Case #979

DATE: October 30, 2018

PARTIES: University of Toronto v. K.L. (“the Student”)
Hearing Date(s): August 1, 2018
Panel Members:
Ms. Cheryl Woodin, Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Yusra Qazi, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenbert Rothstein LLP
In Attendance:
Ms. Krista Osbourne, Administrative Clerk and Hearing Secretary, Office of the Appeals, Discipline, Faculty Grievances
Ms. Lucy Gaspini, Manager, Academic Success & Integrity Officer, Office of the Dean, UTM
Ms. Lisa Devereauz, Academic Integrity Officer, Academic Success & Integrity, Office of the Dean, UTM
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) – forging or falsifying an academic record – forged transcript – student did not attend hearing – suspension of 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 charges related to an application that the Student had made to another University where the transcript was a forgery. The Tribunal found that the University had taken appropriate steps to notify the Student of the hearing. The Tribunal heard evidence that the University had attempted to contact the Student numerous times through email, as well, the University had managed to speak with the Student and he had indicated that he would attend a meeting with the Dean. He did not attend that meeting, and subsequent contact to the Student through the email, telephone and addresses provided in ROSI were unsuccessful. The hearing proceeded in the Student’s absence.
The Tribunal found that the Student was guilty of forging an academic record on the basis of affidavit evidence that the Student had provided a Certificate of Degree and an Academic History to another University in his application to be admitted into their programs. The transcript that the Student had provided listed much higher grades than the Student’s actual grades had been, listed courses that the Student had never been enrolled in and indicated that the Student was “in good standing” when the Student was in fact on academic probation.Upon the Tribunal’s finding of guilt, the University withdrew the alternative charge. The University withdrew the alternative charges. The Tribunal accepted the University’s submission on penalty, given the seriousness of the offence, the lack of any evidence of mitigating circumstances given the Student’s failure to participate in the process and present any, the Student’s limited progress towards obtaining a degree at the University (which made reformation of little relevance), and the need to protect the credibility and academic quality of the institution for the benefit of those who rely on the academic record. The Tribunal ordered: an immediate suspension for a period of up to five years; a recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled; and that the case be reported to the Provost with the Student’s name withheld.