DATE: January 20, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. I.M.
Hearing Date(s): October 27, 2009
Panel Members:
Lisa Brownstone, Chair
Bruno Magliocchetti, Faculty Member
Jamon Camisso, Student Member
Appearances:
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Lucy Gaspini, University of Toronto Mississauga
Jordan Giurlanda, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
Trial Division – s.B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – forged medical notes submitted in support of petitions for deferred examinations in five courses – agreed statement of facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – joint submission on penalty – aggravating factor of length of time over which offences occurred – mitigating factors of statement of remorse (submitted and read by Student at hearing), guilty plea, and engagement and cooperation in the process – while not bound by a joint submission on penalty, a joint submission on penalty should not be rejected unless it would be contrary to the public interest or it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute – high threshold for rejecting joint submissions on penalty – joint submission on the high end of the appropriate range, but still appropriate – joint submission accepted – Panel imposed: 1) a final grade of zero in each of the five courses; 2) a five year suspension; 3) a transcript notation until one year after the Student graduates from the University; and 4) a report to the Provost.
The Student faced 8 charges of forging documents and 8 alternative charges of academic dishonesty. The charges stemmed from allegations that between May 7, 2008 and March 7, 2009 the Student forged medical notes and submitting them to support petitions in 5 courses for deferral of unwritten final examinations. An Agreed Statement of Facts was submitted in which the Student admitted that he knowingly submitted forged medical notes in support of these petitions. The Student was found guilty of 8 charges of forgery, and the remaining 8 alternative charges of academic dishonesty were withdrawn. A joint submission in penalty was made. The Panel considered the aggravating factor of the length of time over which the offences occurred, and the mitigating factors of the student’s statement of remorse, guilty plea, and engagement and cooperation in the process. The panel noted that, “while not obliged to accept a joint submission on penalty, the joint submission should not be rejected unless to accept it would be contrary to the public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute.” The joint submission on penalty was found to be at the high end of the appropriate range, but was still found to be appropriate and therefore accepted. The Panel imposed: 1) a final grade of zero in each of the five courses; 2) a five year suspension; 3) a transcript notation until one year after the Student graduates from the University; and 4) a report to the Provost.