Case #586

DATE: December 15, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Y.L.


Hearing Date(s): October 19, 2010

Panel Members:
William McDowell, Chair
Professor Miriam Diamond, Faculty Member
Melvin Sert, Student Member

Appearances:
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Betty-Ann Campbell, Law Clerk, Paliare Roland Barristers
Professor Michael Chazan, Department of Anthropology
Michael Nicholson, Associate Registrar
Ellen Cunningham, Registrarial Assistant

In Attendance:
Kristi Gourlay, Office of Academic Integrity

Trial Division – s. B.I.3(b); s. B.I.3(b) of the Code – misrepresented academic history – claim of completed coursework – hearing not attended– peremptory hearing – reasonable notice of hearing – finding on evidence of guilt – University Submission on Penalty accepted – repeated misrepresentations – Student already on academic suspension –five-year suspension; recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled and report to Provost

Student charged with two offences under s. B.I.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to the allegations that the Student misrepresented her academic history to the University stating she had received a passed grade in six courses on two occasions. The Student did not appear at the hearing. The hearing was peremptory and the Student was notified as such through an email to an address on record by the University. The University relied on a brief of affidavits of Faculty and administrative staff. The Panel heard the evidence and found the Student guilty of the offences charged. Discipline Counsel for the University submitted that the appropriate penalty would be expulsion. The Panel noted that the Students’ actions were repeated on more than one occasion and misrepresentations were made to two different University members. The Panel further noted the Student was already on academic suspension and in submitting alternate submissions, any penalty would commence six and a half years from the hearing date. The Panel concluded it was not in the student’s interest to hold out the prospect of return to the University. The Panel imposed an immediate suspension of five years, a recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled from the University, and that a report to the Provost be issued.