DATE: July 8, 2008
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. M.C.
Hearing Date(s): May 21, 2008
Ms. Lisa Brownstone, Chair
Mr. Adrian Asselin, Student
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Dr. Kristy Gourlay, Manager, Office of Student Academic Integrity
Ms. Sarah Crowder, Student Counsel, DLS
Ms. M.C., the Student
Mr. Max Shapiro, Observer, DLS
Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records – altered ROSI record – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – contested hearing on sanction – no remorse or understanding of gravity of actions – aggravating factors that the records were at the heart of the University’s system, that position of trust was violated and that alteration made at the source of record – mitigating factors that the Student was undergoing personal stresses and hardships and that alterations were relatively contained and made in a short period of time – University 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
Student charged with two offences under s. B.i.3(a) and alternatively, two offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges were in relation to allegations that the Student accessed her own ROSI academic record and initially changed her failing grade in a course to a “WDR,” and on a later date re-accessed ROSI and cancelled the course from her academic record. The Student worked for the University in a clerical position that gave her access to ROSI. The matter proceeded based on an Agreed Statement of Facts and a contested hearing on sanction. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. Based on the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel found the Student guilty of the charges. The Panel observed that the Student did not express remorse or explicit understanding of the gravity of her actions. The aggravating circumstances that the Panel considered were the fact that the records were at the heart of the University’s system; that from the position of trust which the Student occupied she chose a course of conduct to benefit herself and disadvantage others; that the Student made the change at the source of the record so that the alteration would be permanent; and that the University must be in a position to rely on and protect the integrity of its records. The mitigating circumstance that the Panel considered included the fact that the Student was undergoing personal stresses and hardships, and that the alterations were relatively contained and made in a short period of time. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on penalty. The Panel recommended to the President, further to s. C.ii.(b)(i) of the Code, that the Student be expelled from the University; a suspension of five-years pending the expulsion decision; and that a report be issued to the Provost.
DATE: July 8, 2008