Case #56

DATE: November 17, 2000

PARTIES: University of Toronto v. T.P.

HEARING DATE: October 10, 2000

Panel Members:
Rodica David, Chair

Salim Hirji, Counsel for T.P.
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel

The Student was charged with four counts of academic misconduct under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”).

The Student undertook a course at the University in the summer of 1997. The Student did not attend the final examination for the course; rather, the Student had the examination written by another person, K.C., who attended the examination at the University and presented himself as the Student. K.C. wrote the final examination in the Student’s name and under his student number. The Student took no steps to report this academic offence to the University. During the same time period, the Student was enrolled in another course at the University. The Student did not write the final examination for that course either. The Student petitioned to be permitted to write the final examination for that course and claimed that he had been ill on the scheduled examination date. In support of this claim, the Student submitted two falsified medical documents.

The Panel found the Student guilty of the charges. The Panel considered the offences of which the Student was charged to be extremely serious and warranting an extremely serious sanction. It noted that had it not been for the long period of time between the date of offence and date of trial, the Panel would have considered expulsion. The Panel noted, however, that in the intervening period, the Student had substantially improved his academic performance. The Panel further noted that the Student’s charges surrounded a very short period of time and that he had no previous convictions or further misconduct to indicate that he would be likely to commit the offence again. The Panel stated that it believed that the Student’s efforts to do better academically and to seek help were indicative of the positive aspect of his character. The Panel also stated, however, that it felt it should impose as strong a sanction short of expulsion as possible in view of the detrimental effect of this type of conduct to the University as a whole.

The Panel imposed a five year suspension; publication of the sanction imposed on the Student’s academic record for five years; a grade of zero; and publication by the Provost of a notice of the decision and sanction imposed with the Student’s name withheld.