Case Details
Date:
November 12, 2025
Parties:
University of Toronto v. J.D.
Hearing Date:
August 13, 2025
Members of the Panel:
Johanna Braden, Chair
Professor Manfred Schneider, Faculty Panel Member
Charles Buck, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
In Attendance:
The Student
There were two sets of charges against the student. The Student was charged with three counts knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto, namely Verification of Illness forms (“VOI”), and a document from a Health Centre (“the falsified documents”) in support of a request for late withdrawal without penalty from a course (the “First Course”), contrary to section B.I.1(a) of the Code. The Student was also charged with plagiarism with respect to a paper submitted in a second course (the “Second Course”), contrary to section B.I.1(d) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submitted by the Student and the University. With respect to the first set of charges, the ASF detailed that the Student failed the First Course in Winter 2022 and submitted a petition request for late withdrawal from the First Course without academic penalty in January 2024. In support of that petition, the Student submitted the falsified documents. The Student admitted that they did not see the doctors who purportedly wrote the falsified documents and that they purchased the falsified documents.
With respect to the second set of charges, the ASF detailed that the Student submitted a written proposal for a paper, worth 15% of their mark. The paper replicated almost all of the structure, ideas, words, and phrases of a Wikipedia page. There was no attribution given in the proposal to the wiki page. The Student admitted they committed plagiarism in their proposal.
Based on the facts in the ASF and admissions of the Student, the Panel concluded that the Student was guilty of three counts of forgery and one count of plagiarism, contrary to sections B.I.1(a) and B.I.1(d) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered past precedents, a joint submission on penalty (“JSP”), and a second Agreed Statement of Fact (the “ASFP”) submitted by the parties. The ASFP established that the Student had been sanctioned for two prior offences. Panel stated the high test for departing from a joint submission and found that the case was within the range of reasonable outcomes. The Panel noted there were multiple aggravating factors in this case, including that the Student sought to take advantage of the University’s system for medical accommodation through a cynical and calculated scheme and that they had prior offences. The dishonesty was deliberate and involved multiple steps and considerable effort. The Panel further commented that the consequences are serious and should deter not only the Student, but also other students who consider enhancing their transcript through dishonesty.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a four-year suspension from the University; and a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.