Case #513 - Appeal

DATE: August 21, 2006
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. The Student


Hearing Date(s): June 21, 2005

Panel Members:
Janet. E. Minor, Co-Chair
Professor John Browne, Faculty member
Ms Francoise Ko, student member
Mr. Jorge Sousa, student member

Appearances:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, for the University
The Student, in person

Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal from finding of guilt – appeal from recommendation of expulsion – motion for the admission of new evidence – evidence not relevant or probative to consideration of penalty - see Provision E.8 – previous expulsion decisions involved changing of grade or misrepresentation of achievement - dishonesty would have permitted a second chance at writing tests and marks obtained would still be based on performance - severe personal stress - genuine remorse and apology - appeal allowed - mark of zero imposed in two courses; five-year suspension commencing on decision date of University Tribunal; report to Provost

Appeal by the Student from a Tribunal decision in which the Student was found guilty of ten offences related to allegations that the Student submitted forged documents and provided false information in order to gain permission to write a final test and a term exam in two separate courses, contrary to s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The Student appealed the penalty potion of the decision respecting the recommendation of expulsion. The Student brought a motion for the admission of new evidence related to communication between the University and the Student directed towards responding to an affidavit filed at the Tribunal hearing. The Board considered Provision E.8 under the Code and the findings by the Hearing Panel and found that the proposed evidence was not relevant or probative to its consideration of penalty and it did not admit the proposed further evidence. The Board considered previous Tribunal decisions in which students had been expelled, and found that the cases involved the changing of a grade or misrepresentation of achievement by misrepresenting grades or a transcript in order to rely on a higher mark or grades than had actually been received. The Board found that the Student’s dishonesty stopped short of conduct which would have permitted him to rely on misrepresentation of his achievements, but rather the dishonesty would have permitted him to have a second chance at writing two tests and the marks obtained would still have been based on his performance. The Board found that the Student was under severe personal stress during most of the period in which the conduct occurred and accepted that his remorse and apology were genuine. The Board allowed the Student’s appeal and ordered that the Student receive a mark of zero in the two courses; a five-year suspension, commencing on the date that the University Tribunal rendered its decision; and that a report be issued to the Provost.