DATE: information not available
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Mr. N.L.
Hearing Date(s): March 22, 2007
Rodica David, Q.C., Chair
Carolyn Pitchik, Faculty member
Sharon Walker, Student member
Robert Centa, counsel for the University
Ms Jayne Lee, counsel for the Student
Mr. L., the Student
Kristi Gourlay, Manager Office of Student Academic Conduct
Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records - altered transcript twice submitted to Ontario Universities’ Application Centre – guilty plea - two separate acts of forgery – age and occupation not extenuating circumstances – excuse for conduct not accepted – no expression of remorse – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - recommendation that the Student’s degree be cancelled and recalled, as per s. C .ii.(b)(j)(i) of Code; permanent notation on transcript; and report to Provost - jurisdiction for the restoration of a degree that had been cancelled, recalled or suspended – see s. 48 of the University of Toronto Act of 1947 - no specific regulations or directions for implementation of restoration - seriousness of conduct should be taken into account in any application made for reinstatement of degree – no jurisdiction to make recommendation that significant time need expire before Student could succeed in application for restoration of degree
The Student was 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 an altered University Transcript of Consolidated Academic Record to the Ontario Universities’ Application Centre in support of an application to medical school. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel accepted the guilty plea. The parties submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel considered that the Student increased his marks by way of an additional forgery indicating higher marks when the marks that were originally forged were not high enough to gain admission into medical school. The Panel found the Student’s conduct more egregious because he engaged in two separate deliberate acts of forgery a period of time apart from one another. The Panel found that the facts that the Student was 27 years old and had worked in a Laundromat for a number of years did not create any type of extenuating circumstances. The Panel did not accept the Student’s excuse that the two forgeries occurred “on the spur of the moment.” No evidence as to whether the Student had been subjected to any other disciplinary proceedings was adduced. The Panel found that the case was more serious than in the case of the University of Toronto v. (case blacked out) because there were two acts of forgery and no expressions of remorse. The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Sanction and imposed a recommendation to Governing Council, further to s. C .ii.(b)(j)(i) of the Code, that the Student’s degree be cancelled and recalled; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost. The Panel stated that it desired its reasons be considered if the Student where to make an application for reinstatement of his degree. The Panel observed that s. 48 of the University of Toronto Act of 1947 conferred jurisdiction for the restoration of a degree that had been cancelled, recalled or suspended and that there were no specific regulations or directions as to the procedure for the implementation of such a restoration. The Panel stated that the seriousness of the Student’s conduct should be taken into account in any future application that the Student might ever make for reinstatement of his degree. The Panel stated that if it had been given additional jurisdiction, it would have recommended that a significant amount of time would have to expire before the Student could succeed in any application for restoration of his degree.
DATE: information not available