DATE:
June 16, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
February 19, 2021 and March 18, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Omo Akintan, Chair
Professor Kim Widger, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Branden Cave, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that the Student knowingly forged or in any other way altered or falsified an academic record, and/or uttered, circulated or made use of such forged, altered or falsified record, namely a University of Toronto transcript. In addition and/or in the alternative, the Student was 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.
At the initial hearing date, neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared. The University requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the Student’s absence. The University tendered evidence that the Student had been served with the notice of hearing, the charges and disclosure at the Student’s utoronto email address. The University also tendered evidence that the last time the Student accessed her utoronto email was in 2018. The University also attempted to reach the Student via telephone, however, both numbers listed in the University’s Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”) were out of service. The Panel noted that although it was satisfied that the University attempted to serve notice on the Student via the utoronto address and that such service would typically suffice, the Panel determined that the due to the unique features of this case, an attempt should be made to reach the Student by mail or courier. The initial hearing date was adjourned to allow the University to make these additional efforts. The hearing re-convened on March 18, 2022, at which time the University provided evidence that they sent a courier package to the addresses listed in the Student’s ROSI account and on the Student’s transcript. Despite these efforts, the Student did not response nor did she attend the re-convened date. The Panel was satisfied that valid and proper service was effected on the Student pursuant to University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and ordered the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s.B.i.3(a) of the Code, the Panel accepted affidavit evidence submitted by the University in accordance with rule 61 of the Rules. The Panel noted that the affidavit of the Manager of the University of Toronto Transcript Centre in the Faculty of Arts and Science (“Manager”) outlined that their office received a request from University of New South Wales to verify the authenticity of various transcripts, including the Student’s transcript (“Purported Transcript:”). The Manager’s affidavit also outlined that when she accessed the Student’s ROSI record and compared the Purported Transcript with the official transcript, the Purported Transcript contained various discrepancies. The Panel noted that in comparing the Purported Transcript with the Student’s official transcript, it was obvious that the Student circulated and made use of a falsified document contrary to s. B.i.3(a) of the Code.
The Panel received affidavit evidence of the Manager of Academic Integrity & Affairs at the Academic Integrity Unit which outlined that the Student had previously admitted to one academic offence (plagiarism) in which she was sanctioned leniently. In determining sanction, the Panel was directed to consider the goals outlined in in University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that forgery is widely recognised as a most serious academic offence and deserves the most serious sanctions for the reasons outlined in University of Toronto and S.W. (Case No. 948, April 16, 2020). The Panel outlined that this was a very serious case of forgery and the impact of the forgery in this case rendered the Purported Transcript a work of fiction. Furthermore, the grades on the Purported Transcript bear no resemblance to the Student’s official record. The Panel also noted that this was the Student’s second offence in which she had already been disciplined. The Panel considered the evidence of the prior offence an aggravating factor. The Panel echoed the findings in University of Toronto and S.G. (Case No.: 1052, October 20, 2020) which outlines that the penalty must reflect the egregiousness of this type of misconduct in order to protect the credibility and integrity of academic institutions. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension from the University for a period not to exceed five years; a recommendation that the Student be expelled, as per s. C.ii(b)(i) of Code; and a report to the Provost for publication.