Case Details
DATE:
October 29, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. R.L.
HEARING DATE:
July 11, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Andrew Bernstein, Chair
Professor Marvin Zuker, Faculty Panel Member
Zoë Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly forging an academic record, contrary to section B.I.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (the “Code”).
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions on the issue of notice and requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The University filed evidence that the Student was served with the charges and Notice of Hearing via their email addresses in ROSI. The Panel was satisfied that University complied with the rules regarding service and made substantial attempts to notify the Student of the hearing. 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 established that the University’s registrar received a request from the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology to verify two transcripts they had received from the Student. The registrar found a number of discrepancies between the submitted transcripts and the Student’s official transcript, including the courses, the number of credits earned, and incorrect grades. The submitted transcripts also showed the Student had completed their studies and received an Honours B.A., which they had not. Further, the Student admitted to creating the false transcript, though not to submitting it, in correspondence with the Academic Integrity Office. Based on the evidence, the Panel found the Student guilty of two counts of forgery of an academic record contrary to section B.I.3(a) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered prior case law. The Panel noted that the typical penalty for a forged transcript is a recommendation of expulsion, absent mitigating factors or agreement between the parties regarding sanction. They stated that forgeries strike at the heart of academic integrity and to maintain the University’s outstanding international reputation, other institutions must know that its transcripts are reliable. Students who submit false transcripts undermine that reliability. The Panel also noted that the Student had committed two prior academic offences, which is relevant to the likelihood of repetition. Further, since the Student did not attend the hearing, the Panel was not aware of any mitigating factors.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; a five-year suspension and a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.