DATE: November 27, 2013
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. C.K.
Hearing Date(s): September 19, 2013
Jeffery Leon, Chair
Richard Day, Faculty Member
Jenna Jacobson, Student Member
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Kristi Gourlay, Manager, Office of Academic Integrity
Sinéad Cutt, Administrative Assistant, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Natalie Ramtahal, Coordinator, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.i.3(a) of the Code – forged documents and forged academic records – documents purporting to be transcripts from other universities submitted in support of two applications for admission to the University and one application to transfer to St. George campus – Student did not attend hearing – Student was given reasonable notice of Hearing – evidence presented by way of affidavit – finding of guilt – egregious conduct that caused serious harm to the integrity of the academic process – five-year suspension; 7.0 credits cancelled; recommendation that the Student be expelled; report to Provost for publication
Student charged with three offences under s. B.i.3(a), six offences under s. B.i.1(a) and in the alternative, one offence under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the student had forged and falsified several documents purporting to be transcripts from other universities and submitted these in support of two applications for admission to the University, and one application to transfer within the University from the Mississauga to the St. George campus. The Student did not attend the hearing but the Panel was satisfied that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing and had been served in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the University Tribunal. Evidence was presented by way of an affidavit of the Assistant Faculty Registrar who was on leave from the University at the time. The Panel accepted the affidavit as evidence in accordance with the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure. The University withdrew one of the six charges under s. B.i.1(a) and the alternative charge. The Panel found the Student guilty of the remaining eight charges. The Panel noted that the conduct of the Student was serious, repetitive, and egregious. The Panel observed that there was no indication of respect by the Student for the discipline process, nor any indication of remorse or extenuating circumstances. The Panel stated that the Student’s conduct caused serious harm to the integrity of the University’s academic process and that significant sanction was necessary. The Panel imposed a five-year suspension, cancelled 7.0 transfer credits granted to the Student on the basis of falsified documents, recommended that the Student be expelled from the University, and ordered that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.