DATE:
July 27, 2016
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v L.D.
Hearing Date(s):
April 7, 2016
June 23, 2016
June 29, 2016
Panel Members:
Lisa Brownstone, Chair
Joel Kirsh, Faculty Member
Carl Shen, Student Member
Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Barristers
Lucy Gaspini, Manager, Academic Integrity & Affairs, UTM
Shu Cui Lin, Paralegal for the Student
Joseph Jim, Assistant to Ms. Lin
Prof. Kathleen Yu, Instructor of the Course
Prof. Catherin Seguin, Dean’s Designate, UTM
Alexandra Di Blasio, Academic Integrity Assistant, UTM
Ms. L.D., the Student
Mr. Y.L. Ms. X.C., and Ms. B.J.L, friends of the Student, UTM
Mary Xu Ling Wang, Interpreter for the Student
In Attendance:
Tracey Gameiro, Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Krista Osbourne, Administrative Assistant, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Sean Lourim, IT Support, Office of the Governing Council
Mr. Y.J., the Student’s boyfriend
Student charged under s. B.i.1(a) and, in the alternative, s. Bi.3(a) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student knowingly forged, altered, or falsified her Test before resubmitting it in an attempt to obtain additional marks. Student found guilty with respect to the forged documents charge contrary to s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The University then withdrew the alternative charges. The Panel took into account evidence that the Student made two alterations to her test based on the Course Instructor’s scan of her originally submitted Test. In The University of Toronto v. O.S. (case #824), a student was found guilty of a forged documents charge involving the very same course and the very same test. The Student in this case argued that she made two markings on the Test but forgot about these changes when she resubmitted it for regarding. The Panel in this case noted the differences in this case, namely the mitigating factors of this Student: the Student took the proceedings and the fall-out from her actions seriously, there was a degree of remorse, the conduct was unlikely to be repeated, and the student had difficult personal circumstances. The Panel therefore imposed a lesser sentence than it had in Case #824, but it continued to emphasize the serious nature of the misconduct. The Panel imposed a grade assignment of zero in the Course; a 1-year suspension from the University; a 2-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that the matter be reported to the Provost for publication.