Case #368

DATE: information not available
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Student

Hearing Date(s): May 10

Panel Members:
information not available

information not available

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic record - attempted implication of academic advisor in act – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing– see s. 6 (1) of Statutory Powers Procedures Act and s. C.ii.(a)4 of Code – finding of guilt – third party implicated made offence egregious and provided indication of character – probability of behaviour being repeated in absence of contrary evidence – not possible to gauge whether excuses were accurate in absence of evidence – prior academic offence - previous suspension meant nothing to Student - recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; permanent notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Student charged with one offence under s. B.i.3(a), and alternatively, with two offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student deliberately falsified his/her academic record and attempted to implicate an academic advisor in the act. The Student did not attend the hearing. The Panel found that there was clear and convincing evidence, including an e-mail to which the Student had responded, that reasonable notice of the hearing was given in accordance with s. 6 (1) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act and appropriate notice provided pursuant to s. C.II.(a)4 of the University of Toronto Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters. The Panel found the Student guilty of the charge under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. The Panel found that the University’s submission on sanction was appropriate because the Student deliberately falsified his/her academic record; lied about petitioning to have his/her papers remarked; evaded service of the notice of hearing; and attempted to implicate an academic advisor at UTSC in his/her scheme. The Panel found that the implication of the innocent person made the offence particularly egregious and was an indication of the Student’s character because the act could have destroyed the academic advisor’s career. The Panel found no evidence of mitigating factors. The Panel found that although there was no evidence of possible repetition, in the absence of evidence from the Student, it could be likely that the Student would repeat his/her behaviour. The Panel did not hear of extenuating circumstances and found that, in the absence of evidence from the Student, it had no way of gauging whether the excuses provided to the University were accurate. The Panel found that it would be detrimental to the University to impose anything other than a very serious punishment for forging a transcript and that it was important that the University community be shown how seriously the offence was viewed. The Panel found that suspension was not a sufficient sanction as the Student had already been suspended for a year and it meant nothing to him/her. The Panel imposed a recommendation to the President, further to s. C.ii.(b)(i) of the Code, that the Student be expelled from the University; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.