Some portions of the letter require you to know background
information.  Below is the background information, following
which is a copy of the letter.

Having jurisdiction over something is a legal way of saying that you have
the authority to make the decisions concerning that something.

You cannot go to traffic court to have a dispute over a contract settled, because
the judge in traffic court does not have jurisdiction over contract disputes.

The University, acting through its Senate Committee, and with the university's lawyer present, wrote that:

- the university did not have jurisdiction to determine if the Multi Mini
   Interview ("MMI") used by the Faculty of Medicine was an appropriate
   mechanism for judging the quality of candidates for admission to medicine;
    and
- the university did not have jurisdiction to determine the merits of Henya
   as a candidate for admission to medicine.

The U of M Senate Committee on Admission Appeals also wrote that:
- the Faculty of Medicine's Admissions Information Bulletin was not clear on the weighting to be assigned to the different admissions criteria.  They lied when they wrote that.  During the Senate Committee hearing, after I proved that the Faculty of Medicine did not use their own published admissions criteria, the Faculty of Medicine's representative then admitted that they did not follow their own published criteria, and claimed that the criteria they used was secret and therefore they would not state what it was or let the Senate Committee see how they calculated Henya's admissions scores.

- The Senate Committee also wrote that they did not agree that the Faculty of Medicine was estopped from altering its admissions criteria.  That is the proof that the Senate Committee was fully aware that the admissions criteria was clear and that the Faculty of Medicine illegally did NOT follow its own published admissions criteria.
.

In the below copy of their letter, you will see that the U of M Senate admitted that requests for documents and information were made regarding the issues it ruled were beyond its jurisdiction and therefore those documents and that information was not provided and not considered.
The issues which the U of M Senate considered beyond its jurisdiction, and therefore which it did not consider, were: whether the U of M breached the Constitition, whether the U of M violated UN Human Rights law, whether the MMI was a legal and valid scoring means, and whether Henya was illegally denied admission.
The U of M Senate also refused to require the Faculty of Medicine to produce its documents showing how Henya's score was calculated, even though they agreed that the Faculty of Medicine did not follow its published scoring formula.  Hence, the Senate intentionally refused to look at how the Faculty of Medicine's scoring of Henya was done, and refused to let me see how it was done. The U of M Senate also refused to look at the Faculty of Medicine's documents on how its (secret) scoring was applied to other applicants, and that is why they saw no evidence of whether or not it was applied differently to other candidates, because they refused to look at that evidence.
It was very dishonest that the U of M Senate wrote that "there was no evidence of an error in calculation, recording or otherwise, and no indication that the criteria were applied differently to the applicant than any other candidate during the application process.
It was very dishonest, because the reason there was no evidence of those things was because those were some of the documents the
U of M Senate refused to allow to be produced and refused to look at.   Hence, they set up their hearing to see no evidence on those issues so that they could write that they saw no evidence on those issues.

The University acted so illegally and so immorally, that even with all of their lying, the University's Senate Committee could not bring themselves to write that the University acted legally.