Maintaining Clear Boundaries in Decision-Making Between Concessions and Accommodations
Issued: March 6, 2026
The Ombudsperson has observed recurring confusion at the intersection of academic concessions and academic accommodations, particularly where a student applying for an academic concession, such as a Withdrawal under Extenuating Circumstances (WE), references a disability or accommodation.
A WE is a retroactive academic concession available where a student demonstrates that unexpected and unavoidable circumstances or conflicting responsibilities prevented completion of course requirements. When granted, it replaces a grade on a student’s transcript. The authority to grant concessions rests with Faculties.
Academic accommodations are generally forward-looking. They are administered through the Centre for Accessible Learning (CAL) and are designed to ensure equitable access for students with ongoing disabilities or chronic conditions. Providing accommodations is a shared responsibility.
Students may naturally reference their disability or accommodation when applying for a concession. For example, a student may think it is essential to mention their disability, because their experience of an unexpected event may be different or more impactful than if there was no disability present. Not mentioning it may feel dishonest or withholding of essential information. Naturally, the presence of a disability or chronic condition shapes the impact of an event. However, the existence of a chronic condition, absent an unexpected and unavoidable circumstance or conflicting responsibility, does not normally satisfy the concession criteria.
Where these two frameworks are not carefully separated, there is a risk that the concession request is not fully assessed on its own merits.
Recommendations
The Ombudsperson recommends that decision-makers:
- Confine their analysis strictly to concession criteria. Faculties should assess whether the student has demonstrated unexpected and unavoidable circumstances or conflicting responsibilities within the meaning of the concession policy.
- Avoid importing accommodation reasoning into concession decisions. The existence of a disability or accommodation should neither weigh for nor against the student unless it is directly relevant to understanding the impact of the circumstances detailed by the student. For example, a student may claim that there was an unexpected worsening or a “flare-up” that was not covered by their accommodation. These types of circumstances, despite being related to the accommodation, must be analyzed—on their own—against the concession criteria.
- Recognize an enhanced duty of clarity where a disability is disclosed. If a concession is denied, stating simply that the request should be resolved under an academic accommodation does not discharge this duty appropriately. If a student references an accommodation or disability in a concession application, decision-makers ought to:
-
-
- provide clear written reasons demonstrating:
-
- how the concession criteria were independently applied to the student’s claims;
- how the student’s disclosed disability or chronic condition impacted or did not impact the decision-maker’s analysis; and
-
- avoid assumptions or unsupported conclusions about the student’s disability or chronic condition.
- provide clear written reasons demonstrating:
-
- Recognize jurisdictional limits and state them transparently. If recommending that a student consult CAL for prospective support, decision-makers should make clear that this recommendation is separate from the Faculty’s obligation to decide on the concession request before it. Faculties also ought to recognize that accommodations are generally forward-looking and there are typically no accommodations available for some common requests such as missed exams or changes to a student’s transcript.
Why this Matters
When disability status is referenced in a concession application, the fairness and legal implications are heightened.
If a concession is denied and the reasoning suggests that the outcome turned on the student’s accommodation status — rather than on the neutral application of concession criteria — this creates a risk of perceived differential treatment on a protected ground. Even absent discriminatory intent, insufficiently clear reasoning may expose the institution to risk and undermine confidence in the integrity of the process.
By clearly separating jurisdiction, applying concession criteria independently, and articulating reasoning with particular care where disability is disclosed, decision-makers protect both students and the institution. Clear analytical boundaries ensure that students are neither advantaged nor disadvantaged by disclosure of a disability, and that concession decisions remain transparent, defensible, and fair.