DATE: January 29, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. A.A.
Hearing Date(s): December 9, 2010
Ms. Laura Trachuk, Chair
Prof. Graeme Trope, Faculty Member
Ms. Adil D'Sousa, Student Member
Ms. Linda Rothstein, Discipline Counsel
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Mr. A.A., the Student
Ms. Natalie Ramtahal, Office of the Governing Council
Trial Division – S.B.i.3(a) of Code – forging or falsifying an academic record – teaching assistant who altered his brother’s marks – Student plead guilty on September 10, 2009 – sanction imposed on December 9, 2009 – this decision provides supplementary reasons for those sanctions – sentencing factors in Mr. C case – mitigating circumstances of remorse, good character, academic record, lack of personal benefit, and possibility of rehabilitation – abuse of position and trust as a teaching assistant – deterrence – detriment to the University – case distinguished from University of Toronto and S.L. (January 21, 2010) in which a teaching assistant received money in exchange for answers – case distinguished from University of Toronto and M.C. (July 8, 2008) where a student tampered with University’s computer system to alter her marks
The Student was charged with three offences under s.B.i.3(a) of the Code. On January 14, 2009, the Panel issued a decision responding to the Student’s challenge of the Panel’s jurisdiction. September 10, 2009 the Student pled guilty to these charges. On October 9, 2009 the Panel issued a decision accepting the Student’s guilty plea. A sanction hearing occured on December 9, 2009 and sanctions were imposed on that date. This decision provides supplementary reasons for those sanctions. The allegations related to forging or falsifying the marks of another student, the Student’s brother, on three different dates. The sanctions imposed on December 9, 2009 were a five year suspension, beginning at the time that the offences were discovered on April 8, 2008; a five year transcript notation; and a report to the Provost for publication. The Panel referred to the sentencing factors in the Mr. C case. The Panel took into account the Student’s remorse, good character, and academic record. The Panel also took into account the Student’s abuse of position and trust as a teaching assistant. The need for deterrence and the detriment to the University was also considered. Expulsion was not recommended by the Panel because the Student did not act for his own benefit and the possibility of rehabilitation was recognized. This case was distinguished from The University of Toronto and S.L.(January 21, 2010), in which a teaching assistant received money in exchange for answers on multiple occasions, and from The University of Toronto and M.C. (July 8, 2008), in which a student abused her position of trust to tamper with the University’s computer system to alter her transcript.