DATE: May 21, 2015
PARTIES: University of Toronto v N.P.
Hearing Date(s): May, 15 2015
Paul Schabas, Chair
Chris Koenig-Woodyard, Faculty Member
Yusra Qazi, Student Member
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel
The Student’s father
Eleanor Irwin, Dean’s Designate, UTS
Natalie Ramtahal, Coordinator, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.ii.2 of the Code – breaking and entering – attempting to alter exam – ASF – admission of guilt– prior offence – Mr. C factors – recommendation of expulsion; five-year suspension; transcript notation until graduation; case reported to Provost for publication
The Matter proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) which stated that the Student attempted to break into an office at UTS to alter an exam he had written. He was apprehended by campus police and the Toronto Police Service were involved and the Student was charged under the Criminal Code. After denying his purpose for attempting to break in, the Student admitted his intentions. The police charges were withdrawn and the Student agreed to perform community service.
The Panel found the Student guilty of intent to commit an offence under s. B.i.1(a) and that he did something for the purpose carrying out that intention contrary to s. B.ii.2 of the Code.
The University sought expulsion as penalty while the Student sought a suspension. The Student had been suspended for four years on a prior offence and there was a period of the delay in commencing the penalty (which was at the Student’s request) which allowed him to complete the course. The Student’s offence was premeditated and extremely serious and the little the Panel knew about the Student’s character pointed to a high likelihood of repetition. The Student apologized and urged suspension as he was “really close to graduating” and his father urged the Panel to give his son one more chance. The Panel also noted the need for general deterrence. The University cited like cases of breaking and entering where expulsion was the penalty and those that received lengthy suspensions instead of expulsion were cases with no prior record.
The Panel found the fact that the Student reoffended during the grace period offered by the Panel for the Student’s first offense was egregious.
The Panel recommended expulsion and ordered that the Student receive a zero in the course, imposed a suspension of five years commencing at the end of his current four-year suspension or until the Governing Council makes a decision on expulsion, a notation on his academic record until graduation, and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.