DATE:
January 15, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. K.H. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 19, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christopher Wirth, Chair
Professor Emily Nacol, Faculty Panel Member
Harvi Karatha, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Mr. William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.3(a) Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) on the basis that they 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 that purported to be a Transcript of Consolidated Academic Record from the University of Toronto (the “Purported Transcript”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty, misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic creditor or other academic advantage of any kind, in connection with the Purported Transcript, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) filed evidence that the Student was served with the charges and the notice by way of email to their email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (ROSI). The Panel found that the evidence established that the Student was aware of the hearing date that had been chosen which was scheduled during a period that the Student previously indicated to Counsel that they would be available. The Panel further found that the Student made a deliberate choice to avoid official communications and to not attend the hearing. Counsel filed evidence that their office sent various communications to the Student to the email address provided in ROSI, once the hearing date had been chosen. Counsel made several attempts to contact the student by phone, using the Student’s cellular number as listed in ROSI. The Student did not respond to any of these communications from the University. The Panel concluded that pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), the Student received reasonable notice of the hearing. The Panel was therefore satisfied to proceed in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code, the Panel considered the affidavit evidence of the Service Coordinator in the University Registrar’s Office. The Panel noted that the Service Coordinator’s evidence was that their office received a request to verify the Purported Transcript. The Service Coordinator deposed that the Purported Transcript contained information that did not accurately reflect the Student’s academic record at the University, including grades, marks and grade point averages, and credits obtained that were higher than what the Student actually achieved. The Panel was satisfied that the evidence established that the Student knowingly forged, altered, or falsified and circulated a document that purported to be the Student’s Transcript of Consolidated Academic Record. After deliberation and based on the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Panel concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the evidence was sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to discharge the burden of proof on the University and found the Student had committed the academic offence of knowingly forging or in any other way falsifying an academic record or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record, contrary to section B.i.3(a) of the Code. Given this finding, the University withdrew the second charge under B.i.3(b) of the Code.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Panel noted that the Student’s actions were deliberately undertaken with a view of obtaining pre and post-employment screening services. The Panel considered the factors and principles relative to sanction as set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In considering the aforementioned factors, the Panel outlined that there was no evidence regarding the Student’s character or any extenuating circumstances. The Panel found that there was a likelihood of repetition of the Student’s conduct. It further noted, with respect to the nature of the offence and the detriment to the University, that knowingly altering and forging an academic record is a serious form of academic misconduct, which seriously undermines academic integrity and is a significant detriment to the University. With respect to mitigation, the Panel observed that the Student did not attend the hearing and as such, there was no real evidence of mitigation aside from the fact that the Student had no prior discipline history. The Panel noted that the Student’s conduct and the circumstances under which the Purported Transcript was used were similar to other cases in which the University Tribunal has recommended expulsion. The Panel outlined the strong need to deter others from committing similar kinds of forgery and falsification of academic records. It further observed that a student normally avoids a recommendation of expulsion where there are significant mitigating factors which are not present in this case. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension from the University for a period of up to five years from the date of this order or until the Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion, whichever comes first, with a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; 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.