Costs Required

FILE: Case #579 (2009-2010)
DATE: November 15, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. X.P.Z.

Hearing Date(s): May 7, 2010

Panel Members:
Julie Hannaford, Chair
Professor Louis Florence, Faculty Member
Sadek Ali, Student Member

Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Betty-Ann Campbell, Law Clerk, Paliare Roland Barristers
Gregory Ko, Articling Student, Paliare Roland Barristers
Kante Easley, Course Instructor
Y.Z., different student enrolled in Course

In Attendance:
Tamara Jones, Academic Integrity Officer

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(b) of Code – unauthorized assistance – collaborated with another student – identical answers – hearing not attended by Student– reasonable notice of hearing provided – personal service of Notice of Hearing – finding on evidence of guilt –prior academic offences – submission on costs requested by the Panel – s. C.II.(a)17(b) of the Code – see University of Toronto v. P.J. (2006)(Case #441) – see Mr. K (Case 1990/00; April 20, 1992) – significant expense in attempting to serve Student with notice – incremental costs directly associated with Student’s failure to participate in the hearing process – costs awarded – required payment before registration – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; notation on transcript until graduation; and cost order

Student charged with an offence under s. B.I.1(b) of the Code. The Tribunal convened without the Student present. The Panel heard about the efforts made to contact the Student, and the numerous modes of communications engaged to give the Student notice of the charges and of the pending proceedings. The Panel determined the Student should be regarded as having been served and having had notice of the proceedings. The charge related to the allegation that the Student submitted an assignment worth ten percent of a final grade that contained nearly identical answers to those submitted by another student in the class. The other student admitted he and the accused collaborated in formulating the answers to the questions in the assignment. The Panel found the Student guilty of the offence. The Panel imposed a final grade of zero in the Course, a five-year suspension, and a notation of the academic misconduct on the Student’s academic record until graduation. The Panel asked the University to make submissions regarding costs, specifically, whether costs should be awarded, and, if so, the appropriate amounts, and the terms and conditions of costs. The Panel noted the request for submissions on costs came from the Panel and not the University. The Panel reviewed s. C.II.(a)17(b) of the Code regarding matters of cost. The Panel noted the award of costs should relate to circumstances that would logically call for costs. The Panel held that when a party confounds the process of delivering a fair and transparent process for determination of a charge that consideration of costs sanctions should arise. The Panel further held that this was such an instance. The Panel noted they had had to convene twice to hear allegations of academic misconduct against the Student, who did not attend two hearings. The Panel noted the 2006 case of University of Toronto v. P.D. (Case #441) in which the Tribunal ordered a student to pay costs incurred to locate and serve the student. The Panel then noted the cost the University had expended to locate the Student on two occasions. The Panel noted the two scales of costs that exist in cost awards, partial indemnity and substantial indemnity. The Panel noted that fairness and proportionality suggest that a punitive award of substantial or even full indemnity should be reserved for cases where there has been egregious and extraordinary behaviour, in line with the case of Mr. K (Case 1990/00; April 20, 1992), which held that substantial indemnity be reserved for cases where there has been reprehensible, scandalous, or outrageous conduct by a party. The Panel held that the Student pay incremental costs associated with his failure to participate in the hearing process calculated on a partial indemnity basis. The Panel held that the Student be required to pay these costs before registering again at the University.

FILE: Case #441 (2006-2007)
DATE: January 28, 2005
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. The Student

Hearing Date(s): May 31, 2006 and August 15, 2006

Panel Members:
Laura Trachuk, Chair
Professor Stéphane Mechoulan, Faculty Panel Member
Ms Indra Muthu, Student Panel Member

Ms Lily Harmer for the University of Toronto
Mr. Earl S. Heiber for the student
The Student

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records - falsified academic records submitted to mislead faculty members into supporting dental school application – adjournment with conditions attached - Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – proposed penalty reflected nature of offences and sent deterrence message – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; five-year suspension pending expulsion decision; and report to Provost - cost of external disbursements requested – see case of Mr. K and s. C.II.a.17(b) of Code - costs awarded - Student ordered to pay costs no later than six months from hearing date

Student charged with two offences under s. B.i.3(a), and alternatively, under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student twice submitted falsified academic records, including presenting a false transcript to a professor, in an effort to mislead faculty members into supporting his application to dental school. In response to a request by the Student for an adjournment, the Panel noted the difficulties the Student had presented to the University in its efforts to arrive at a hearing date, and granted the request with conditions attached. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges. The Panel accepted the guilty plea. The parties submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel considered past decisions of the Tribunal in similar cases. The Student agreed with the University regarding the seriousness of the offences, acknowledged the offences, accepted the consequences and noted that he was appearing before the Tribunal to take responsibility for his actions. The Panel found that the proposed penalty appropriately reflected the serious nature of the offences and appropriately sent the message that the University took such matters seriously. The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty and imposed a recommendation to the President, further to s. C.ii.(b)(i) of the Code, that the Student be expelled; a five-year suspension pending the expulsion decision; and that a report be issued to the Provost. The University requested that the Panel award the cost of external disbursements incurred in its efforts to contact the Student and set a hearing date. The Panel considered the nature of the University’s efforts, the Tribunal's decision in the case of Mr. K, s. C.II.a.17(b) of the Code and the Student’s request that, if costs were awarded, he be allowed six months to remit payment. The Panel ordered that the Student pay the costs requested no later than six months from the date of the hearing.