space, professor approval and other relevant course-specific factors.  As there are no elective courses in the MDPM program, auditing a course is not an option.

2.5 Learning Teams

Learning Teams are a foundation of Smith MDPM Program.  The Learning Team is critical to a student’s success in the Program as well as being a means of managing the demanding workload of the Program. It also provides an opportunity to draw on the varied backgrounds and expertise of other team members and enriches the student’s learning experience as a whole.   Most courses allocate approximately 50% of the course weight to teamwork.

Students are assigned to a Learning Team at the beginning of the Program. It is a Program requirement that students function effectively and supportively within their Learning Teams and make effective and ethical use of team resources in satisfying course requirements.  Learning Teams remain intact for the duration of the Program; however, additional “working groups” are formed for some courses in the Program.

2.5.1 Performance in the Learning Team

Performance in the Learning Team is an academic requirement for successful completion of the Program (see Section 3.1).  Students must perform effectively and supportively on the Team according to the standards and norms of the Team.  Failure to do so can result in a requirement to withdraw from the Program. 

2.5.2 Team Coaches

In order to get the best experience on the Learning Team, each team is assigned a professionally trained Team Coach. The Team Coach works regularly with the team and its individual members throughout the Program delivering best practices, instruction, advice, and coaching on team processes, development, and performance. Team coaches may also work with a team on interpersonal issues or concerns with regard to the performance (effectiveness) or behaviour (supportiveness) of individual team members.

2.5.3 Request to Change Learning Team

Students are not permitted to change Learning Teams.

2.6 Grading

Course-level evaluation will consist of a mix of team and individual assignments, hands-on technical activities, case studies, presentations and exams. Students will receive regular feedback from course instructors throughout the program via assessment feedback and individual meetings. The 9-month practicum requires the completion of five group-level integrated project milestones and will be evaluated as requirements for completing the practicum (MDPM 900 & 910). Feedback for each milestone will be provided by the course instructors, practicum support team (team coach and practicum advisor), as well as the client.

The Program Director will also provide students with a progress report at the end of each 4-month period that includes a peer evaluation from their teammates (in collaboration with the team coach). There will be no formal grade assigned to the progress report, but peer evaluation grades will be a component of MDPM 900 and 910. One-on-one meetings will be conducted with students that are struggling to meet course and degree-level expectations.

2.6.1 Queen's University Grading

The grading system for courses in the Queen's Program is: 

Letter Grade Grade Point Percentage
A+ 4.3 90-100
A 4.0 85-89.9
A- 3.7 80-84.9
B+ 3.3 77-79.9
B 3.0 73-76.9
B- 2.7 70-72.9
C+ 2.3 67-69.9
C 2.0 63-66.9
C- 1.7 60-62.9
D+ 1.3 57-59.9
D 1.0 53-56.9
D- 0.7 50-52.9
F 0.0 0-49.9

Other academic entries which may be assigned are: 

Letter Grade Description
P Pass; no grade assigned
FR Failure with review, grade will be revised
CR Credit
IN Incomplete
GD Grade deferred
AG Aegrotat*
RTW Required to withdraw
NG Not graded; first term course of a multi-term course
AU Audit
TR Transfer credit, no grade assigned
DR Course dropped
NEP Not eligible to proceed
IP In progress

*Aegrotat: An academic entry which provides an estimated final grade or, if that is not possible, credit for a course without a grade because of extenuating circumstances beyond the student’s control that prevented the student from completing all work of the course, particularly the final examination. Normally at least 60 per cent of the work to be evaluated in the course (assignments, midterms, final examination, as specified in the course). 

Requests for AG or CR standing should be made to the Program Director.

2.6.2 Grading Specifications

All final marks, including those assigned after special examinations, may be based on the results of formal examinations and on grades obtained from other work throughout the course, which may include essays, exercises, reports, presentations, class tests/quizzes, and class participation or other work.

At the beginning of each course, the professor will provide a clear statement of the basis on which the final mark will be assessed. All work assigned and the weight that it will contribute to the final mark will be specified.  Normally there is both individual and teamwork included in course assessments.

2.6.3 Class Participation

Class participation grades are allocated in some courses. Professors will specify the specific form and opportunities for participation marks at the start of the course.  Some examples include contributions to class discussions or discussion boards, attendance, timely completion of assigned work, or other relevant behaviours determined by the professor.


Academic Regulations exist to maintain the standards of the MDPM Program, and to ensure the candidates of the Program have the mandatory knowledge and experience to merit receiving the Degree.  Degrees are awarded according to the requirements and processes set out in the Academic Regulations.

Every student is responsible for knowing and meeting or upholding the Academic Regulations of the Program in order to progress through the Program and ultimately be eligible for the Degree.  The Academic Regulations below are currently in effect.  Regulations are consistently reviewed and may change from time to time.  Any changes that take place during the academic year will be communicated to students; it remains the student’s responsibility to be aware of any such changes. 

3.1 Academic Regulations

Each candidate for the Degree must successfully meet or achieve the Regulations below in order to be in Good Academic Standing, to progress through the Program, and to be eligible for graduation from the Program.  In a case where a student violates any one of the Regulations, that student is normally required to withdraw from the Program (see section 3.2 for further information). 

Every student must achieve the following:

3.1.1 Complete Program Curriculum

The student must complete all components of the curriculum as outlined in Section 2.

3.1.2 Overall Minimum GPA

The student must achieve a cumulative GPA of at least 2.7 (B-) including all courses taken in the Program.

3.1.3 Minimum Course Grades

The student may obtain final grades of less than 2.0 (C) in no more than the equivalent of 2 half credit courses (3 credits total) throughout the program.

3.1.4 No Failures

The student must obtain a final grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in each course.

3.1.5 Attendance

The student may not miss more than 25% of class sessions of any course (I.e: 1 session of a 4 session course would be 25%).

Class attendance is monitored and tracked in each course in the LMS (D2L) and concerns related to attendance will be addressed with the student.

3.1.6 Pass Individual Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) in the assessment of individual performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how individual performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.7 Pass Team Performance

The student must obtain a grade of at least 0.7 (D-) on the assessment of team performance of any course.  Course professors will determine how team performance is assessed in their course.

3.1.8 Function in Learning Team

The student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team throughout the duration of the Program.  The Program Director will determine whether the student is functioning effectively and supportively as per Section

3.2 Academic Standing

Faculty boards or delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of Academic Standing. Subject to a student’s right of appeal, if a student is not meeting the requirements of their program, a faculty board has the authority to issue a Requirement to Withdraw for Academic Performance, indicating the required transcript notation in accordance with the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen’s University.

Academic standing means the standard used to determine or measure a student’s eligibility to remain and/or progress in a program, as determined by the academic regulations of the student’s Faculty, School or program. The following Academic Standings may apply, depending on individual circumstances:

3.2.1 Good Academic Standing

In order to progress through the Program and to be eligible for the Degree, a student must be in Good Academic Standing.  A student is considered to be in Good Academic Standing when they uphold the Academic Regulations set out in Section 3.1 above.

A student who fails to uphold any one of the Academic Regulations is no longer in Good Academic Standing and is normally required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.2 Academic Jeopardy

A student who fails to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations is deemed to be in Academic Jeopardy until a decision is made about their situation by the appropriate body. 

Students in this situation will first be reviewed by the Program Director.  In some cases, an informal resolution may be possible (for example, an opportunity to re-take an exam if the student has official evidence of being gravely ill on the day of the exam) and, if successful, the student may return to Good Academic Standing.

In cases where an informal resolution is not possible, the Program Director will inform the student in writing of the requirement to withdraw from the Program, subject to the student’s right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5, Academic Decisions and Appeals). Academic Jeopardy Resulting from Failure to Function in the Learning Team

As established in the Academic Regulations, section 3.1.8 Function in Learning Team, a student must function effectively and supportively in the Learning Team (section 2.5) throughout the duration of the Program. Effective and supportive behaviour as a team member includes meeting the standards of performance and behaviour determined by the Team in conjunction with the Team Coach, as well as full cooperation and responsive communication with the Team Coach.

When significant concerns regarding a student’s Learning Team performance is brought to a Team Coach, the Team Coach will investigate the situation fully and fairly.  The Team Coach will:

  1. Discuss the situation with each student on the Learning Team, including the student whose performance or behaviour is in question.
  2. Identify the Learning Team’s established performance, operational and behavioural norms and expectations.
  3. Discuss with the student in question any failure to meet the team norms or expectations, and, if necessary:
  4. Establish a set of formal expectations (in the form of a Performance Improvement Plan) that must be achieved by the student within a specified period in order to fulfill the obligation to perform as an effective and supportive team member.

A student operating under a formal set of performance expectations outlined in a PIP is in Academic Jeopardy.  If the student successfully completes the PIP, the student is once again considered to be in Good Academic Standing.

If, after a thorough investigation, the Director of Team Coaching determines that the student has not successfully completed the PIP, the Director of Team Coaching will refer the matter to the Program Director for review.  If the student is deemed to have violated Regulation 4.1.8, the student will be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5).

3.2.3 Academic Probation

A student who has failed to meet one or more of the Academic Regulations and who has successfully appealed to the Academic Progress Committee (section 5) may be permitted to continue in the Program, on Academic Probation, subject to specific terms, conditions, standards and timeframes tailored to the situation by the Academic Progress Committee. 

A student who successfully completes the conditions of their Academic Probation will be released from Academic Probation and return to Good Academic Standing.  A student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).

3.2.4 Requirement to Withdraw

A student who has failed to meet any one or more of the Academic Regulations is normally required to withdraw from the Program, subject to their right of appeal (section 5).  Further, a student who fails to meet the conditions of their Academic Probation will normally be required to withdraw from the Program.

3.2.5 Effective Date of Sanctions, Penalty or Requirement to Withdraw

Sanctions or adverse academic decisions, such as Academic Probation (and its terms and conditions), penalties or a requirement to withdraw, shall take effect in accordance with Sections 33 and 34 of the Queens University Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”):

  1. Ordinarily, no sanction, penalty or requirement to withdraw shall be put into effect until the student affected has either exhausted all channels of appeal or the time for filing an appeal has expired and no appeal has been filed. For the purpose of this provision, the University will normally consider an adverse academic decision to be a sanction.
  2. Notwithstanding paragraph 33, if an academic unit determines that the interests of third parties may be prejudiced by the continued enrolment of a student in a course or program, the unit may decide that, pending an appeal from an adverse academic decision, the student should not be permitted to continue in their course or program or should be precluded from progressing to the next academic stage. A student who is subject to an immediate sanction under this paragraph may request that the Chair of the appellate body with jurisdiction over the matter expedite the appeal. This request may result in a direct abridging the time for filing of documents, or other interim or preliminary directions.

The Commentary to s.34 reads:

Some academic experiences involve student interaction with third parties or may be subject to laws and regulations such as those governing professions (such as those subject to the Regulated Health Professions Act and the Medicine Act). For example, and without limiting other possible circumstances, there are placement requirements in Education and mandated clinical placements in the Schools of Medicine, Nursing, and Rehabilitative Therapy, where the interests of third parties would justify immediate suspension of a student from a course or portion of a program pending the outcome of an appeal process. In programs involving intensive group work, the interests of other students might also justify such a suspension pending the outcome of an appeal process. Effective Date of Sanctions for Failure to Function in the Learning Team

The Program Director may determine that an adverse academic decision (e.g., requirement to withdraw) as a result of the violation of Regulation 4.1.8 (Function in the Learning Team) requires that a student’s participation in the team be halted during the appeal process to ensure that the interests of third parties (e.g., the learning experience and academic evaluation of the other members of the Learning Team) are not adversely affected.  The student may be permitted to continue in the Program to the extent feasible until all levels of appeal are exhausted. However, in certain circumstances, the student may not be permitted to continue in the Program in accordance with SAAP s.34.


5.1 Academic Integrity

Queen’s University is dedicated to creating a scholarly community free to explore a range of ideas, to build and advance knowledge, and to share the ideas and knowledge that emerge from a range of intellectual pursuits.

Queen’s students, faculty, administrators and staff therefore all have responsibilities for supporting and upholding the fundamental values of academic integrity. Academic integrity is a commitment to the fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility. Academic integrity concerns refer to issues that arise which deserve attention, and which may or may not, in the end, involve a departure from academic integrity, that is, a departure from these fundamental values. This involves what has traditionally been referred to as academic dishonesty but encompasses a much broader context to include educational measures associated with academic integrity. Academic integrity is constituted by the five core fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and responsibility (see International Centre for Academic Integrity ) and by the quality of courage. These values and qualities are central to the building, nurturing and sustaining of an academic community in which all members of the community will thrive. Adherence to the values expressed through academic integrity forms a foundation for the "freedom of inquiry and exchange of ideas" essential to the intellectual life of the University.

During the virtual program launch, students will be introduced to the Queen’s academic integrity policy as part of program orientation. A member of the Queen’s community with expertise in academic integrity will facilitate a session where expectations will be discussed (recognizing that some students have different ideas of what academic integrity means because of possible cultural and pedagogical differences), the process for dealing with issues will be described, and tools used to govern academic integrity (e.g., Turnitin) will be introduced. The Program Director will ensure all students and faculty teaching in the program are aware of the AI policy and process; faculty will provide a statement and link on course syllabi.

Students will also learn about Intellectual Property (IP) in MDPM 900. There will be a program- specific IP agreement consistent with the policies outlined in the Senate document on intellectual property ( that will be signed by all stakeholders involved in the practicum. The agreement will describe how existing IP will be utilized both within and outside the program and how IP generated will be handled. Other courses (MDPM 880, MDPM 883) will speak to this agreement and emphasize its importance.

These topics are also addressed at the beginning of the program (MDPM 800) where a program code of conduct will be developed. In addition, an entire course on digitization and ethics in practice will be delivered (MDPM 850) to reinforce the importance of ethics, academic integrity and IP in digital product management practice. Other courses throughout the program will showcase the importance of ethics and integrity as essential leadership skills for the discipline and instructors will share related stories based on lived experiences. Understanding and application of related knowledge will be demonstrated through case studies, personal journal reflections, and completion of the 9-month practicum.

The following statements from “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity” (2nd edition), developed by the International Center for Academic Integrity (ICAI), contextualize these values and qualities:

  1. Honesty: Academic communities of integrity advance the quest for truth and knowledge through intellectual and personal honesty in learning, teaching, research, and service.
  2. Trust: Academic communities of integrity both foster and rely upon climates of mutual trust. Climates of trust encourage and support the free exchange of ideas which in turn allows scholarly inquiry to reach its fullest potential.
  3. Fairness: Academic communities of integrity establish clear and transparent expectations, standards, and practices to support fairness in the interactions of students, faculty, and administrators.
  4. Respect: Academic communities of integrity value the interactive, cooperative, participatory nature of learning. They honor, value, and consider diverse opinions and ideas.
  5. Responsibility: Academic communities of integrity rest upon foundations of personal accountability coupled with the willingness of individuals and groups to lead by example, uphold mutually agreed-upon standards, and take action when they encounter wrongdoing.
  6. Courage: To develop and sustain communities of integrity, it takes more than simply believing in the fundamental values. Translating the values from talking points into action -- standing up for them in the face of pressure and adversity — requires determination, commitment, and courage.

Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with and adhering to the regulations concerning academic integrity. More information can be found in the Queens University Senate Academic Integrity Procedures – Requirements of Faculties & Schools. General information on academic integrity is available at Queens University Academic Integrity along with School specific information in the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy.

4.1.1 Departures from Academic Integrity

All forms of departure from academic integrity are considered serious offences within the University community.  Faculty boards or their delegated bodies have jurisdiction to deal with issues of academic integrity concerns and to impose sanctions when they find a departure from academic integrity has occurred.  Any student found to have committed a departure from academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, from receiving a grade of zero on the assignment to a recommendation to Queen’s Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University for a period, or even that a degree be rescinded. Departures from academic integrity other than a course-related issue (e.g., falsifying a transcript) are dealt with by the Faculty/School in which the student is registered. The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy governs academic integrity processes at the Smith School of Business. Students are encouraged to consult instructors if they are unsure of the standards of academic integrity appropriate to an academic program, course or activity. The following defines the domain of relevant acts without providing an exhaustive list: Plagiarism

Allowing it to be thought that another's ideas or phrasings are one's own by failing to provide proper acknowledgement. Some examples are:

  • Copying and pasting from the internet
  • Copying a printed source or other resource without proper acknowledgement
  • Copying from another student in the same or different year of the Program or another Program
  • Copying from another’s test paper.
  • Using direct quotations or large sections of paraphrased material in an assignment without appropriate acknowledgement
  • Buying term papers or other assignments and submitting them as one's own
  • Submitting the same piece of work in more than one course without the permission of the instructors
  • Obtaining a copy of, or information about, a test or exam from an earlier section of the course and writing the test or exam later in the day or subsequent days. Use of Unauthorized Materials
  • Possessing or using unauthorized study materials or aids during a test
  • Copying from another's test paper.
  • Using an unauthorized calculator or other aids during a test
  • Unauthorized removal of materials from the library, or deliberate concealment of library materials Facilitation
  • Enabling another's breach of academic integrity.
  • Making information available to another student, such as knowingly allowing one's essay or assignment to be copied by someone else, giving a copy of a test or exam to a student writing the same test or exam later in the day or subsequent days.
  • Selling or distributing term papers or other assignments
  • Knowingly assisting another person to conceal their departure from academic integrity. Unauthorized Collaboration
  • Working with others, without the specific permission of the instructor, on assignments that will be submitted for a grade.
  • This applies to in-class or take-home tests, papers, or homework assignments. Students may not collaborate without the instructor’s authorization. Forgery
  • Utilizing counterfeit documents or statements (e.g., creating or altering a transcript, medical note or other official documents). Falsification
  • Misrepresentation of oneself, one's work or one's relation to the University.
  • Altering transcripts or other official documents relating to student records
  • Impersonating someone in an examination or test
  • Submitting a take-home examination written, in whole or in part, by someone else
  • Fabricating or falsifying research data or source material (whether by commission or by omission)
  • Allowing someone else to do research work without the knowledge and approval of the instructor.
  • Failing to appropriately recognize contributions of others.
  • Attributing authorship of work to persons other than those who have contributed to the work in a meaningful way.
4.1.2 Process for Investigating Suspected Departures from Academic Integrity

The Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy sets out complete procedures and processes for handling suspected departures from academic integrity. Students are responsible for familiarizing themselves with the policy. Normally, where a course professor has a concern about a possible departure from academic integrity, the professor will notify the student and investigate in accordance with Smith policy. The student will have an opportunity to respond, and their response will be considered part of the evidence in the case.

In complex cases the professor may refer the case to the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Panel for investigation. In this situation, the Academic Integrity Panel will notify the student of the potential departure and investigate in accordance with Smith policy.

In cases of a subsequent departure from academic integrity (that is, where there is a previous departure on record for the student), the professor will make a finding but refer the case to the Academic Integrity Panel for the determination of a sanction.

4.1.3 Assessment of Sanction

Where there is a finding of departure from academic integrity, the instructor consults with the Dean’s Office. If the Dean’s Office reports a previous finding exists, the instructor refers the matter to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for the assignment of an appropriate sanction. If there is no academic integrity record on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the instructor may assign a remedy or sanction appropriate to the extent or severity of the offense. When considering the remedy or sanction, the instructor considers several factors in assessing the gravity of the remedial measure or sanction to be imposed. Additional information can be found on the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity website.

Following the investigation of the suspected departure from Academic Integrity, the professor will either: i) make a finding of a departure from academic integrity and impose a sanction (or consult with the Smith Academic Integrity Panel for sanction); or ii) determine there was no departure from Academic Integrity, notify the student the investigation has been dropped and destroy all documents related to the case.

After making the finding and setting a sanction within the scope of those available to the instructor, the instructor must inform the student in writing of the decision. If the finding appears to warrant a sanction more serious than the instructor may impose, or if there is a previous finding of a departure from academic integrity on file in the Smith Dean’s Office, the case shall be referred to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel.

Any student who is found to have committed a violation of academic integrity may face a range of sanctions, including but not limited to:

  • An oral or written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behaviour (Note that an oral warning must still be documented on the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity form)
  • A learning experience involving a rewriting or revision of the original piece of work
  • The submission of a new piece of work
  • The completion of other work
  • The deduction of partial or total marks for the assignment/exam
  • A failing grade (down to a grade of zero) in the course.

If the penalty amounts to a failure in the course, the student may not drop the course, regardless of the drop deadlines.

In the case of a referral to the Smith Academic Integrity Panel, the Panel may impose sanctions ranging from those noted above to a recommendation to Senate that the student be required to withdraw from the University.    

Records of findings of departures from Academic Integrity are kept in the Dean’s Office and in the Program Office. 

4.2 Extenuating Circumstances Policies
4.2.1 Illness

A student who claims illness as a reason for missing academic obligations is responsible for informing the professor, Program Manager and the Program Director and may be required to provide evidence of illness.  In keeping with University Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy, a student suffering from a short-term illness should submit the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form outlining their needs. 

A notification of absence from an examination must be accompanied by documentation as follows:

  • in cases of illness when a student is under the care of a physician, the student should provide a note from the physician. Retroactive doctors’ notes (i.e. notes dated from physicians after the illness) are not acceptable.
  • If a student is ill, but not under the care of a physician prior to and during an exam, they can provide the appropriate Extenuating Circumstances form(s) outlining their situation.
4.2.2 Extenuating Circumstances

The Program adheres to Queen’s Academic Consideration for Students in Extenuating Circumstances Policy and the principle of a good faith response to requests for consideration. The policy enables students with extenuating circumstances to request academic consideration in a fair, reasonable and consistent manner.

Extenuating circumstances means a personal circumstance beyond the student’s control that has a direct and substantial impact on the student’s ability to meet essential academic requirements or expectations.  Extenuating circumstances include but are not limited to a sudden or acute physical or mental illness, serious injury to self or significant others, bereavement, a traumatic event, or other serious personal/family crisis.  Extenuating circumstances may also include officially representing the university at a sanctioned event or through an invitation to participate in an event as a distinguished guest (e.g., national tournament, Olympics). Extenuating circumstances do not include personal or family events (e.g., holidays, weddings), academic or exam stress, or transportation or technological difficulties.

There are three extenuating circumstances levels, a student who is unable to satisfy the requirements of a course or the Program due to extenuating circumstances must notify the Program Director in writing as soon as possible. 

Level 1: Brief Absence Students who require an unplanned brief absence from academic obligations for a period of up to 48 hours. Instructors and Faculty/School Offices have discretion to extend academic considerations for an unplanned Brief Absence beyond 48 hours if they deem it appropriate in situations where recovery requires additional days. In cases where a student who submitted a Self-Declaration of Brief Absence is not able to return to full academic functioning within a few days, the student should submit a Request for Academic Consideration for Extenuating Circumstances.

Level 2: Short Term Extenuating Circumstances Students who require academic consideration for a short-term period defined as more than 48 hours (with discretion for an additional one or two days) but less than 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances where the student anticipates a full recovery and return to previous levels of academic functioning within the next 3 months. This applies to extenuating circumstances that lead to a reduced ability to meet academic requirements due to physical or mental impairment. This includes an extended unanticipated illness (e.g., mononucleosis, pneumonia), a serious injury (e.g., concussion, broken bones), a required treatment (surgical procedure, significant side effects from new medication), serious injury or illness to a significant other, bereavement (e.g., loss of family member), traumatic event, or another significant personal crisis.

Students who are unable to meet academic obligations due to functional impairments and limitations related to a known underlying disability or diagnosed health condition should register with Queen’s Student Accessibility Services to receive ongoing academic accommodations tailored to their individual needs. Academic considerations should be individualized to the student’s circumstances and in proportion to the student’s ability to complete academic requirements. Depending on the ability of the student to engage in academic tasks and the nature of the program the student is in and related academic requirements, short term extenuating circumstances may require withdrawing from a course (or courses) or may require a medical leave of absence.

Level 3: Long-term Extenuating circumstances. Students who do not anticipate a full recovery or return to academic functioning within 3 months should speak with their Faculty / School Offices immediately to discuss academic implications and possible academic considerations (e.g., reduced course load, medical leave of absence). Students should take reasonable measures to promote academic success and their personal well-being by accessing available supports, including Queen’s Student Accessibility Services, Health and/or Counselling Services, and other campus supports or personal /professional supports as appropriate.

Students who anticipate a return to academic functioning but with ongoing need for academic accommodation should contact Queen’s Student Accessibility Services (QSAS) to register for ongoing academic accommodations. Students will need to provide documentation to QSAS related to their functional impairments.

Students seeking academic accommodations related to a chronic or ongoing physical or mental health condition or an existing disability should refer to the existing policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Students with long term health conditions or disability should seek academic accommodation from Queen’s Student Accessibility Services in Student Wellness Services.

Privacy and confidentiality will be protected and maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., faculty offices, instructors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Confidentiality cannot be maintained where there is reason to believe that an individual may be at risk of harming themselves or others.

In cases where a student is unable to act, a delegate may act on behalf of the student, with the student’s written consent.

Students are expected to request academic considerations as soon as extenuating circumstances are apparent. Requests for retroactive consideration should be directed to the Faculty/School Office and will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

For extenuating circumstances relating to sexual violence or harassment and discrimination, students can contact the Sexual Violence Prevention and Response Co-ordinator, the Human Rights Office, or Student Wellness Services, for support and for the facilitation of appropriate arrangements. The Policy on Sexual Violence Involving Queen’s University Students supersedes these procedures.

If the student is requesting an alternate means of satisfying the Program requirements, a formal written request should be submitted to the Program Director.  The request should include an explanation of the connection between the effects of the extenuating circumstances and the student’s academic performance, as well as the remedy being proposed.

The Program Director will respond to the student’s request for consideration promptly.  The Program is committed to responding to students in a fair and consistent manner, considering the specific individual circumstances.  The Program is also committed to upholding academic standards and ensuring that essential academic requirements are met.

If an instructor or supervisor does not assent to the request for academic consideration in extenuating circumstances made by a graduate student, academic consideration may nonetheless be granted, unless the instructor or supervisor provides justifiable reasons for withholding his or her assent. The decision to grant or deny the academic consideration shall be made by the Associate Dean of the School of Graduate Studies.

4.2.3 Official Documentation

Level 1 documentation: The university does not require verification documentation from a health care professional (on-campus or hospital or community-based) in these circumstances. 

Level 2 documentation: Students may be required to provide verification documentation. This may include the Verification of Personal Health Condition form, a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form, or other documentation (e.g., death certification, police report of an accident). Students are not required to disclose specific details of their personal circumstances to their instructors or supervisors, but the Faculty/School Office may require documentation that verifies the extenuating circumstance and the inability or reduced capacity to complete academic work. In cases where a Verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form has been submitted, additional documentation or detail is not required. Official documentation, including notes from health care professionals, need not outline the specific details of the student’s condition, but must clearly indicate ways in which the circumstances directly affect the student’s performance, and verify that these effects were substantial enough to cause the academic disruption.  Information about the start, duration and present state of the condition or circumstances, as well as a clear statement on whether the condition or circumstances have either improved or are being managed so that they will not have a significant detrimental effect on future academic performance, are essential.

Level 3 documentation:  Documentation may include Self-declaration forms, requests for academic consideration forms, verification of Confidential Extenuating Circumstances form or other documentation (determined on a case-by-case basis).

A student’s privacy and confidentiality are maintained throughout this process to the extent possible. Information may be shared among university personal (e.g., instructors or supervisors, exams office) on a need-to-know basis for the purpose of arranging academic considerations. Documentation collected as part of this policy will not be part of a student’s permanent academic record.

Documents submitted may be verified by the Program administration.  False statements or documents may be investigated in accordance with the Smith Policy on Academic Integrity.

4.2.4 Unresolved Circumstances

The appeals and consideration processes do not compensate for circumstances that the student is unable to resolve, or for which the student is unwilling to actively seek accommodation. In addition, the appeals process does not compensate for circumstances that are actively being accommodated, for example where a student’s permanent disabilities are being accommodated through Queen’s Student Accessibility Services Office.

Multiple appeals citing the same circumstances will be reviewed very closely. This review may include, with the permission of the student, consultation with the appropriate professionals involved to obtain more detailed information. In order for such an appeal to succeed, there must be convincing evidence that the circumstances that affected the student’s academic performance will be resolved within a reasonable timeline or will be appropriately managed on an ongoing basis.

4.3 Language

Students should be proficient in the English language. There are no language requirements for this program that exceed those set by the School of Graduate Studies.

In accordance with Queen’s University Language Policy, examinations and assignments are to be submitted in English, except where a Faculty Board has approved an alternative practice or where a special agreement has been entered into between the Program and a student.

4.4 Acceptable Use of Information Technology Resources Policy

All members of the Queen’s community are bound by the Queen’s policy on the Acceptable Use of Information Technology (IT) Resources.  The policy states:

The use of Queen's University information technology (IT) resources must be consistent with the academic mission of the University. These IT resources are provided to support the teaching, learning, research and administrative activities of the Queen's community. As a member or guest of the Queen's community, you may have access to valuable internal and external networks and resources, and Sensitive Information, and you are expected to use these resources in a responsible, ethical, and legal manner. Your actions should not adversely affect the ability of others to use these resources or compromise the security and privacy of sensitive information.

4.4.1 Submission of Electronic Assignments

Students are required to submit all assignments electronically.  It is the responsibility of the student to ensure that all electronic submissions have been submitted properly and are corruption-free.

Any assignment that is detected to be carrying a corrupt file will be immediately destroyed, and the student must re-submit the assignment corruption-free. If the assignment is not re-submitted before the assignment deadline it will be marked “late.”

4.5 Examinations
4.5.1 Access to Examinations

The term final examination refers to the final examination in a course together with the graded answer paper written by the student. These documents, in accordance with the Senate Policy on Student Access to Final Examination Papers, must be retained by the professor or the School for a period of 12 months. Informal Access

Professors may informally review the final examination with a student who requests it and are encouraged to do so. However, access may not be granted before the final marks are released. Formal Access

A student may obtain access to their final exam as part of an appeal process. This may be supervised access to, or a copy of, the final examination paper.  The student should contact the Program administration to arrange for formal access to their final exam.

4.5.2 Changes to Examination Times

Requests for changes to an individual examination time must be made to the Program Director as soon as the student is aware of a conflict. Normally, such requests will only be granted if extenuating circumstances (beyond the student’s control) will prevent the student from writing the exam at the scheduled time. 

The exam dates for courses with exams (online or in person) will be posted well in advance of the date of the exam. The policies regarding change of dates are set out below.

1.  All requests for changes to exam dates must meet the following criteria:

  1. A written request for the change of date must be received by the Program Manager at Queen’s at least two weeks in advance of the exam; the request must clearly state the reason for the change.
  2. All requests must be approved by the program administration in consultation with the course professor; this process may require supporting documentation.
  3. In extenuating circumstances, changes to exam dates may be considered if the criteria set out in 1 and 2 above are not met.

4.6 Queen's University Student Code of Conduct

Queen’s University is dedicated to learning, intellectual inquiry, the dissemination and advancement of knowledge, personal and professional development, and good citizenship.  All students are required to read and adhere to Queen’s University Student Code of Conduct and Procedures Under the Queen's University Student Code of Conduct (2021) Students should refer to the Student Policy Index for more information on all student policies.

Students are expected to adhere to and promote the University’s core values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect and personal responsibility in all aspects of university life, academic and non-academic. These core values are intended to inform and guide student conduct as they foster mutual respect for the dignity, property, rights and well-being of others.

As a member of the Queen’s community, every student accepts the University’s policies, rules and procedures and acknowledges the right of the University to set standards of conduct, as well as the right of the University and/or its Authorized Agent(s) to impose sanctions for conduct found to have violated those standards.  

4.6.1 Professionalism and Facilities Etiquette

All study and workspaces provided by Smith School of Business and the Queen’s School of Computing should be treated with respect and care.  All students are expected to properly reserve space, use the facilities for the purposes for which they are intended, and to leave spaces clean, tidy, in the proper furniture configuration and with the room supplies. 


Academic Regulations at Queen’s University were designed to ensure that students are being treated fairly and equitably while upholding the academic standards of the institution. On occasion, there are extenuating circumstances that are usually beyond a student’s control that may have impacted their performance at Queen’s. Appeal processes were developed to reconsider the appropriateness of any sanctions or penalties that may have been imposed upon a student who may have extenuating circumstances.  Various types of academic decisions may be made by a course professor, Program Director, Academic Progress Committee, Academic Integrity Panel, Academic Appeals Committee and/or the University Student Appeal Board.  Admissions decisions are not subject to appeal.

The appeals process at Queen’s University is comprised of several levels of appeal by different appeal bodies.  In accordance with the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, the decision system is based on the principle that "decisions should generally be made by those who are most familiar with the context”[1] .  The Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy reflects the intent of the Senate regarding Student Academic Appeals, which is twofold: To ensure that students receive fair treatment and are aware of their rights and responsibilities and to establish a fair, efficient process for addressing student appeals from academic decisions.

Appeals of academic decisions fall into four possible categories: appeals of grades (Section 5.1), appeals of other academic decisions (Section 5.2), appeals of academic standing and progression decisions (Section 5.3), and appeals of academic integrity decisions (Section 5.4).

Note that it is the student’s responsibility to clearly establish that grounds for an appeal exist as the basis for an appeal.  Below the various decision-making bodies and their mandates are explained.

Appeals of decisions rendered under the Students at Risk Policy and Students at Risk Procedure. 

[1] Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy, Introduction (p. 4).

5.1 Appeals of Grades

Grades are determined by course professors.  Appeals of grades in courses (including assignments, examination papers, and final grades) are first handled at the course professor level.

Examination papers and course marks of students whose final grade in a course is marginally below a letter grade, and especially below a failing grade, are reviewed with special care by faculty members before such grades are assigned. Therefore, it is unlikely that such a grade is incorrect or unfair to the student.  However, if a student feels that a course grade or a portion of it has been unfairly assessed, they should first make an attempt to resolve the issue informally with the professor.

If the student feels that the issue remains unresolved, they should contact the Program Director who will initiate a formal grade review.  A review of the assignment or examination shall be conducted by two examiners appointed by the Program Director or designate; one examiner shall be the original professor or grader, if available. The review shall involve a re‐reading of the final examination or deliverable(s) in the course and a review of the student’s course record.

Students are not charged a fee for filing an appeal.

Note that it is the responsibility of the student to preserve all exercises, papers, reports, and other graded material for the course and to submit a copy of these documents with the request for review. The scanned copy of any graded assignment or material returned to a student shall be deemed to be the original document for the purposes of this section.

Note that an appeal may result in no change to the grade, an increase in the grade, or a decrease in the grade. The decision of the examiner(s) is final, and there is no further appeal available.

5.2 Appeals of Other Academic Decisions

The Program Director makes some decisions for students facing special circumstances in the Program.  The student should request consideration as appropriate to the Program Director as soon as they are aware of a situation requiring such consideration.  Examples of such decisions could include changing a course registration from one elective to another or deferring an exam.

Appeals of decisions by the Program Director are made to the Academic Progress Committee. 

5.3 Appeals of Academic Standing and Progression Decisions

Students are considered to be in Good Academic Standing unless they have violated one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program.  As noted, students who violate one or more of the Academic Regulations of the Program are normally required to withdraw from the Program.  In such a case, the Program Director will normally inform the student in writing that, because of their violation of one or more of the Regulations, they are required to withdraw from the Program.

Appeals of these decisions are made to the Academic Progress Committee.

See Appendix A/B for the Academic Progress Committee’s Terms of Reference and Rules of Procedure.

5.4 Appeals of Academic Integrity Decisions

Course professors will normally investigate and make decisions regarding possible violations of academic integrity in their courses in accordance with the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy and as set out in Section 4.1.

Appeals of professors’ decisions regarding academic integrity are made to the Academic Integrity Panel.

In cases where the Academic Integrity Panel is the initial decision maker, appeals are made to the Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee.

5.5 The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee

The Smith School of Business Academic Appeals Committee (AAC) has jurisdiction over all matters related to academic appeals involving students registered in the School of Business (with the exception of the PhD and Master of Science programs). The AAC hears appeals of decisions made by Academic Progress Committee and the Academic Integrity Panel.

Normally, the AAC serves as a true appeal board, which is not empowered to substitute its own decision for that of the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel, but rather reviews the decision of the previous decision-making body based on the same information[1] available to the previous body at the time the decision was made.[2] 

The AAC reviews the circumstances of the decision of the previous decision-maker to: ensure that the Academic Progress Committee or the Academic Integrity Panel did not exceed its jurisdiction; ensure that there was procedural fairness; ensure that there was appropriate consideration of extenuating circumstances; uphold the academic policies and principles reflected in the School’s and University’s regulations; and determine if the decision was reasonable.

In rendering a decision, the AAC may uphold the decision of the previous body, grant the student's appeal, or modify the original decision/sanction.  Any decision made by the AAC must be within the scope of the school’s regulations.

Appeals of decisions made by the AAC are made to the University Student Appeal Board.

[1] In situations where new evidence becomes available which may have, or is likely to have, affected the original decision of the previous decision-maker (i.e. the APC or the AIP), the AAC may refer those cases back to the previous decision-maker.

[2] Where the Academic Integrity Panel (AIP) was the initial decision-maker, the AAC will investigate an Academic Integrity case de novo

5.6 The University Student Appeal Board

Where an appeal to the University Student Appeal Board (“USAB”) is permitted, after exhausting all internal appeals within their faculty or School, a student may appeal to USAB within two weeks after the date of the Faculty’s or School’s last decision. See the Student Academic Appeals Policy (“SAAP”) for the full mandate and processes of USAB. Faculties and Schools are bound by and must implement all decisions of USAB. The University Student Appeal Board is the final internal appeal body at Queen’s University.

The University Student Appeal Board (USAB) has jurisdiction to hear the following types of appeals by students from the final academic decision-making body within their Faculty or School:

USAB has the jurisdiction to review a decision if it results in the application of an academic regulation that impedes a student’s academic standing in a program, but USAB does not have the jurisdiction to review the academic regulation itself; a decision concerning a departure from academic integrity and step-two decisions made by a Unit Head concerning an employment-related issue between an undergraduate teaching assistant and their course supervisor.

The Provost and Vice-Principal (Academic) (“Provost”) or their designate may, refer any decision involving a departure from academic integrity directly to a proceeding before USAB if they are satisfied that an internal appeal of the decision cannot be made in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness; and the matter has not been appealed to another body.

USAB will have full jurisdiction to impose any sanction that could have been made by a body with original jurisdiction over the matter, including requiring the student to withdraw. The provost (or their designate) will be present at the USAB proceeding and will determine what sanction to seek from USAB. USAB have no jurisdiction to consider the academic substance of decisions and assessments.

The grounds for an appeal to USAB are limited to cases in which a student can establish that:

  1. The decision-making body whose decision is being appealed failed to act in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness. A breach of procedural fairness includes such things as failing to:
  • Permit a student to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker.
  • Follow applicable rules, regulations, or university policy, in a way that adversely affected a student’s right to a fair process.
  • Make a reasonable decision. A “reasonable” decision is one that is rational in that its findings are based on evidence, thought out and supported by facts and logical inferences from findings of fact. To be reasonable, the decision must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions. A decision should be upheld if it falls within a range of possible, acceptable outcomes, in which case USAB is not permitted to substitute its opinion for that of the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal.
    • The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed to USAB acted without, or exceeded its, jurisdiction.

No Costs Reimbursement

Neither USAB nor any other decision-maker in the University has the power to direct that a student receive compensation for any costs or expenses incurred during any University-based proceeding. Notwithstanding this, USAB may order that a student receive reimbursement for loss of a Queen’s University bursary, scholarship, or similar funds because of a decision that was reversed on appeal. This remedy is available only if the student remains a student following the issuance of USAB’s decision, or, if the student graduated while their appeal was pending.

Decisions of USAB

In deciding an appeal, USAB may do one of the following:

i. Remit a matter for reconsideration by the decision-maker whose decision has been appealed to USAB, with directions or recommendations; a reconsideration decision may be appealed to USAB based on one of the Grounds for Appeal stated above.

ii. Modify the original decision, including making any decision that the original decision-maker could have made, but only where:

a. Proceeding in accordance with section 48(i) of the Rules of Procedures for USAB would cause delay that prejudices the student’s rights; or,

b. USAB has made a finding of bias in the decision-making process below.

The decision of the USAB is final, and there is no further level of appeal.

5.7 Queen's University Senate Policy - Student Academic Appeals Policy

All students should be familiar with their rights as established in the Student Academic Appeals Policy


6.1 Educational Equity

Through the Educational Equity Policy, Queen's University recognizes that the values of equity and diversity are vital to and in harmony with its educational mission and standards of excellence. It acknowledges that direct, indirect and systemic discrimination exist within our institutional structures, policies and practices and in our community. These take many forms and work to differentially advantage and disadvantage persons across social identities such as race, ethnicity, disability, gender identity, sexual orientation, faith and socioeconomic status, among other examples.

Queen's is committed to counteracting discrimination in this institution and developing a climate of educational equity that recognizes and respects the equal dignity and worth of all who seek to participate in the life, work and mission of the University. Such a climate is created and maintained by developing a university-wide commitment to and understanding of educational equity, supported by policies, programs, curricula, practices and traditions that facilitate individuals - and equity-seeking groups- free, safe, and full participation. 

Any student who has concerns related to educational equity may contact the Program Director, the Office of the University Ombudsperson , and/or the Human Rights and Equity Services Office.

6.2 Accommodation for Special Needs/Disabilities

Queen’s Policy Concerning Students with Disabilities states:

Queen's University is committed to facilitating the integration of students with disabilities into the University community. While all students must satisfy the essential requirements for courses and programs, the administration, faculty, staff, and students at Queen's are expected to provide reasonable accommodation to students with disabilities. Reasonable accommodation may require members of the University community to exercise creativity and flexibility in responding to the needs of students with disabilities while maintaining academic standards.

This policy acknowledges that fundamental to the academic and personal success of students is their responsibility both to demonstrate self-reliance and to identify needs requiring accommodation.

It is the responsibility of students in need of accommodation for a disability or other special need to contact Queen’s Student Accessibility Services  to register for formal accommodations.  In partnership with Student Accessibility Services, the Program will work to ensure that appropriate modifications or accommodations are made in accordance with Queen’s Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities and Queen’s Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Procedure.

6.3 Academic Advising

Students should contact the Program administration with questions about degree requirements, electives or other academic matters as appropriate.

6.4 Personal Counselling

Queen’s University provides personal counselling services through Student Wellness Services.  Student Wellness Services supports the personal, academic, and social development of students at Queen's University by providing a range of programs and services.

Students may also contact the Program Director to discuss supports available through Smith School of Business.

6.5  The University Ombudsperson

Queen’s University is committed to the just, fair and equitable treatment of each and every member of the University community. In keeping with this commitment, the Office of the University Ombudsperson provides an independent, impartial and confidential office through which members of the University community may pursue the just, fair and equitable resolution of university-related concerns within its jurisdiction. 

Among other duties, the Office of the University Ombudsperson: receives, assesses, and facilitates the informal resolution of concerns and complaints; provides confidential and independent advice and support to members of the University community; acts as a liaison between individuals and/or groups at all levels serving as a communicator or informal conciliator; and mediates the resolution of complaints.

Any student who finds themselves in an appeal situation is strongly advised to contact the Office of the University Ombudsperson for advice, assistance and support. In appropriate circumstances and subject to availability, the Office of the University Ombudsperson can assign an Ombuds Academic Appeal Advisor to assist a student who is facing serious adverse academic consequences. The role of an Ombuds Academic Appeal Advisor is to ensure that students are aware of their rights and responsibilities and to counsel students about opportunities to resolve their matter.


7.1 The Faculty Board of Smith School of Business

In May 1963, the Faculty Board of Smith School of Business was established by the Board of Trustees of the University on the Senate's recommendation, to provide an appropriate body for the regulation of the conduct of the school’s academic programs.

The Faculty Board of Smith School of Business (Smith) is constituted as follows: the Principal (ex officio), the Dean and Associate Dean(s) of Smith School of Business, all regular faculty of Smith, all adjunct academic staff of Smith, all other persons, who are currently teaching or whose appointment is in force at the date of the meeting or those in other faculties giving required courses for any of the degree programs in Smith; one senior administrative officer from each of the major teaching programs (e.g., BCom, Queen's MBA, Exec MBA, AMBA, Exec MBA Americas, Master of Management, MSc/PhD); a representative of all non-academic, non-teaching staff of Smith School of Business (to be elected by this group); President of the Commerce Society, two BCom student Senators, two other representatives from the Commerce Society, one student representative from the Queen's MBA program, one student representative from the Executive MBA Programs, one representative from the AMBA Program, one representative from the Exec MBA Americas Program, one student representative from the Master of Management Programs, one representative from the MSc Program, one from the PhD Program.

7.1.1 Review of Record by Faculty Board

The Faculty Board of the School of Business reserves the right to review the record of any student. The Faculty Board will recommend to the Senate the granting of the Degree, after all courses have been completed in accordance with the provisions specified in this Calendar.

7.2 Student Names

As the University is committed to the integrity of its student records, each student is required to provide either on application for admission or on personal data forms required for registration, their complete, legal name. Any requests to change a name, by means of alteration, deletion, substitution or addition must be accompanied by appropriate supporting documentation in accordance with the University Policy on Student Names.

7.3 Confidentiality

The Program acknowledges that confidentiality is a serious and important issue for students. Students may be submitting and developing confidential business plans and strategies, and these submissions are carefully protected. All staff sign confidentiality agreements. These confidentiality agreements are kept on file in the Program office, and students may request a copy at any time. 

Class discussions will frequently include company-specific examples. In order to encourage open class discussions, all in-class discussions should be held in the strictest confidence by students and professors and must not be discussed outside of class.  Recorded classes are for the purpose of helping students in their studies and must not be copied, shared or distributed in any way. 

7.3.1 Sharing of Student Data

During the course of the program, the Program may share the names of persons enrolled in the GDA program with the institutes of the professional accounting bodies in order to facilitate the record keeping on the part of those professional bodies. This is intended to prevent those students taking the GDA program from having their qualifications judged on a course-by-course basis, which would not be appropriate given the accreditation status of the Smith GDA program. Should a candidate choose not to have this information shared with the professional accounting bodies, the Program Manager must be informed in writing (email is acceptable) within two weeks of the beginning of the Program. Likewise, students enrolled in the GDA Program grant the institutes of the professional accounting bodies permission to share their results on the professional exams with Smith School of Business.

7.4 Conflict of Interest

Fairness or objectivity may be compromised if academic evaluation is conducted, even in part, by someone to whom there is a close personal or professional tie (for example, a family member or consulting relationship). Where such a tie does exist between student and instructor, the parties involved have the responsibility to declare a potential conflict of interest, normally to the Program Director who will assist, without prejudice, in arranging evaluation by alternative means.

Conflicts of interest may also arise with the sharing of confidential company information on projects, as well as within teams. When this occurs, the parties involved must declare the potential conflict to the Program Director who will make, without prejudice, alternative arrangements.

7.5 Withdrawal and Re-Admission

A student who withdraws from the Program, whether voluntarily or as a result of a requirement to withdraw, is subsequently no longer considered to be an enrolled student of Queen's University. There is no opportunity for students to take a leave of absence from the Program, except in extraordinary circumstances.

7.5.1 Program Fees and Withdrawals

The funding model for Smith School of Business Professional Graduate Programs is distinct from MSc and PhD programs at Smith, the latter designated part of the School of Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs. Therefore, the Completion/Withdrawal Schedule for School of Graduate Studies and Postdoctoral Affairs does not apply to students registered in Smith School of Business Professional Graduate Programs. If you choose to withdraw from a Professional Graduate Program, you may be eligible for a refund.

Depending on the date of withdrawal and the fees already paid, a participant who withdraws from the Program may be eligible for a refund of fees as follows:

  1. Program fees are due in full for all completed courses
  2. For partially completed courses, 50% of the course fee is due up to and including half-way point of the course.  After the half-way point of the course, the fee will be prorated based on the length of time the participant is enrolled in the course.
  3. The fee for the projects will be prorated based on the credits earned in non-project courses by the participant at the time of withdrawal.
  4. There will be no refund of in-residence fees incurred.
  5. There will be no refund of advisor fees incurred for individual projects.
  6. For refund calculation purposes the fee per course credit is calculated by the Finance Office.  The refund per course is adjusted according to the credit weight of the particular course taken.

Students with a Queen’s or Smith scholarship will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. Please contact Queen's Smith School of Business directly for more information.

7.5.2 Re-admission

Former students may apply for re-admission. It is important to note that prior admission to the Program is not a guarantee of future re-admission. To initiate an application for re-admission, former students must submit all documents and materials required by the admissions procedures in place at the time of their application for re-admission.

In some cases, a student who has withdrawn will be re-admitted on Academic Probation. Students who withdraw while on Academic Probation will continue on Probation if they are re-admitted to the Program.  Students who have been required to withdraw from the Program will not normally be re-admitted to the Program.

7.6 Financial Policy

Students should consult the Program website or Director for the fee schedule and late payment policies. 

7.6.1 Outstanding Debts

Queen’s University Senate Policy on Student Debtors provides that:

Any student with an overdue debt with the University will not be permitted to register or receive examination results, official transcripts or marks reports until the outstanding account is settled in full or until an acceptable arrangement for settling the account is made. In no case will a diploma be released to a student with an outstanding debt with the University.

Students with outstanding debts may also be restricted from registering for, or attending, courses and Program residential sessions until all debts have been paid in full or an acceptable arrangement for the payment of debt has been reached.

Interest will be charged to the student account on any overdue amount. Interest is calculated on a compound basis. Account queries should be addressed to the Smith Finance Office at Queen's Smith School of Business.

7.7 Trademark and Copyright

Smith School of Business is the owner of its trademarks (logo, name, colours) and custom materials (workbooks, study guides, cases). Smith School of Business retains ownership of all trademarks and copyrights, and students may not duplicate or reproduce these trademarks and copyrights without specific written permission from the Dean of Smith School of Business and the Program Director. This is particularly important regarding the use of the logo, which may not be reproduced on clothing or other materials without the prior written consent of the Dean and the Program Director. The school assumes no responsibility for any costs incurred by students who proceed to use the School logo without receiving prior written permission. Persons who use the school trademark and copyrights without permission will be subject to legal action to block usage.

Appendix A: Academic Progress Committee Terms of Reference

Smith School of Business

Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, and Graduate Diploma Programs

Adopted by Faculty Board September 12, 2017


The Master of Business Administration (“MBA”), Master of Management (“MOM”), and Graduate Diploma (“GD”) Academic Progress Committee is responsible for making decisions about academic progression and other academic matters relating to MBA, MOM and GD students at Smith School of Business.  The committee will hereafter be referred to as the “MBA/MOM APC”.

Academic Progress Committee members are knowledgeable about Smith School of Business Master of Business Administration, Master of Management and Graduate Diploma programs, and Queen’s University policies and procedures.  The MBA/MOM APC provides a uniform approach in the handling of academic matters across the Smith School of Business professional Masters programs.

1 Jurisdiction

The Academic Progress Committee (APC) is established by the Smith School of Business Faculty Board to monitor and make decisions about academic matters and the academic progress of Master of Business Administration students in the Full-Time, Executive, and Accelerated MBA Programs; all Master of Management Programs; and all Graduate Diploma Programs. 

The APC considers the cases and special circumstances, if any, of students who appeal a decision regarding the application of the academic regulations, or another academic matter, that has been made at the Program level. 

1.1 No Jurisdiction

The APC does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals of:

  1. Matters related to individual or team assignments and/or exam grades (such appeals are made to the Program Director).
  2. Findings or sanctions related to departures from Academic Integrity (such appeals are heard by the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Panel).

2 Membership

The MBA/MOM Academic Progress Committee is comprised of a total of seven voting members, all of whom are knowledgeable about the MBA, MOM and GD programs.  APC members are faculty members of Smith School of Business and are appointed by the Associate Dean, Faculty.  Two faculty members are appointed Co-Chairs. 

Members normally hold a term of three years (preferably in staggered terms).  New members assume their duties on July 1 of each year.

Hearing Panels of the MBA/MOM APC shall be appointed by the Co-Chair to hear individual student appeals.  Hearing Panels shall normally consist of a minimum of three APC members, including one Co-Chair, and a maximum of six APC members, based on availability and any conflict-of-interest issues.

2.1 Role of the Co-Chair

The Co-Chairs of the APC will be faculty members.  Another member of the APC may be delegated the role of Co-Chair if the appointed Co-Chairs are unable to participate in a particular case.

Normally, one Co-Chair will act as Chair of a Hearing Panel.  The Co-Chair will:

  1. appoint a Hearing Panel
  2. serve as the Chair of a Hearing Panel unless that role is delegated as above
  3. convene hearings
  4. preside over hearings of the MBA/MOM APC Panel according to the Rules of Procedure[1] and give procedural direction for the conduct of individual cases to the extent that a procedural issue is not dealt with in the Rules of Procedure
  5. participate in the Hearing Panel deliberations and decision-making
  6. guide the APC in the uniform and consistent application of the regulations and relevant policies within and across the MBA/MOM/GD programs
  7. ensure hearings are conducted fairly and with due process; and
  8. draft and finalize the decision of the Hearing Panel consistent with the findings and reasons of the APC members and communicate the Panel’s Decision to the parties involved.

[1] See the MBA/MOM APC Rules of Procedure for the rules regarding pre-hearing, hearing, and post-hearing matters.

Appendix B: Academic Progress Committee Rules of Procedure

Smith School of Business

Master of Business Administration, Master of Management, and Graduate Diploma Programs

Adopted by Faculty Board September 12, 2017


The following Rules of Procedure apply to the General Proceedings, Appeal Hearings (“Hearings”), Decisions, Post-Hearing and Record-Keeping matters of the Master of Business Administration, Master of Management and Graduate Diploma Academic Progress Committee (“MBA/MOM APC”).

These Rules of Procedure shall be interpreted liberally to facilitate the just, expeditious and cost-effective determination of every proceeding on its merits.

The Terms of Reference for the MBA/MOM Academic Program Committee are available in a separate document.

1 General Rules

The following rules of apply to proceedings before an APC Hearing Panel (“Panel”):

1.1 Panel Decisions Will Be Made in Accordance with Relevant School Regulations and Policies

The Panel will adhere to the relevant program Academic Regulations as well as policies and procedures of the School and Queen’s University.

1.2 All Appeals Are To Be Heard by the Panel in Camera

To protect the privacy and confidentiality of students, Panel meetings and Hearings are closed to the public.

Hearings are not normally recorded unless a special request is made by the appellant in advance of the Hearing.  In such a case, the Chair of the Panel (“Chair”) will decide whether to record the Hearing.  The Chair may also wish to record a Hearing and will inform the parties of the intention to do so in advance of the Hearing.  Any transcripts of a Hearing will be provided to either party upon request, in which case a copy will also be provided to the other party. Transcripts must be treated as confidential.  There will be no recording of the Panel’s deliberations.  Participants may take their own notes during the Hearing.  All such notes are transitory1 and are not considered to be University Records. 

1 See the Queen’s University Policy on Transitory Records:

Transitory Records are created or received by the University in the course of conducting its activities, but have no ongoing operational, informational, evidential or historical value. Usually, transitory records have an immediate or short-term value, pertaining to an immediate task or minor transaction. They can exist in any format or medium.  An example is an e-mail confirming attendance at a meeting.

1.3 No Conflict of Interest

In cases where an APC member has, or may be reasonably perceived to have, a conflict of interest with respect to a specific case, that individual may not serve on the APC Panel in connection with that case2.

2 Normally, having taught the appellant in a class that is neither directly the subject of the appeal nor indirectly the subject of the appeal is not considered a conflict of interest and does not require that the APC member recuse themselves.  A conflict of interest may be present if: there is a relationship between the APC member and the student (such as a consulting or family relationship); the APC member has an interest in the outcome of the decision; the APC member has pre-judged the case; the APC member was involved in an earlier stage of decision-making.  In cases where a conflict is unclear, the remaining members of the APC will determine if the member should be recused.

1.4 Final Panel Decision

No member will participate in the deliberations or final Decision of the Panel unless present for the entire Appeal Hearing.

1.5 Supplementary Rules of Procedure

As needed, the Chair has the power to issue such supplementary rules of procedure as may be necessary to govern the conduct of an Appeal.

1.6 The Panel Has No Power to Compel Any Person to Attend a Hearing

The Chair may request the participation of parties and witnesses, but it has no power to compel participation.

2 Appeal Hearing

A student wishing to appeal an academic decision made at the Program level has a right to a Hearing before an APC Hearing Panel.  In such a case, the student has seven (7) days following the date of the Program’s decision to provide the APC Co-Chair with written confirmation that they wish to appeal the Program’s decision (“Notice of Appeal”).

2.1 Written Submissions[1

After indicating their intention to appeal, the student will have a further 14 days following the date on their Notice of Appeal to provide the APC Co-Chair with a full written Submission. 

  1. The Student’s Submission: The student’s Submission should outline their situation, include any and all pertinent evidence, a list of any witnesses the student intends to bring to the Appeal Hearing, and the student’s desired remedy for the situation.  
  2. The Director’s Submission: The Co-Chair of the APC will share the Student’s Submission with the Program Director, who will have seven (7) days following receipt of the Student’s Submission to respond with their own written Submission if they wish.  The Program Director’s Submission should include the reasons for their decision, any pertinent evidence, and a list of any witnesses they intend to bring to the Appeal Hearing. 
  3. The Student’s Response: The Program Director’s Submission will be shared with the student who will have seven (7) days following receipt of the Director’s Submission to submit a final written Statement to the APC Co-Chair if they wish.

[1] Note that in complex cases, additional time may be required.  The Co-Chair has the power to make exceptions to the stated timeframes as appropriate based on the complexity of the case.  Parties must make requests for additional time to the Co-Chair as soon as they determine the need for additional time.

2.2 The Proceeding

Following the receipt of all written Submissions, the Co-Chair shall appoint the members of the Hearing Panel[1] and schedule the Appeal Hearing.  The student shall be given sufficient notice of the date, time and location of the Hearing, as well as the names of all participants, and their role, in at the Hearing.  The Hearing will be conducted in an appropriate space. 

  1. The student has the right to appear in-person, electronically, or to opt not to appear at the Hearing. 
  2. A Hearing may proceed, and a decision made without additional input from the student in cases where the student opts not to appear at their Hearing.
  3. The student has the right to representation, including an Ombuds Academic Appeal Advisor University from the Office of the University Ombudsperson and/or legal counsel and/or other agent (all at the student’s own expense) at the Appeal Hearing.  The student may make oral submissions, or their representative may make submissions on their behalf.  The student must inform the Chair of the name and role of any representatives in advance of the Hearing.
  4. Normally the Program Director or their delegate will attend the Hearing and make oral submissions.  The Program Director may also bring representation who may make submissions on their behalf.
  5. Other witnesses will be asked to participate in the Hearing as deemed necessary by the Chair.  Witnesses are individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the matters at issue in the Appeal Hearing; the evidence of ‘character’ witnesses will not normally be received by the Panel.  Each party shall have an opportunity to question witnesses. The Chair can limit questioning of a witness if the Chair believes the questioning is irrelevant, abusive or otherwise inappropriate. 
  6. The Chair shall determine what evidence is admitted as part of the Hearing.  The Chair shall normally apply a relevance approach[1] to such determinations.  The Chair has the right to exclude evidence that is deemed irrelevant, repetitive or otherwise inappropriate.
  7. If, during the course of the Hearing, the Chair decides that more information is required in order to clarify a matter, the Chair may adjourn the Hearing to permit the relevant parties to bring forward such information or facts or to permit the Panel to obtain such information.
  8. The Chair may decide to adjourn the Hearing at the request of a party if the Chair believes that a party may be unfairly prejudiced should the Hearing proceed.
  9. The Panel has the right to seek confirmation and/or verification of any evidence, claims, or submissions made by any participants in the Hearing; should it be determined that false information was provided to the Panel, the matter may be investigated under the Smith School of Business Academic Integrity Policy.

[1] Hearing Panels shall normally consist of a minimum of three APC members and a maximum of all APC members based on availability and any conflict-of-interest issues.

[1] A relevance approach provides that evidence should be accepted if it is deemed to be relevant to the matter before the Panel.

3 The Decision

After hearing all the evidence, the Panel shall deliberate in camera.  The deliberations of the Panel are confidential.

Following deliberations, the Panel may:

  1. Dismiss the Appeal and uphold the original decision of the Program.  In the case that the student be required to withdraw, a formal letter advising the student of the requirement to withdraw will be issued; or,
  2. Allow the Appeal and grant the remedy requested by the Student; or,
  3. Allow the Appeal in part and modify the Program’s original decision and impose an appropriate sanction.  This may include:
    • Imposing specific conditions under which the student will be permitted to continue in the Program and/or any requirements the student must meet, including the timelines within which such conditions and/or requirements must be met;
    • Requiring the student to:
      • complete additional work;
      • repeat an exam, paper, or course;
      • achieve a minimum grade(s);
      • provide evidence of fitness to continue in the Program;
    • Placing the student on Academic Probation until the student satisfies all conditions and/or requirements within the timeline(s) set by the Panel. 
  4. Impose other terms and/or conditions as may appropriate for the specific situation. 

The Panel may not award financial compensation to a student. 

The Panel’s Decision shall be communicated to the student within seven (7) days, or within a reasonable time as demanded by the complexity of the case, via a Decision Letter from the Panel Chair.  The Decision Letter will include the reasons for the Decision, information about the next level of appeal, to whom to address an appeal, and information about the availability of the support of the Office of the University Ombudsperson.

The Panel’s Decision Letter shall be the official record of the Appeal.  The Decision Letter will include the effective date of any actions to be taken by the Program (see section 3).

4 Post-Proceeding Matters

In accordance with the Senate Student Academic Appeal Policy, section 34, the student is normally entitled to exhaust all levels of appeal before sanctions are applied, except in the rare case where an academic unit determines that the interests of third parties may be prejudiced by the continued enrolment of a student in a course or program.  In such a case, the Panel will determine if the student may continue in their Program until appeal processes are exhausted, and under what conditions the student may do so, having regard for the need to protect the interests of the third party/parties.  The Panel shall address the effective date of any actions and/or sanctions in the Decision Letter.

5 Records Management and Privacy

Queen’s University is subject to provincial access and privacy legislation with regard to the information it holds about the University and the individuals who participate in the Queen’s community.  Specifically, the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA) and the Personal Health Information Protection Act (PHIPA) apply to various aspects of the University’s operations.  To the extent that the University has operations in the European Union, it is subject to the EU General Data Protection Regulation.

Appeal Records consist of all documents filed by the parties, the recording, if any, of the Appeal Hearing(s), the transcript, if any, of the recording, and the Decision Letter issued by the Panel.

5.1 Responsibilities of the Co-Chair

The APC Co-Chair or delegate is responsible for collecting and distributing Appeal Records.  The Co-Chair shall handle such records in a secure manner which protects the confidentiality of the documents.

Following an Appeal Hearing and issuance of the Decision Letter, the Panel Chair shall collect the files and any notes made during the Hearing by Panel members.  All such notes are transitory and are not considered to be University Records.  They form no part of the Appeal Record and shall be destroyed immediately following the issuance of the Panel’s Decision.

5.2 Records Retention Schedule

Once the Panel renders its decision:

  1. The Decision Letter is the official record of the Decision, a copy of which shall be kept by the APC Co-Chair, the Program Director and in the Dean’s Office.
  2. Original Appeal Records are to be kept by the APC Co-Chair for one (1) year following the date on which the student has exhausted all levels of appeal at the University, or, for one (1) year following the expiry of the deadline for the student to pursue an appeal, whichever occurs first.
  3. Transitory records may be destroyed.
  4. Duplicated records will be destroyed

Appeals of these decisions are made to the Academic Appeals Committee.

For more information on Student policies please refer to Student Policy Index

6 Policies Related to Academic Misconduct

Senate Policy on Academic Integrity – Requirements of Faculties and Schools

Faculty Jurisdiction with Respect to Student Appeals of Academic Decisions

7 Subject Matter Exclusive to Other University Policies

Harassment and Discrimination Prevention and Response Policy

Student Code of Conduct

Students at Risk Policy

A comprehensive list of university policies is available through the University Secretariat's Policy Library.