DATE: July 31, 2018
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. C.S. (“the Student”)
Hearing Date(s): June 15, 2018
Panel Members:
Ms. Roslyn M. Tsao, Chair
Professor Michael Evans, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Alanis Ortiz Espinoza, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Robert A. Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for University, Paliare Roland Barristers
Ms. Yadesha Satheaswaran, Summer Law Student, Paliare Roland Barristers
In Attendance:
Ms. Nisha Panchal, Student Conduct & Academic Integrity Officer, Office of the Dean and
Vice-Principal, University of Toronto Scarborough
Ms. Sana Kawar, Manager, University of Toronto Transcript Centre, Faculty Arts and Science
Ms. Tracey Gameiro, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Mr. Sean Lourim, IT Support, Office of the Governing Council
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) – forging or falsifying an academic record – forged transcript – student had not been enrolled at the University for a number of years prior to the offence – prior academic misconduct – student not present – notice provided – recommendation of expulsion, suspension of up to five years pending expulsion, and a report to the Provost with the Student’s name withheld
The Student was charged with one charge of forging or falsifying an academic record contrary to s.B.i.3(a) of the Code, or in the alternative one charge of academic dishonesty not otherwise described contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charge related to a transcript that had been submitted in support of the Student’s application to a program at York University. York contacted the University to authenticate the transcript that the Student had submitted in support of her application, and the University’s administrator remarked that all of the courses and the grades reported on the transcript that had been provided to York were inaccurate.
The Student did not attend the hearing. The Panel found that adequate notice of the hearing had been provided to the Student based on evidence that the Student had attended an earlier scheduled hearing and had obtained an adjournment. Thereafter, the University had attempted to contact her through the contact details in ROSI and had received no response. On the basis of affidavit evidence provided by the administrator who was asked to verify the transcript, the Panel found that the Student was guilty of forging an academic record contrary to s.B.i.1(a) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
The University requested: (1) that the Student's degree be suspended for a period of up to five years pending expulsion; (2) that the Committee recommend that the Student be expelled from the University; and (3) that the case be reported to the Provost with the Student’s name withheld. The Panel applied the Mr. C. [Case No. 1976/77-3; November 5, 1976] factors, noting that the Student had committed two prior offences, forgeries, that had been resolved at the faculty level prior to the offence at issue. The goal of individual rehabilitation was minimized here because the prior sanctions had failed to deter the Student from committing the subsequent, more serious offence in this case. Of paramount importance were general deterrence and protection of the public – which made expulsion appropriate to ensure that the Student did not re-enroll at the University and to prove that the University continues to exercise oversight over students after they have graduated. The Panel found that the University’s proposed sanction was in line with other cases and ordered that: (1) the Student be suspended for a period of up to five years pending expulsion; (2) a recommendation that the Student be expelled; and (3) that the case be reported to the Provost with the Student’s name withheld.