Case #01-02-08

DATE: May 17, 2002
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. V.A. and University of Toronto v. A.H.


Hearing Date(s): March 19, 2002

Panel Members:
Julie K. Hannaford, Co-Chair
Justin Simonelis, Student, Faculty of Arts and Science, St. Michael’s College
Donna E. Stewart, Faculty member, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Psychiatry

Appearances:
V. A., in person
Julie Ralhan, for A.H.
Linda R. Rothstein, for the University

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.i.1(b) of Code – impersonation and unauthorized aid – final exam - co-accused tried jointly – separate Agreed Statements of Facts – commercial element to impersonation - guilty plea from co-accused – separate Joint Submissions with Respect to Sanction – differentiation between penalty imposed due to aggravating facts and the promotion of rehabilitation – sentence no more serious then recommended jointly - Joint Submission on Penalty with respect to first Student accepted - Joint Submission on Penalty with respect to second Student not accept - five-year suspension for first Student; five-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and report to Provost - four-year suspension for second Student; four-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and report to Provost

Two Students charged under s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that Student H. impersonated Student A. at a final examination. The two co-accused were tried in a combined hearing. The parties submitted separate Agreed Statements of Facts pertaining to each student. Student A. paid Student H. to write the examination in his place. Student A. and Student H. pleaded guilty to the charges under s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The parties submitted separate Joint Submissions with Respect to Sanction pertaining to each student. The University and Student A. agreed that the mitigating facts were the Student’s acknowledgment of guilt and expression of remorse when confronted with the allegations; his co-operation with the process; and his chronic medical problems. The University and Student H. agreed that the mitigating facts were the Student’s acknowledgment of guilt and expression of remorse when confronted with the allegations; his co-operation with the process; and his concerns about his family’s financial situation. The Panel found that there should be a differentiation between the penalty imposed upon the two Students because Student A. was the initiator and had greater experience and maturity, and because it would promote rehabilitation and an understanding of the seriousness of the offense. The Panel found that it did not want to differentiate by imposing a more serious sentence than that which was recommended jointly, and stated its difficulty in regard to the assurances that there would be sufficient deterrence by the reduction in the expected sentences. The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty with Respect to Sanction pertaining to Student A. The Panel did not accept the Joint Submission on Penalty with Respect to Sanction pertaining to Student H., and elected to substitute the sentence. With respect to Student A., the Panel imposed a five-year suspension; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost. With respect to Student H., the Panel imposed a four-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.