DATE:
July 14, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.Y. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 21, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. Simon Clements, Chair
Professor Georges Farhat, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Megan Campbell, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with three counts of knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record contrary to s. B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”).
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The University requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that s. 6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) outlines that the parties to a proceeding shall be given reasonable notice of the hearing by the tribunal. Furthermore, s. 7(3) of the SPPA states that where reasonable notice of a hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding and the party does not participate in accordance with the notice, the tribunal may proceed without the party’s participation and the party is not entitled to any further notice in the proceeding. The Panel further noted that Rule 17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) mirrors the provision in s. 7(3) of the SPPA. The University filed evidence that the Student had been served with the charges, the Notice of Electronic Hearing, and hearing materials to the email address for the Student as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University also filed evidence that Assistant Discipline Counsel attempted to reach the Student at an alternative email address that the Student had used in correspondence with the University, and forwarded an additional copy of the Notice of Electronic Hearing and the materials in which the University intended to reply upon at the hearing. The Panel noted that Assistant Discipline Counsel’s office also attempted to reach the Student via telephone at the telephone number listed in ROSI, but they were unable to reach the Student. The University filed further evidence that the last time someone accessed the Student’s email account was after the charges and Notice of Electronic Hearing were sent to the Student. The Panel noted that the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students expressly states that students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and email account in ROSI, and they are expected to monitor and retrieve all mail, including emails, on a frequent and consistent basis. Rule 9 of the Rules provides that students may be served by various means, including emailing a copy of the document to the student’s email address in ROSI. The Panel noted that the evidence showed that multiple attempts were made to contact the Student at two different email addresses and by telephone. The Student did not respond to any of the attempts to contact them. Based on this evidence, the Panel determined it would proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charges under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of an Intelligence Officer with Canada Border Services Agency (“CBSA”). The Panel noted that the Intelligence Officer affirmed that in 2019 the Student had a study permit to study at the University. The Designated Learning Institution verification process revealed that the Student’s status at the University was “academic suspension.” The Intelligence Officer also affirmed that in mid-2019 the Student submitted an online application to the Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (“IRCC”) which included a letter purportedly from a Registration and Financial Aid Assistant with the University of Toronto Scarborough which purportedly confirmed that the Student was registered full time for the next academic session (the “Purported UTSC Letter”). In September 2019, the Student submitted another online application to IRCC which included the Purported UTSC Letter and a document purporting to be a University of Toronto Transcript of Consolidated Academic Record (the “Purported Transcript”). The Intelligence Officer affirmed that the CBSA was given access to the applications and supporting documentation for the purpose of administering and enforcing the Act. Upon review of the application and supporting documentation, the Intelligence Officer sent an email to the University Registrar seeking to verify the authenticity of the documents. The Panel heard testimony of the Registrar and Director of Enrolment Management at the Office of the Registrar, University of Toronto Scarborough (the “Registrar and Director”). The Registrar and Director testified that the author of the Purported UTSC Letter held the position of Registration and Financial Aid Assistant in the Office of the Registrar until April 2021 and has since retired from the University. The Registrar and Director’s office keeps a record of all confirmation of enrolment letters that are issued, and there is not a copy of the Purported UTSC Letter in the Student’s file. Furthermore, the information in the Purported UTSC letter does not match what is contained in the Student’s record at the University. The Panel noted that it was the Registrar and Director’s evidence that the Purported UTSC Letter was a forgery. Furthermore, upon review of the Purported Transcript, the Registrar and Director stated that it did not reflect the Student’s academic record at the University. Furthermore, the Student has not been enrolled in any courses since Fall 2019 and the Student’s study permit expired in July 2020.
The Panel noted that the Purported UTSC Letter and Purported Transcript are clearly and skilfully forged, and an unsuspecting recipient and would not know either document was a forgery at first glance. The Panel outlined that the University does not have to prove that the Student created the forgeries instead it must prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the Student used the forged documents. The Panel noted that the Student was the only person who would have had an interest in submitting the documents to the IRCC in order to extend their study permit. Therefore, the only reasonable explanation would be that the Student used the forged documents to obtain an advantage with respect to their immigration status. The Panel found that the Student guilty on all three counts of making use of forged, altered or falsified records, contrary to s. B.i.3(a) of the Code.
The Panel received evidence outlining that the Student has one prior academic offence of unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment. In determining sanction, the Panel noted that a student who makes use of forged document is just as culpable as a student who forges the document themselves. The culpability lies in the plan to obtain and use the forged document. The Panel was asked to consider the factors outlined in the University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In considering the aforementioned factors, the Panel noted that there was a serious risk that the Student would offend again and that forgery of an academic record is an offence of the utmost seriousness that undermines the credibility of the University. Furthermore, the University must send a strong message to the university community that this conduct will not be tolerated and that there be deterrence of this conduct. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension from the University for a period of up to five years or until Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion; a corresponding notation on the transcript; a recommendation that the Student be expelled, as per s. C.ii(b)(i) of Code; and a report to the Provost for publication.