DATE: February 20, 2013
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. K.Y.
Hearing Date(s): May 15, 2012
Panel Members:
Andrew Pinto, Chair
Richard B.Day, Faculty Member
Vy Nguyen, Student Member
Appearances:
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
In Attendance:
Kristi Gourlay, Manager, Office of Academic Integrity
Natalie Ramtahal, Coordinator, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – altered medical certificate – forged documents submitted in support of petitions for accommodation – Student did not attend hearing – Student had been personally served with Notice of Hearing – finding of guilt – commercial aspect was an aggravating factor – conduct undermined integrity of accommodation process –grade assignment of zero in six courses; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled; report to Provost for publication.
Student charged with twenty-one offences under s. B.i.1(a) and in the alternative, twenty-one offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student provided false medical documentation, academic petitions, and personal statements that included five forged medical notes in support of various petitions for accommodation. The Student purchased medical notes from an online commercial provider. The allegations involved eight separate incidents spanning three different terms. The Student admitted to the Dean’s designate that he had purchased the medical notes and they were therefore forgeries. The Student also admitted that two of the three academic petitions he submitted were false and that he had provided false documentation in order to defer writing exams. The Student did not attend the hearing, but the Panel was satisfied notice requirements were met and therefore proceeded. The University dropped four of the original charges. The Panel convicted the Student of the remaining offences. The Panel noted that the commercial aspect of the misconduct represented an aggravating factor because the Student thereby helped maintain a fraudulent industry that ensnares other students. The Panel held that the Student’s conduct represented an attack on the integrity of the accommodation process which is integral to the University’s obligations under the Ontario Human Rights Code. The Panel imposed a final grade of zero in six courses, a five-year suspension, a recommendation that the Student be expelled, and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication in the University newspapers.