DATE:
April 29, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.H.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 3, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Patricia D.S. Jackson, Senior Chair
Professor Ramona Alaggia, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Amin Kamaleddin, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student appealed the finding and sanction of the Tribunal’s Trial Division on the basis that the Tribunal erred in failing to address several places where the University failed to prove that differences on her exam demonstrate that she had falsified the exam. Furthermore, she alleges that the Tribunal did not adequately consider her evidence and that she is entitled to a presumption of innocence. The Student requests that the Tribunal’s decision be reversed.
In dismissing the Student’s appeal, the Board noted that the first two pages of the Student’s documentary evidence in question were evidence and marked as such, but the balance of the document was not marked as evidence. However, the Board noted that it was clear from the Tribunal’s Reasons for Decision, from the Student’s summary of that document in her factums, and from the arguments before it, that the balance of the document constituted argument which, while considered by the Tribunal, was not evidence, and was properly not treated as such. The Student asked the Board to review “each question” raised in her list of doubts and discrepancies. The Board noted that the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) makes it clear that the purpose of an appeal is not to seek a reversal of purely factual findings. The Code expressly provides that a student may not appeal questions which are purely factual. Furthermore, it is well established that the Board will not simply substitute a decision it would have made for that of the Tribunal on the basis that it would place a greater emphasis or different meaning on particular pieces of evidence. The Board noted that it has neither the jurisdiction nor the relevant information to be able to attempt to reassess the weight of the evidence on which the Tribunal relied. Regarding the Student’s assertion that she is entitled to the “presumption of innocence,” the Board noted that the University is required to establish its case on a balance of probabilities and not on the basis of a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt).
Regarding the Tribunal’s decision, the Student’s effort to take issue with specific findings does not provide a basis upon which to dislodge the finding that the charge was made out. Furthermore, the Board does not consider that there is a reasonable basis for an appellate body to interfere with those findings. The Board found that there was a reasonable basis for each of the Tribunal’s specific findings.
Appeal dismissed.