DATE:
January 19, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. U.M. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 21, 2021, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Ms. Joelle Ruskin, Chair
Dr. Ian Crandall, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Branden Cave, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, 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 document which purported to be the Student’s unofficial academic history from the University of Toronto.
The Student did not attend the hearing and counsel for the University provided the Panel with an email chain which confirmed that the Student was aware of the hearing but was not able to attend. The Student further confirmed that they were waiving their right to attend the hearing and agreed that the Tribunal should proceed in their absence. The Panel noted that the Student had also previously communicated via email with counsel for the University to advise that they would not be at the hearing. Based on the evidence, and considering rules 9(c), 13, 16, and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, the Panel was satisfied that the Student was served with the charge and the Notice of Electronic Hearing, and ordered that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student.
The Panel received affidavit evidence of a Student Success Representative in the Office of the Registrar (the “Representative”). The Representative’s affidavit outlined that she received a call from a Pre-Employment Screening Coordinator with BMO Financial Group (“BMO”) seeking to confirm the authenticity of a transcript of academic record provided by the Student as part of a job application (the “Purported Transcript”). Upon review of the Purported Transcript, the Representative she determined the Purported Transcript had been falsified. The Panel noted that the requirement that the Student act “knowingly” is made out if the Student ought reasonably to have known that the academic record in question had been forged, altered or falsified. The Panel determined that the evidence clearly established that the Purported Transcript provided by the Student to BMO was false. Furthermore, the Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Student was responsible for circulating and making use of the forged record since there was evidence that the Student had provided it to BMO. Based on the foregoing, the Panel found the Student guilty of forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, and/or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record, contrary to section B.i.3(a) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel noted that the Code confirms that in the case of forgery or falsification of an academic record, the Provost will ask the Tribunal to recommend expulsion. The Panel further noted that it is required to consider the factors outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Student did not meaningfully participate in the academic discipline process or in this proceeding nor did the Student sign an Agreed Statement of Facts when given the opportunity. The Panel considered the Student’s prior sanction as an aggravating factor in determining the appropriate penalty. The Panel noted that even if it was to accept as admissible, the expressions of remorse made by the Student in his emails to counsel for the University, those statements do not describe any extenuating circumstances faced by the Student at the time of the commission of the offence. Furthermore, those statements do not mitigate what the Tribunal considers to be premeditated and egregious conduct of the Student in circulating a false academic record as part of a job application. In reviewing the case law provided by counsel for the University, the Panel observed that these cases establish that forgery of an academic record is one of the most serious offences a student can commit. Based on the foregoing and all of the circumstances, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate to make a recommendation for expulsion. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension from the University for a period of up to 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.