DATE:
December 12, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.J.
HEARING DATE:
September 13, 2024 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dena Varah, Chair
Professor Richard J. DiFrancesco, Faculty Panel Member
Laiba Butt, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with nine offences under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) related to forged medical notes submitted to support petitions for accommodation and relief in four separate courses. With respect to the three separate petitions in connection with academic relief in four courses, the Student was charged with eight counts of knowingly forging or in any other 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, namely Verification of Student Illness or Injury Forms (“VOI Form”) and personal statements, contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation.
The Student did not attend the hearing. The hearing had been adjourned once prior (the “First Scheduled Hearing”) to allow the Student time to access representation through Downtown Legal Services (“DLS”). The Student was unable to access representation through DLS because they were not enrolled as a full-time student and had no plans of re-enrolling as a full-time student at the University. Prior to the scheduled hearing, the University delivered updated materials to the Student and sent a number of emails to the Student inquiring about the Student’s attendance. The Student responded that they did not plan to attend the hearing. The Panel concluded that the Student had actual notice of the hearing and chose not to attend. The hearing therefore proceeded in the absence of the Student.
Prior to the First Scheduled Hearing, the Student submitted a Book of Documents, containing, among other things, a written argument and several affidavits alleging procedural unfairness, as well as an affidavit of the Student setting out their background, the effect of the pandemic on their studies and on their mental state and an explanation for the medical notes at the core of the charges. The Panel found that none of the Student’s affidavits were admissible as evidence in the proceedings given that many of the affidavits lacked any factual evidence and contained arguments and submissions, and that the affiant, the Student, could not be cross-examined at the hearing given their absence. Accordingly, the Panel did not consider the Student’s book of documents in its decision.
The Student submitted five VOI Forms, all purportedly signed by the same doctor over the course of summer and fall semester in 2022, in support of the First, Second and Third petitions to write deferred final exams in several courses. Each of these petitions were supported by a personal statement by the Student which explained, among other things, that they had fallen ill and could not attend the exam. The University introduced evidence of the doctor who purportedly signed all the VOI Forms which detailed that the doctor had never seen the Student, nor did the hospital have any records of the Student ever registering there. The Student further admitted, in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, that they had forged the notes because they did not have time to study for the exams and was experiencing pressure from their parents. On the basis of the Student’s admissions and the evidence presented by the University, the Panel found the Student guilty of five counts of forgery, contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. The University did not proceed with or withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered the sanctioning principles laid out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976- 7-3, November 5, 1976) (the “Mr. C factors”). The Panel noted that the Student did not participate in the hearing and there was no evidence of their character. They concluded that the likelihood of repetition was high. The Panel further noted that the offence of forgery is a serious issue for the University, that implicates medical professionals and requires strong deterrence. The Panel also reviewed similar past decisions of the Tribunal involving similar offences and where the student did not cooperate with the disciplinary process. The Panel concluded, on the basis of its review of the Mr. C factors and prior decisions of the Tribunal that a recommendation of expulsion was appropriate.
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; a five-year suspension from the University; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; a final grade of zero in all four courses; and a report to the Provost for publication.