DATE: September 11, 2014
PARTIES: University of Toronto v M.C.
Hearing Date(s): July 3, 2014
Sarah Kraicer, Chair
Joel Kirsh, Faculty Member
Susan Mazzatto, Student Member
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Sherylin Biason, Assistant Registrar, UTS
Wayne Dowler, Dean’s Designate, UTS
Natalie Ramtahal, Coordinator, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged medical documents – documents requesting inappropriate academic accommodation – Student did not attend hearing – finding of guilt – five-year suspension; grade of zero in course; two year suspension; notation on transcript for three years – report to Provost for publication
The Student was not present at the hearing but the Panel was satisfied that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing and had been served by email, phone calls, and courier, in accordance with the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the University Tribunal.
The Student was charged with an offence under s. B.i.1(a) and in the alternative, an offence under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the student had knowingly falsified a Medical Certificate to request academic accommodation for a missed exam. The University stated that if the Student was found guilty on the first charge, the alternative charge would be dropped.
The Assistant Registrar at University of Toronto Scarborough testified that she received a petition requesting an exam deferral due to illness accompanied by a Medical Certificate purportedly completed by a physician. Though the name was not clearly written the witness was unable to find any doctor going by a similar name on the clinic website. An executive and Chief of Staff at the hospital were both unable to identify the doctor with the name and registration number appearing on the form, and the stamp appearing on the form had never been used before. The evidence was compelling and the Panel found the Student guilty of the first charge. The University withdrew the second charge.
The University sought a penalty of a final grade of zero in the course, a suspension of two years to start on the date the Tribunal makes its order, a notation on the Student’s transcript for three years, and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.
The Panel then considered the penalty factors from the Mr. C case, considering the seriousness of the offence, need for deterrence, and the Student’s lack of participation and remorse in the process. The Panel considered like cases and found the University’s suggested penalty to be fair and appropriate. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course, a suspension of two years from the date of the order, a notation on the Student’s transcript for three years, and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.