DATE: information not available
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Ms. Z. A.
Hearing Date(s): March 21, 2007
Panel Members:
Ms. Laura Trachuk, Chair
Prof. Melanie Woodin, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Gaurav Nagla, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa, Counsel for the University
Ms. A., the Student, did not appear
In attendance:
Ms. Gerda Grecko, Supervisor of Student Records, Ryerson Polytechnic University
Ms. Barbara Patterson, Associate Director, University of Toronto Transcript Centre
Trial Division - s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records - forged transcript submitted in application for admission to University and forged University transcript submitted in application for admission to other university – hearing not attended – Student responded to Notice of Hearing - discrepancies between submitted documents and official transcripts – finding of guilt - academic records falsified on two occasions - no evidence of extenuating circumstances – University’s submission on sanction accepted - recommendation that the Student be expelled, as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; and report to Provost
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(a), s. B.i.3(a) and alternatively, under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The Student was not represented and did not attend the hearing. The Panel reviewed the Student’s response to the Notice of Hearing and permitted the hearing to proceed in the Student’s absence. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted a forged transcript from another university in her application for admission to the University, and that she subsequently submitted a forged University transcript in her application for admission to the College of Dentistry at a second university. The Panel reviewed the Student’s official transcript from her first university and the document submitted by the Student to the University and found that the comparison revealed discrepancies. The Panel reviewed the Student’s official University transcript and the document submitted by the Student to the second university and found that the comparison revealed discrepancies. The transcript the Student provided to the second university was actually the academic record of another University student. The panel found that the University had proved the charges under s. B.i.1(a), s. B.i.3(a) of the Code on clear and compelling evidence. The University withdrew the alternative charges. The Panel reviewed past Tribunal decisions about sanctions. The Panel found that the alteration of the University transcript was among the most serious offences a student could commit and that the Student grossly falsified her academic records for her personal benefit on two occasions. The Panel had no evidence of any extenuating circumstances. The Panel found that expulsion would provide a deterrent to others. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on sanction and imposed a recommendation to the President, further to s. C.ii.(b)(i) of the Code, that the Student be expelled; and that a report be issued to the Provost.