No Commercial Element

FILE: Case #01-02-05 (2001-2002)
DATE: April 9, 2002
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. P.M.

Hearing Date(s): March 28, 2002

Panel Members:
Kirby Chown, Co-Chair
Michael Kohler, student, OISE/UT
Anne Marie Salapatek, Faculty of Medicine

Salim Hirji, for the Student
Lily I. Harmer, for the University

In attendance:
Mr. P.M.

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(c) of Code – impersonation – final exam – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea - Joint Submission on Penalty – premeditated and deliberate offence – expression of remorse and admission of guilt – no prior academic offences - effect of sanction on Student and family - family background and pressures – grade assignment of zero in course; five-year suspension; five-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and report to Provost

Student charged under s. B.i.3(c) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student had another person impersonate him at a final examination. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Student pleaded guilty to the charge. The Panel accepted the guilty plea. The Parties Submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel considered the sentencing principles enunciated in the case of Mr. C and found that while the Student’s act was a deliberate and premeditated attempt to cheat, he expressed remorse to the Panel directly and his early admission of guilt was significant. The Panel found that the offence was the Student’s first and that the sanction would have an effect on him and his family; and that the offence was serious and constituted a breach of trust between the Student and his faculty. The Panel found that the Student’s individual circumstances, with respect to his family background and the pressures he felt to complete his studies should be taken into account. The Panel found that the offence was a violation of the trust that must exist within the University community, and that severe sanctions attached to such an offence would add to the deterrence of students and demonstrate that such behaviour was not tolerated. The Panel considered previous Tribunal cases involving impersonation and stated its desire that a consistent message be sent for the type of offence. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.