DATE:
May 16, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.S. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 25, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Marc Laflamme, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Giselle Dalili, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rothstein Rosenberg LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with six counts of knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, and/or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record contrary to s. B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage. In the alternative, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly forging or in any way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University, or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified document contrary to s.B.i.1(a) of the Code, and one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage contrary to s.B.i.3(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage contrary to s.B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. In considering whether to proceed with the hearing in the Student’s absence, the Panel considered the section 6 and 7 of the Statutory Power Procedures Act (“SPPA”), rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), and the Policy on Official Correspondence with Students. The Panel received evidence from the University outlining various attempts to contact the Student about the charges and the hearing. The University provided evidence that they attempted to contact the student via email, courier, and telephone using the contact information contained in the University’s Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University did not receive any communication from the Student. The University also provided evidence that the Student’s email account was last accessed approximately two weeks before the hearing date. The Panel noted that the University is not required to provide actual notice, and although it is likely the Student had actual notice of the hearing, the Panel found that the University complied with the Rules and demonstrated reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing. The Panel therefore determined that it would proceed to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
The Panel received affidavit evidence of three Professors, the Manager of the University Transcript Centre (the “Manager”), and the Dean’s Designate for Academic Integrity with Student Academic Integrity in the Faculty of Arts and Science (“Dean’s Designate”). The Dean’s Designate also testified at the hearing. The Panel noted that the Student applied to the University’s School of Graduate Studies (“SGS”). As part of his application, he asked two Professors of the Department of Physiology to provide reference letters. One of the Professor’s requested the Student provide him with a CV and a personal statement, the other Professor requested a copy of the Student’s CV and a transcript. The Student provided a CV, a personal statement, and a copy of his transcript (“Purported Transcript”) to the Professors. The Professors relied on these documents to prepare their letters of recommendation for the Student’s application to the SGS. At the time, the Professors were unaware that the CV and the transcript provided by the Student contained false statements. After the Student submitted their application to SGS, the admissions committee discovered that the Student was never on the Dean’s List (as purported in the CV) and that the Student had altered the letter grades on his transcript. The Panel also noted that the Student provided another falsified version of his transcript to an international education agent that helps Canadians apply to universities in Australia and New Zealand. The Panel noted that the key difference between the falsified transcript and Purported Transcript was that the falsified transcript contained grades through the Winter 2021 semester. Both these allegations were forwarded to Student Academic Integrity for investigation. The Dean’s Designate met with the Student about the allegations. The Dean’s Designate testified that he gave the Student the warning required under the Code, and that the Student understood the warning and was given an opportunity to ask questions. The Student attempted to explain that he submitted the wrong document when he submitted the Purported Transcript. The Student told the Dean’s Designate that he created the Purported Transcript in 2020 to show students what an unofficial transcript would look like. The Panel noted that this explanation was not a credible as the Purported Transcript contained marks through 2021, when it was supposedly created in 2020. The Panel was satisfied, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the Student committed offences under s.B.i.3(a) and s.B.i.3(b). The Student was, therefore, found guilty of six counts of knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, and/or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record and one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage. The University withdrew the remaining charges made in the alternative and the further alternative.
In determining sanction, the University asked the Panel to consider the factors in determining sanction as outlined in University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Student engaged in multiple acts of planned deceit that included lying to his professors and claiming he was on the Dean’s List and creating two forged transcripts. The Panel further noted that the Student registered a domain and sent a fake email containing one of the forged transcript. The Student’s coordinated and planned deceit must be condemned in the strongest terms. The Panel found that imposition of the harshest penalty available to the Tribunal was appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel noted that this penalty was in keeping with other cases where students had forged transcripts including University of Toronto and K.L. (Case No. 979, October 30, 2018) and University of Toronto and Q.W. (Case No. 963, September 7, 2018). In both cases, the Tribunal recommended expulsion. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension from the University for a period of up to five years or until Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion, whichever comes first; a five-year notation on the transcript; a recommendation that the Student be expelled, as per s. C.ii(b)(i) of Code; and a report to the Provost for publication.