Minutes of the Meeting of Senate - October 17, 1997

As approved at the November 14, 1997, meeting of Senate.

Copies of Exhibits and Appendices are available from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.

The meeting was held at 1:00 p.m. in Room 224 of University College.


J. Adams, A. Allahar, M. Armstrong, D.E. Baer, A. Belcastro, W.A. Bridger, F.P. Cass, S. Castiglione, G.S.P. Castle, M. Cheesman, W.R. Code, M. Cole, R.P. Coulter, T.C. Craven, J. Crimmins, P. Davenport, L. Dos Santos, C. Down, F. Dreyer, G. Eramian, J. Erskine, D. Fairbairn, W. Gibson, E.E. Gillese, J.M. Good, R. Harris, R. Hawkins, R. Hillman, T. Hessel, R. Hudler, N. Huner, C. Iwasiw, D. Jacobson, C.-Y. Kang, W. Kennedy, G. Killan, D. Kimura, C. Lanfranconi, R. Lipson, T.C.Y. Lo, S. Lupker, L. Mansinha, M. Mathur, J. McKay, R.Y. McMurtry, M. McNay, K. McQuillan, P.P. Mercer, G. Moran, P. Neary, A. Oosterhoff, A. Pearson, A. Prabhakar, T. Rajan, M. Randall, C. Seligman, D. Semotiuk, J. Sheasby, B. Singh, S. Singh, J. Snyder, J. Thorp, R. Toft, J.K. Van Fleet, L. Whittaker, R. Wilson

Observers: R. Chelladurai, D. Jameson, T. Kennedy, R. Parks

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The minutes of the meeting of September 19, 1997, were approved as circulated.


The President's Report included information on the following topics.

S.97-200a Federal Government Relations

Recent discussions with the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Paul Martin, about issues concerning university research and financial aid programs for university students proved favourable. Dr. Davenport advised, as Chair of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, that AUCC will continue to lobby the government for renewed commitment to improve student aid and the restoration of the funding for the large federal funding councils - MRC, NSERC, and SSHRC.

S.97-200b Provincial Government Relations

Dr. Davenport reported that the Council of Ontario Universities will continue to lobby the Provincial Government concerning the issues of student assistance, government grant, and tuition fee flexibility.

S.97-200c Update on Planning and Budgeting Process

Dr. Moran provided a review of the budget planning process for 1998-99. The Planning Guidelines have been distributed to deans and non-academic support unit budget heads. Meetings with deans and budget unit heads begin in early November and continue until the Christmas break. In January, as has been the case in the past, tentative allocations will be made to allow the Faculties time to plan for the next academic year. Budget recommendations will be presented to Senate and the Board in April.

Little is known about the government's grant allocation or allowable tuition increases for 1998-99. The administration's planning assumptions for the time being are no grant increase and only a modest increase in tuition revenue. On the expense side, increased costs are expected due to deferred maintenance expenses, investment in student support and resource-intensive research, and expenses relating to the recruitment of students and faculty. Additional expenses can be expected as a result of salary negotiations; all employee groups except the GTAs will be entering into negotiations for new agreements.

Dr. Moran advised that although all units will be asked to model a 3% budget cut, the cut should not be interpreted as a prediction since there are many uncertainties at this time. A major theme of the budgeting process will be selectivity on the basis of quality and contribution to the University mission.

Responding to a question about alternative revenue sources available to the University, Dr. Moran stated that the majority of the University's revenue is generated through government grants and tuition. It is recommended by the Smith Commission that the government increase its funding to Ontario universities in order to bring the average grant per student up to the level of the Canadian average. Currently Ontario's universities rank last in the country in funding per capita and 33% below the average of the other nine provinces in terms of government grant per student. This would require an infusion of about $460 million. Dr. Moran expressed the hope that government would announce its intentions with respect to fee flexibility soon so that the community may have time to give thoughtful consideration to the setting of tuition fees.


S.97-201 Undergraduate Enrolment Target [S.97-168]

At the September meeting of Senate concern was raised that this year's first year undergraduate enrolment is over 4,000 which exceeds the target of 3,750 set by Senate in 1993. Dr. Moran informed Senate that the increase is the result of the dynamic recruitment efforts made this past year and a higher acceptance rate than has been experienced in the past. Dr. Moran advised that a more extensive report will be provided after the final information on enrolment, including applications and admissions data, is available.

S.97-202 Faculty Salaries

Professor Toft asked if there are disparities in average salaries between like departments and, if so, whether the administration would be willing to address this matter in the next round of salary negotiations with the Faculty Association. He recalled that the University adjusted salaries of women that were found to be anomalous and asked if the administration intends to carry out a similar review of the salaries of male faculty.

Dr. Moran replied that it is a challenge to address in a definitive way the question of whether there are anomalous differences between the average salaries in like departments given the difficulty in distinguishing "like departments". A statistical analysis would provide relatively small sample sizes and there are other factors beyond the anomaly suggested that would give rise to differences in the average salaries in the various departments across campus. These would include age and the pattern of salaries of individuals in a particular department including the meritoriousness of individuals. Another factor that accounts for a substantial variation in salaries across Faculties has to do with "unlike" departments; that is, there are some departments where the salaries are substantially higher on average than in others because of market factors. Western must offer competitive starting salaries in order to attract quality individuals.

The Provost said he would resist undertaking an overall general review of salaries because the individuals in the best position to assess salaries and make decisions about fair and equitable salaries are those doing the hiring, specifically Deans and Chairs. A number of qualitative and quantitative issues go into the assessment of a salary including market forces, assessment of performance, and assignment of selective salary adjustments. It is clear that there are anomalies, some of which were resolved during the last salary settlement. The performance-based anomaly adjustment process was a significant part of the last faculty salary settlement and as a result, a significant number of faculty had their salaries substantially increased. Dr. Moran said that he will advocate that this kind of process be included in future salary settlements. The review of female faculty salaries that occurred a few years ago was the result of a gender based review of salaries. That review provided statistical evidence indicating that gender was a significant determinant in explaining the differences between salaries. Adjustments were made according to a formula agreed upon some time ago.

S.97-203 Provost's Statistical Summary: Faculty Appointments by Gender [S.97-197]

Dr. Moran advised that due to an oversight, the Provost's Statistical Summary issued to the Board of Governors did not contain the correction on page 4, second sentence, in the section entitled Comparisons of new Appointments at UWO with other Ontario and Canadian universities that "...1993/94 to 1995/96, women received 40.2% of the new appointments at Western..." The Board will be apprised of this correction.

S.97-204 Teacher Evaluations [S.97-171]

Dr. Moran responded to questions about the Teacher Evaluations that were presented at the last Senate meeting:

Error rate in the original scan of the evaluations: The error rate was low, in the range of 1%. Most of the scan errors were caused by use of the wrong type of pen or not marking the copy hard enough. Members of the Office of Institutional Planning and Budgeting, and in some cases Work Study students, corrected the errors to enable the forms to be rescanned. The number of forms that could not be corrected in was small -- less than one-half of one percent.

Written comments: Students' written comments fell into two categories: comments on the instructor and comments on the course. Comments on the instructors were to be given only to the instructors for their use and consideration. The comments were typed by an external, professional, typing firm because often written comments are not easy to read and they do not photocopy very well. When original photocopying was attempted, the copies were difficult to read. The form contained the two kinds of comments on a single page; one set of comments was given to the instructor while the other set of comments was not. Since the number of photocopied pages would have been enormous, it was agreed that by typing the comments, each instructor would receive a readable, straightforward, compact set of comments which facilitated the feedback process. There is no intention to use the text file of instructor comments for any sort of analysis, as this would contravene the Senate policy that those comments should be seen only by the instructor. The question arises as to what should be done with those comments and when should they be destroyed. Advice will be sought from the Provost's Advisory Committee on Teaching and Learning about establishing a retention schedule.

Dr. Moran recalled that when Senate approved the Teacher Evaluation process, it was agreed that a report would be prepared for Senate following the first year of implementation. Professor Harry Murray will coordinate this report in cooperation with PACTL. It is hoped that the report will be presented to Senate during the winter term.

S.97-205 Equity Services Office Pamphlet about Race Relations

Professor Kimura advised Senate that a pamphlet produced by Equity Services concerning the University's Race Relations Policy and Sexual Harassment Policy contains a section on written material wherein it is suggested that written material that implies the inferiority of other people constitutes racial discrimination or harassment. She pointed out that the University's policy on Race Relations does not contain such wording. It states that racial discrimination or harassment on the basis of doctrines or practices which declare apparent superiority constitutes harassment. The mere writing about race differences does not.

Professor Dreyer asked if the definition of harassment covers comment and conduct based on a person's religion. "Verbal behaviours" referring to religion are covered in the definition of discrimination contained in the Equity Services' pamphlet. The University's Race Relations Policy does not mention religion and the amendment to include it was defeated when Senate adopted the policy in 1994.

Dr. Mercer replied that when the Race Relations Policy was debated in Senate in 1994, the inclusion of religion was debated and defeated because Senate decided that it wished to have a race relations policy that has its own area of applicability which is not exactly the same as the area of applicability as in the Ontario Human Rights Code. Western's Race Relations Policy provides for certain procedures that can be followed internally and uses different mechanisms than those used in the Human Rights Code. The pamphlet entitled "Racial Harassment and Discrimination" distributed by Equity Services is not specifically a guide to Western's policy: it is a response to the enquiries that regularly come to the Equity Services Office about the issues of harassment and discrimination and the responsibility those at Western have in dealing with enquiries or matters that potentially come under its aegis. The pamphlet is designed to identify Western's responsibilities not just under the University's policy but also under the Ontario Human Rights Code. It is not an attempt to replace the policy or to be a legal guide to it; it is merely a familiarization tool. If one wishes to know the effect of the policy, the policy should be read, not the pamphlet. The pamphlet attempts to make the general applications of laws and standards understandable, but it does not do so with the degree of particularity that individuals often want. Dr. Mercer agreed to review future publications of Equity Services to ensure clarity.

Dr. Mercer concluded by stating that any time anyone is offended, some measure of accountability is called for, even if it consists of no more than a willingness to hear the student and perhaps correct a misapprehension. These questions are largely contextual and the Ontario Human Rights Code and the Ontario Human Rights Commission have primacy in these matters. To the extent that any policy at Western is overlapped by the Ontario Human Rights Code, Western could never give any sort of undertaking about how any such matter might be dealt with because it would be taken out of the University's hands. It is clear that when the Race Relations Policy was passed Western wanted to keep the policy focused on race and Western did not want notions of religion to be imported into the policy. Consequently one would assume that it would not come under Western's policy.

Asked if the Sexual Harassment Policy procedures would be brought into line and made parallel with those of the Race Relations Policy procedures, Dr. Mercer advised that it is an item currently under discussion.


S.97-206 University Library Council

On behalf of the Operations/Agenda Committee, it was moved by M. Cheesman, seconded by S. Singh,

That the Composition of the Library Council be amended as follows:


S.97-207 Disbanding of SCUP Subcommittee on Budgetary Affairs

It was moved by M. Cheesman, seconded by J. McKay,

That the SCUP Subcommittee on Budgetary Affairs (SUBA) be disbanded.


S.97-208 Member of Senate from the General Community

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by M. Cheesman,

That Gina McGahey be elected to Senate as representative of the General Community (term November 1, 1997, to October 31, 1999).


S.97-209 School of Dentistry re Conditions of Appointment

Senate received for information a letter from the Dean of Medicine and Dentistry, contained in Exhibit I, Appendix 1, concerning the promotion and tenure process resulting from the merger of the Faculties of Medicine and Dentistry.

S.97-210 Candidates for Degrees - Fall Convocation 1997

Senate was advised that the Provost approved the list of Candidates for Degrees for Fall Convocation 1997 as recommended by the Registrar. The list is attached as Appendix A to the Official Minutes of the Senate meeting of October 17, 1997. A copy may be obtained from the Secretary of the Senate on request.


S.97-211 Committee on Promotion & Tenure I (Promotion Division) - SCPT-I

The following were elected to the Senate Committee on Promotion and Tenure I: J. Dickinson (Student/Engg. Sci.)(term to November 1998), S. Clark (Prof/Soc.Sci.) and C. Crealock (Prof./Educ.) (terms to November 2000).

S.97-212 Committee on Promotion and Tenure II (Tenure Division) - SCPT-II

The following were elected to the Senate Committee on Promotion and Tenure II: B. Slade (Student/Soc.Sci.) (term to November 1998), J. Cook (Assoc./HS) and S. Majhanovich (Prof./Educ.) (terms to November 2000).

S.97-213 Senate Committee on Appeals (SCA)

The following were elected as Members to SCA: S. Tse (Student/Ivey), A. Pearson (Dean/Educ.) (terms to November 1998), A. Oosterhoff (Prof./Law) and R. Shivers (Prof./Sci.)(terms to November 2000).

The following were elected as Alternates to SCA: C. Neable (Student/Engg.Sci.)(term to November 1998), N. Huner (Prof./Sci.) and M. Spence (Prof./Soc.Sci.)(terms to November 2000).

S.97-214 Standing Committee on Campus Recreation

M. Cheesman (S), R. Shroyer (S) (terms to November 1999) and C. Bowman (student)(term to November 1998) were elected to membership on the Standing Committee on Campus Recreation.

S.97-215 Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics

T. Hessel (S), J. Russel (Staff) (terms to November 1999) and G. Miller (student)(term to November 1998) were elected to membership on the Standing Committee on Intercollegiate Athletics.

S.97-216 Standing Committee on Academic Policy & Admission (SCAPA)

C. Yu (graduate student) was elected to complete the term of K. Barrowcliffe who has resigned (term to December 31, 1997).

S.97-217 Selection Committee - Director of Continuing Studies

J. Good and A. Pearson were elected to the Selection Committee - Director of Continuing Studies.

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by W.A. Bridger,

That since Dr. G. Moran is Acting Dean of the Faculty of Communications and Open Learning and Provost & Vice-President (Academic), the Vice-Provost (Dr. R. Harris) act in place of the Provost on this selection Committee.


S.97-218 Vice-Chancellor for April 1998 Convocation Ceremonies

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by P.P. Mercer,

That Dr. Greg Moran act as Vice-Chancellor at the Huron College Convocation and the MBA Convocation in April 1998.



S.97-219 Scholarship Policies

S.97-219a In-Course Scholarships for Part-Time Students [S.88-20]

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by S. Singh,

That the policy on In-Course Scholarships for Part-Time Students be amended to read as shown below:

In-Course Scholarships for Part-Time Students

Candidates must be registered as part-time undergraduate students in their first degree and have completed five but not more than seven courses with at least an 80% average at The University of Western Ontario. In cases where more than five courses have been completed, the academic record will be judged on the best five courses provided that the average for all courses completed is at least 80%.

Scholarships will be awarded in August. Student accepting an in-course scholarship offer must complete at least two full (or equivalent) courses during each calendar year (i.e., Winter and Summer) commencing in September of the year of the award.

The academic record of each recipient will be reviewed in May, in January and in August. To retain the scholarship, the recipient must have completed at least two full (or equivalent) courses and must have maintained an average of at least 80% on all work under review.


S.97-219b Awarding Scholarships/Awards - Exact Ties

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by S. Singh,

That one scholarship/award will be awarded except in the case of exact ties (without rounding) where the award value will be split equally.


S.97-219c Policy on Eligibility for UWO Gold Medals

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by T. Lo,

That the Policy on Eligibility for UWO Gold Medals be revised as shown below to consolidate a number of previously-approved policy statements and to update the listing of Faculties which offer general programs to include both three- and four-year programs.

The University of Western Ontario Medals

Students in any program are eligible to be awarded only one gold medal.

For gold medals offered to graduating students by the Affiliated Colleges, please consult the relevant College.

General Programs:

One UWO gold medal will be awarded annually to recognize the top graduating student, as designated by the Dean, in any three-year or four-year general degree program in each of the faculties of: Arts, Communications and Open Learning, Health Sciences (excluding the School of Kinesiology), and Science . [S.95-151]

[For information on the Social Science Award see The Chancellor's Prize in Social Science (General Program and Honors Program). For information on the School of Kinesiology Award (general program) see the Dr. J. L'Heureux Gold Medal. Students in the Kinesiology program are ineligible for the Faculty of Health Sciences medal, i.e., a second gold medal.]

Honors Programs:

For all honors programs when no other medal is awarded. Awarded for academic performance in the fourth year. Recipients must have:

a) Completed a prescribed academic program requiring five or more full courses or equivalent in the fourth year of an honors program;

b) Taken the full complement of the prescribed courses for the fourth year of the academic program (both principal and elective courses) within that fourth year; and,

c) Achieved an average of at least 80 percent (A) overall and in the principal courses of the fourth year. [S.2750.3]


i) Only one gold medal will be awarded in an honors program to the student with the highest average, without rounding of averages. Only in the cases of exact ties will more than one gold medal be awarded. [S.4121]

ii) Candidates for the Diploma in Honors Standing who are in a full fourth year program and who achieve an 80% average on conclusion of the Diploma program, shall be considered for University of Western Ontario Gold Medals.

iii) For students in a two major program, the two department chairs will meet with a representative of the office(s) of the dean(s) involved to reach a consensus and make the recommendation.

[For information on the School of Kinesiology Awards for honors programs see the Dr. Earle F. Zeigler Gold Medal (BA Honors Kinesiology), Dr. Michael S. Yuhasz Gold Medal (BSc Honors Kinesiology). Students in these programs are ineligible for a Faculty of Health Science Medal, i.e., a second gold medal.]

Scholar's Electives Programs:

One gold medal will be established in each of the fourth year programs in Honors Arts, Social Science or Science in the Scholar's Electives Program. [S.95-281]


S.97-220 Revisions to SRBA Procedures

S.97-220a Right of Student to Appeal Decisions Under the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by P. Mercer,

That the list of circumstances under which students may apply to the Senate Review Board Academic (SRBA) to have an appeal heard be expanded to include appeals against decisions of deans made under the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities, by the addition of section 2.c. under "Jurisdiction" as shown in Appendix 1 to these Minutes.


It was clarified that the reference to the SRBA is included in the policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities, and consequently the change to SRBA procedures is necessary for consistency.

S.97-220b Allegations of Bias or Failure to Follow a Procedural Requirement at the Prior Level

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by S. Singh,

That the SRBA procedures be revised to clarify that the nature of the evidence supporting an allegation of bias at the prior level or failure to follow a procedural requirement at the prior level (including any supporting documentation) must be presented in writing with the Application for Hearing when it is filed with the University Secretariat.

It was moved by R. Hawkins, seconded by B. Singh,

That section 3. under "Jurisdiction" be amended by inclusion of the following sentence: "The student will be provided with a copy of the dean's response and will be given the opportunity to reply to it in writing."


The main motion, as amended was called and CARRIED as shown in section 3. in Appendix 1 to these Minutes.

S.97-220c Closing SRBA Files

It was moved by P. Cass, seconded by W.A. Bridger,

That, if an appellant cannot be contacted within six months of receipt of an Application for Hearing, the file can be closed and the Application for Hearing returned to the appellant with no opportunity to re-file the Application as set out the final paragraph of Appendix 1 to these Minutes.


S.97-221 Dean's Honor List and Release of Information Concerning Scholastic Offences

At the September meeting of Senate questions were raised by Senators as to eligibility requirements for the Dean's Honor List (S.97-169) and the release of information concerning scholastic offences with regard to the requirements of professional societies (S.97-187). Initial discussion on both items took place at the October 8th meeting of SCAPA and further consideration of the policies in question will take place in November.


S.97-222 Policy on Overhead on Contract Research

On behalf of SCUP, it was moved by S. Singh, seconded by B. Singh,

That the policy on overhead on contract research be increased from a standard 30% of direct costs and distributed as set out below:

Overhead on Contract Research

  1. The standard overhead rate on contract research shall be 40%, distributed as follows:

    Dean of Faculty 12%
    Contracting department or unit 5%
    Contracting laboratory 5%
    Corporate UWO 9%
    Research Promotion Fund 9%
    Total 40% of direct costs

  2. Exceptions to the standard rate of 40% may be made as required by negotiated agreements with government or through negotiations with the Industry Liaison Office.

Responding to questions about the policy, Dr. Bridger clarified that the policy relates only to contract research.

The question was called and CARRIED.

S.97-223 SUPAD Membership

Professor D. Vincent of the Department of Economics has been appointed Alternate to Professor J. Knight who is on sabbatical leave until June 30, 1998.


Announcements and Communications were received for information.

On behalf of Senate, Dr. Davenport thanked those Senators whose terms on Senate end October 31, 1997, for their contributions to the deliberations of Senate.


The meeting adjourned at 2:15 p.m.

Signed By:

P. Davenport, Chair

J.K. Van Fleet, Secretary _______________________________________________________________________________

Senate Minutes - October 17, 1997 - Appendix 1

APPEALS TO SRBA (S.96-80; S.97-220)


In addition to jurisdiction conferred upon SRBA by any other Senate regulation or policy, SRBA has jurisdiction to hear appeals from certain academic decisions of Deans, other than those relating to admission and advanced standing, provided that the appellant has followed the procedures set out above for requesting relief at the earlier levels and provided that SRBA otherwise has jurisdiction to hear the appeal as set out below.

  1. Students have the right to appeal to SRBA in the following circumstances:

    1. the appeal is against a finding that a student's conduct amounted to a "scholastic offence" and/or for relief against the penalty imposed by the Dean as a result of a "scholastic offence"; or

    2. a student alleges that there has been a failure to follow a Senate regulation.

  2. Students may apply to SRBA to have an appeal heard against decisions not falling within one of the categories set out in a. and b. above, in the following circumstances:

    1. the Dean's decision requires the student to withdraw from a program, from the University or from an Affiliated College; or

    2. the appeal is against general marking or grading practices.

    3. the appeal is against a decision made with respect to the Policy on Academic Accommodations for Students with Disabilities.

    A panel of SRBA, upon considering the written application of the student (see Application for Hearing, below), may in its discretion allow the appeal to proceed. In making its decision, SRBA will consider the grounds and evidence provided in the Application for Hearing.

  3. In exceptional circumstances, SRBA may agree to hear an appeal against a Dean's decision that does not fall within #1 or #2 above, if a student alleges in the Application for Hearing that there was a failure to observe a procedural requirement at the prior level or bias at the prior level. Such allegations must be supported by evidence. A detailed description of the evidence supporting the allegation (including any supporting documentation) must be presented, in writing, as part of the Application for Hearing. SRBA will request a written response from the Dean before making a decision. The student will be provided with a copy of the Dean's response and will be given the opportunity to reply to it in writing. If SRBA is satisfied on the basis of the written documentation that there was a failure to observe a procedural requirement at the prior level it may instruct the Dean to reconsider the matter. If the SRBA panel agrees to allow the appeal to proceed to a hearing, the standard onus requirements set out below will apply.

Note: A denial of transfer into a Faculty, School, Affiliated College or program following a requirement to withdraw from another Faculty, School, Affiliated College or program at the University may not be appealed to SRBA. The denial of transfer is an admission decision and is therefore outside SRBA's jurisdiction.

If a party wishes to challenge the jurisdiction of SRBA to hear a particular matter, the party must give written notice with reasons to the Chair of SRBA prior to the date of the hearing. The Chair, upon receipt of such notice, or in any other circumstances where it appears to the Chair that there is a question as to whether the SRBA has jurisdiction to hear a matter, may in his/her discretion convene a panel to consider such written arguments as it deems appropriate and decide the issue of jurisdiction. The decision of any such panel shall be binding on any subsequent panel hearing the merits of the appeal.

Application for Hearing

Appeals to the SRBA must be made on an Application for Hearing which must be filed with the University Secretariat within six weeks of the date of the Dean's decision. An Application for Hearing will not be accepted by the University Secretariat nor will a hearing be scheduled unless the application is complete. A complete application will include the following: details of the appeal, including a description of the matter under appeal; reasons for challenging the Dean's decision; the requested relief (which must be the same as the relief requested of the Dean); and all supporting documentation, including a copy of the student's letter to the Dean requesting relief and a copy of the Dean's decision. Exceptions to the six week time limit for filing an appeal with the SRBA are at the discretion of the Chair of SRBA upon written application by the student. Applications for a hearing by the SRBA and further details on hearing procedures may be obtained from the University Secretariat, Room 290, Stevenson-Lawson Building.

A request from a party to postpone a scheduled hearing, or to delay scheduling a hearing after an Application has been filed, will be at the discretion of the Chair of SRBA and will be granted only in exceptional circumstances. Such postponement or delay shall not exceed six months. The parties will then be contacted to arrange a hearing date. (If the appellant cannot be contacted to arrange a hearing date, he/she will be notified of the hearing date by registered mail at the address set out in the Application.) SRBA will proceed in the absence of one or more parties if it is satisfied that the parties were notified of the hearing date.

If, following receipt of an Application for Hearing, the University Secretariat is unable to contact the appellant within a reasonable time to schedule a hearing, the appellant will be notified by registered mail at the address on the Application for Hearing of the deadline by which he/she must contact the University Secretariat (six months from the date the Application for Hearing was filed) to arrange a hearing. If the appellant has not contacted the University Secretariat by the specified deadline, the Application and documentation will be returned to the appellant and may not be resubmitted.