Case #576

DATE: January 26, 2011
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. H.S.


Hearing Date(s): August 24, 2010

Panel Members:
Rodica David Q.C., Chair
Professor Nick Cheng, Faculty Member
Jake Brockman, Student Member

Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Betty-Ann Campbell, Law Clerk, Paliare Roland Barristers
Elaine Ishibashi, Associate Faculty Registrar
Professor Lisa Steele, Department of Art
Janine Robb, Executive Director of Health and Wellness at the University of Toronto

In Attendance:
Dr. Tamara Jones, Office of Student Academic Integrity
Professor Don Dewees, Department of Economics

Trial Division – s. B.I.3(a); s. B.I.3(b); s. B.I.1(a) of Code – forged transcripts – misrepresentation of academic record – misrepresentation of academic prerequisites – falsified university syllabi – forged medical certificates – providing false e-mail addresses of professors – hearing not attended – peremptory hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided – guilty plea– egregious conduct – lack of remorse – consistent and repeated pattern of deception – international implications – University submission on penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for courses; five-year immediate suspension; recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled; and report to Provost

Student charged twice for a total of twenty-seven offences under s. B.I.3(a), s. B.I.3(b), and s. B.I.1(a) of the Code. The charges related to the allegations that the Student misrepresented her academic history in the form of a false academic record from a foreign university, as well as a false ROSI transcript, as well as the allegations that the Student submitted false medical certificates to be allowed to write a make-up examination in a course. The Panel heard the Student engaged in a course of conduct to delay the hearing of all charges. After several attempts at scheduling a hearing, the Panel heard that the University’s Discipline Counsel made certain the Student was aware of the newly scheduled peremptory hearing date. The hearing proceeded without the Student being present. The Panel found the conduct of the Student egregious in many respects. The Panel found the Student guilty of fourteen charges; the University withdrew the remaining thirteen charges. The Panel considered the Sopinka factors. The Panel noted particular concern with the detriment to the University occasioned by the consistent and repeated pattern of deception and forgery by the Student. The Panel also noted the international implications of the Student’s conduct and the damage her conduct could have on the University in the eyes of other universities and other educational institutions internationally. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on penalty and imposed a final grade of zero in the course, a five-year immediate suspension, a recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled, and that a report to the Provost be issued. The Panel invited the University to make a claim for costs, but the University declined to do so.