DATE:
July 23, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. B.H. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 2, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michelle S. Henry, Chair
Professor Paul Kingston, Faculty Panel Member
Ryan Cortez, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Janet Song, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Arshia Hassani, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code of knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto in connection with an application which the Student submitted for a Senior Doctoral Fellowship. In the alternative the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind, contrary to s. B.i.3(b).
The hearing proceeded on the basis of Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The Student was in their fifth year of a doctoral program and applied for a Senior Doctoral Fellowship in the Caribbean Studies Program. As part of the application the Student was required to submit a curriculum vita, a summary of their doctoral thesis and progress to date, and a letter of recommendation from their dissertation supervisor (the “Application”). As part of the Application, the Student represented that their PhD dissertation was well underway, that their comprehensive exams included a significant focus on Caribbean history and literature, and that included an article (the “Article”) under review by a peer-reviewed academic journal (the “Journal”). The Student also included mention of the Article in their curriculum vitae. At a meeting with an Associate Professor of History at the University, the Student was asked to produce the Article. At that point, the Student admitted that there was in fact no actual article. The Student further acknowledged that they had overstated their involvement in Caribbean literature and critical theory in their Application and apologized to the Professor. The matter was referred to the Dean’s Designate for Academic Integrity. The Student subsequently admitted at the Meeting that they had never submitted the Article to the Journal, and more generally, that the Student had knowingly misrepresented the information contained in the Application. The Student offered to return the $1,500 stipend that they had received for the Senior Doctoral Fellowship. The Student repeated these admissions in the ASF. On the basis of the ASF, the Panel concluded that the first charge was proven on the balance of probabilities and accepted the Student’s guilty plea. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a Joint Submission on Penalty submitted by the Student and the University. The Panel heard submissions regarding the appropriateness of the penalty and relevant past decisions of the Tribunal and considered the factors set out in the University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student character, the Panel noted the Student’s cooperation with the process and expression of remorse. With respect to general deterrence and the detriment to the University, the University stated that the need to deter was important in this case, as the Student’s actions could have denied other candidates from the Fellowship opportunity and, more generally, compromised the integrity of the University and its programs. The parties also requested that the start date of the suspension be deferred almost a month to allow the Student to work with his dissertation committee as the Student’s thesis was nearing completion. Having regard to the foregoing, the Panel noted that the joint submission was reasonable.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a three-year suspension from the University to begin May 1, 2024; a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.