Case #829

DATE: December 16, 2015

PARTIES: University of Toronto v W.L.
Hearing Date(s): November 25, 2015
Panel Members:
Roslyn Tsao, Chair
Gabriele D’Eleuterio, Faculty Member
Raylesha Parker, Student Member
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Lucy Gaspini, Manager, Academic Affairs, University of Toronto Mississauga
Ken Derry, Department of Historical Studies, University of Toronto Mississauga
In Attendance:
Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – information not available – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing not provided given the delayed service of notice and the Student’s likely residence abroad – hearing adjourned sine die for the University to consider other service of notice to the Student
Student charged in relation to an Essay she submitted. In the term following the submission of the Essay, the Student was suspended from the University for a period of 3 years as a result of unrelated poor academic performance. The Student was not present at the hearing. The Panel took into account that the Student was first emailed about the Course Instructor’s concerns regarding the Essay a year after the completion of the Course and a year after the Student’s 3-year suspension, by which point the Student had likely moved abroad. The Student did not respond to emails detailing the charges and the notice of hearing. The Panel noted that though email service to the Student’s ROSI email is usually acknowledged as sufficient notice, the Panel did not think that the emails in this case conformed with the notion of effective service. In this case, the Student, who was suspended for a year by the time the email was sent to her by the professor, might reasonably not have been checking her email account and, as such, the Panel was not comfortable proceeding in the Student’s absence. The hearing was adjourned sine die for the University to consider other service of notice to the Student. The Panel also noted its concern about the resources that would be required to serve notice to the Student, and questioned the utility of addressing the matter if the Student never seeks to re-enrol with the University.