DATE:
July 5, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.C. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
May 22, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Omo Akintan, Chair
Professor Pascal Can Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Giselle Sami Dalili, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Janet Song, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Calvin Zhang, Counsel for the Student, Starkman Lawyers
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Quasi-Judicial Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly forging or in any other way altering, or falsifying documents or evidence required by the University of Toronto, or uttered, circulated or made use of such documents in connection with a petition to submit work after a course deadline in two courses, contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging 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.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) accompanied by a Joint Book of Documents, tendered as evidence by the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was required, in each of the courses, to complete a final paper. The Student did not submit the paper in either of the courses by the specified deadline. The Student subsequently submitted a petition to submit work after the course deadline in each of the courses, citing a sickness as the reason for their inability to submit the papers on time. In support of the petitions, the Student submitted a Verification of Illness or Injury Form (“VOI”) stating that the Student had a diagnosis for gastroenteritis. The Student also submitted a letter purporting to be from a pharmacy – purportedly addressed to the Student – listing the uses, instructions and side effects of a drug used to treat certain stomach and esophagus problems (the “Letter”). The University attempted to verify both the VOI and the Letter and was advised that the Student was neither a patient of the doctor named in the documents nor had they been seen by that doctor. Similarly, the pharmacy identified in the documents advised that they had not dispensed any medication to the Student. The Student denied the allegations that that the documents were forged in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate. However, in a subsequent email to the Academic Integrity officer, the Student admitted that the documents submitted were forged, and expressed remorse.
Based on the evidence contained in the ASF, including the Student’s admission, the Panel concluded that the charges under s. B.i.1(a) had been proven with clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities, and accepted the Student’s guilty plea. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered joint submissions made by the parties. The Panel noted that in determining penalty, it is directed to consider the factors outlined in the decision in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) including reformation, deterrence and protection of the public. The Panel noted that while forgery is a serious academic offence, the Student’s admission of guilt and cooperation with the proceeding was a mitigating factor. However, the Panel considered the fact that the offence at issue was the second offence for the Student within two years to be an aggravating factor. Having regard to the mitigating and aggravating factors in the case, the Panel was satisfied that the recommended sanctions in the JSP were appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.