Case #590

DATE: August 10, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. A.L.

Hearing Date(s): July 13, 2010

Panel Members:
John Keefe, Chair
Professor Bruno Magliocchetti, Faculty Member
Elena Kuzmin, Student Member

Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University

In Attendance:
Dr. Kristi Gourlay, Office of Academic Integrity
Ms. Betty-Ann Campbell, Law Clerk for the Discipline Counsel
A.L., the Student

Trial Division – s. B.I.3.(a) of Code – altered or falsified academic record – altered unofficial transcript – forged degree certificate – hearing attended – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – University submission on penalty accepted – recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; five-year suspension pending expulsion decision; and report to Provost

Student charged twice under s. B.I.3(a) of the Code. Charges relate to the allegations that the Student circulated a falsified document purporting to be the Student’s academic transcript and further circulated a forged degree certificate he claimed to have received from the University to employers. The Panel found the Student knew that the document purporting to be the Student’s transcript listed courses he had not successfully completed, misrepresented grades earned in courses that he had completed, misrepresented sessional grade point averages, and misrepresented the Student’s cumulative grade point average. The Panel was provided with an Agreed Statement of Facts signed by the Student and counsel for the University. In the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Student admitted to committing the academic offences. The Panel found the Student guilty of both charges. Counsel for the University submitted penalty recommending expulsion together with a five-year suspension from the University. The Panel was advised the Student had cooperated throughout the process, entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts, and that the Student showed genuine remorse. The Panel reviewed the previous decisions dealing with other instances of forged or falsified documents and found that in most cases the penalty imposed was expulsion, even if the Student had entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts or attended the hearing. The Panel concluded that to maintain the integrity of the University’s ethical rules it had no alternative but to recommend expulsion. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on penalty and recommended expulsion from the University, imposed a five-year suspension pending the Student’s expulsion hearing, and held that a report to the Provost would be issued.