Case Details
Date:
October 24, 2025
Parties:
University of Toronto v. R.H.
Hearing Date:
July 23, 2025
Members of the Panel:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair
Professor Manfred Schneider, Faculty Panel Member
Maria Dzevitski, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chloe Hendrie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Jia Wang, Counsel for the Student, Stienburg Law
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with six counts knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto, or uttering, circulating, or making use of such forged, altered or falsified document, namely Verification of Illness forms (“VOI”), and personal statements (“the falsified documents”) in support of requests to defer three exams in three courses (the “Courses”), contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts submitted jointly by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student submitted the falsified documents to defer exams in the Courses, first in August 2022 and then again in December 2023. The Student’s exams in August 2022 were successfully deferred before the documents were discovered to be falsified.
The Student admitted to having bought the falsified documents from someone on the internet. Based on the agreed facts and admissions of the Student, the Panel concluded that the Student was guilty of four counts of forgery, contrary to Section B.I.1(a) of the Code. Charge 2 and the charge in the alternative were withdrawn by the University.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered past precedents and a joint submission on penalty (“JSP”) submitted by the parties. The Panel noted that the suspension length set out in the JSP was within the range of suspensions that had been imposed in similar cases. They found that the admissions of guilt and decision to enter into the ASF were positive factors in assessing the Student’s character. While the Student had no prior misconduct, they engaged in a pattern of misconduct with concurrent offences. The Panel noted that the repeated nature of the Student’s misconduct increases the likelihood that the Student will re-offend and weighs negatively against their character. On the other hand, the Student appeared to demonstrate insight into their actions and showed remorse when they were confronted with their behaviour. The Panel stated the offences were serious and undermine the University's process of medical accommodation, causing detriment to the University community. The Panel also commented on the impact of the Student’s offences on the medical community, stating that the Student engaged in an abuse of two doctors’ names and credentials. Further, the behaviour also discloses a pattern of dishonest conduct which involved planning and deliberation. Finally, the Panel found that, because it is difficult for the University to detect a false VOI, it is important that the sanction here be severe enough to act as a general deterrence against this unacceptable behaviour.
The JSP included a request that the suspension be backdated by approximately 7 months. The Panel rejected this element of the JSP as they found that there was no principled basis for backdating the suspension. The parties indicated that the Student had not been enrolled in classes, the Student cooperated, and the time it took to schedule the hearing were the reasons for the request. The Panel found that these reasons did not rise to the level of exceptional circumstances which would provide a principled reason to justify the decision to change the start date of the sanction. Further, the Panel stated that the effective two-and-a-half year suspension proposed would be inconsistent with prior similar cases, undermine the goal of consistency in sanctions, and would “shock” or offend the University community and other impacted members of the general community.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a three-year suspension from the University; and a three-year and 10-month notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.