Case Details
DATE:
January 6, 2026
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.W. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATES:
June 27, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dean F. Embry, Chair
Professor Kevin Wang Faculty Panel Member
Zoë Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Jessie Wright, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of forgery, contrary to section B.I.1(a) of the Code. The charge related to allegations that the Student forged a Verification of Student Illness form (“VOI”) to support a petition to defer a final exam.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University filed evidence that the Student participated in the scheduling of the hearing, selecting the hearing date, and that they were served with the charges and Notice of Hearing via their email address in ROSI. The Panel was satisfied that Student was provided with reasonable notice and service. As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University introduced affidavit evidence with respect to the charges. The University’s evidence set out that the Student missed a deferred exam and requested a third deferral, submitting a VOI. The VOI stated that the Student had visited a hospital due to influenza, resulting in a serious degree of incapacitation.
The Panel found that the VOI contained false and fraudulent information. The question the Panel contemplated was whether the Student knew or ought to have known that the VOI form was fraudulent. The Panel also considered the positive obligation a Student has to take steps when the authenticity of a document is in doubt. In considering these issues, the Panel took into account the Student’s explanation, provided at the Dean’s Meeting. At the Meeting, the Student stated that they attended a medical building at Fairview Mall and met with an assistant who examined them in a hallway before leaving and providing them with the VOI signed by a doctor. The Student indicated that they did not know at the time the VOI was submitted that it contained false information. The University took the position that what the Student said at the Dean’s Meeting was the truth, thereby conceding that point.
With respect to whether the Student ought to have known the VOI was fabricated, the Panel considered the University’s arguments that the VOI contained details at odds with the Student’s account to the Dean’s Designate and that the circumstances in which the VOI was obtained pointed to its fraudulent nature. The Panel agreed that, under careful scrutiny contradictions present themselves, but stated that it was their view that the University attributed an unrealistic level of vigilance to the reasonable person. They found that it is not reasonable to expect that a person, when receiving a form of this nature, would carefully examine the details to ensure that each detail is correct. Further, with respect to the circumstances surrounding the acquisition of the VOI, the Panel stated that they were not so peculiar that they would lead a reasonable person to conclude the VOI was fraudulent, especially given that the events occurred in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. Given all the circumstances, the Panel could not find that the Student ought to have known that the VOI was fraudulent.
Moving to whether the Student was unreasonably ignorant or recklessly indifferent as to the nature of the VOI, the Panel noted that for this principle to be engaged, all that need be present are circumstances that cause a student to reasonably believe that the document may be forged. In this case, the Panel noted that the Student subjectively felt those circumstances were present and took steps to confirm the VOI, by searching the doctor’s CPSO number and researching whether a fee was necessary. The Panel found that the steps taken by the Student were reasonable and adequately discharged their burden to assess the authenticity of the document in the circumstances. Further, the Panel noted that after being notified of the investigation, the Student took steps to discern what had happened. The Panel found that these steps were strong evidence that the Student had genuinely satisfied themselves of the authenticity of the VOI at the time they submitted the document.
The Panel found the Student not guilty of the charges.