Case #04-05-07

Decision written in letter format (LF)
DATE: May 16, 2005
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Mr. A. F. (the Student)

Hearing Date(s): May 12, 2005

Panel Members:
information not available

information not available

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records – forged transcript misrepresenting marks and GPA – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – repetition of offence unlikely due to period of anguish between commission of offence and hearing – no premeditation – scope of offence contained - extenuating circumstances influenced severity of sanction - University submission on penalty accepted - five-year suspension; five-year notation; and report to Provost

Student charged with one offence under s. B.i.3(a), and alternatively, with two offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted a document purporting to be a transcript, which altered marks received from the University and misrepresented his grade point averages. The Panel submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Student pleaded guilty to the charge under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. The Panel accepted the guilty plea. The Panel found that despite the Student’s fine qualities and valued membership in his family, his dishonest conduct did not speak well of him and that the factor of character was not highly significant in the case. The Panel found that the two years between the commission of the offence and the hearing had caused enough anguish to the Student and that he was unlikely to repeat the offence. The Panel observed that the nature of the offence was serious but that it was done without premeditation or careful and deliberate planning, and was relatively contained in its scope. The Panel found that the University’s recommended Sanction met the purpose of deterring others from similar conduct. The Panel found that the evidence of extenuating circumstances did not excuse the Student’s dishonesty but that they did have some bearing on the severity of the sanction. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on sanction and imposed a five-year suspension; a five-year notation; and that a report be issued to the Provost.