Anica Visic has an honest and legitimate case that has not yet been finally determined on the merits. There are exceptions to a limitation period, including based on “good faith” and a new provision for “a series of incidents.” She has provided her accurate reports for the three successful years which count from 2002-2005. She had successfully appealed a former year and was readmitted.  Subsequent allegations regarding the university were deemed untimely by an administrative tribunal and it requires that she obtain leave of the tribunal prior to filing an application.  This administrative tribunal requirement was not made because the case was without merit or frivolous or vexatious. The tribunal requirement is limited to the tribunal on a limitation period issue.  It does not apply to civil proceedings. The case has not been finally determined on the merits.  They should withdraw inaccurate allegations because of her honest and legitimate case. The panel has held she has an honest reasonable belief in her rights regarding the university that is yet to be legally determined. A limitation period, if any, should not apply based on “good faith” and “a series of incidents.”


The main issue to be determined involves alleged breach of confidentiality. When students' appeals result in changed marks, their transcripts mention new marks only. Similarly, when students' appeals result in readmission, their transcripts should also mention readmitted marks only. This is a basic principle.  One of the university's official has allegedly advised that the university has amended a transcript for another student in the similar circumstances. Another official has allegedly advised that the university has a separate bylaw to show attendance and that it can amend the transcript to mention readmitted marks only. There was no request to refund the tuition. None of the individual respondents were her professors. They were officials responsible for the matter. They have allegedly failed to take the matter to the committee and the university's senate. The university has taken the position that the matter was subject to a former administrative limitation period.  Subsequently, the panel has decided that her honest and legitimate case is based on the series of incidents. Therefore, a limitation period, if any, should not apply and the matter should be resolved on the merits given her “good faith” and “the series of incidents.”


Note: Many articles regarding the case are inaccurate, misleading and outdated and should be removed.






Website Created & Hosted with Website Builder