DATE: April 11, 2016
PARTIES: University of Toronto v C.A.
Hearing Date(s): January 8, 2016
William C. McDowell, Chair
Chris Koenig-Woodyard, Faculty Member
Yusra Qazi, Student Member
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Lauren Pearce, Articling Student, Paliare Roland Barristers
Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Tracey Gameiro, Observer, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Krista Osbourne, Administrative Assistant, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of the Code – forged academic record – Student submitted an altered unofficial transcript as part of an application to another university – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided given the Student’s correspondence with his College – finding on evidence – finding on guilt – recommendation of expulsion; permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; 5-year suspension; case reported to Provost for publication
Student charged under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code. The charge related to allegations that the Student knowingly forged, altered or falsified a document that purported to be his unofficial transcript from the University. The Student submitted the altered document in application to another university. The other university brought the atypical transcript to the attention of the University. The Student was not present at the hearing. The Panel concluded that reasonable notice of the hearing had been given pursuant to the Code and the Rules of Practice and Procedures of the University Tribunal. The Panel noted that even if the Student did not have actual notice of the charges laid against him, the Student should be taken to have had notice of a serious academic discipline issue by reason of the correspondence issued to him by his College. The Panel concluded that it could proceed with the hearing.
Student was found guilty of the forged academic record charge. The Panel accepted the evidence of the manager of the University transcripts centre, who confirmed that the transcript submitted was incomplete and inaccurate. The Panel found that the Student had not received a degree from the University as indicated on the document, but rather falsely represented to the other university that he had done so. The Student also falsified the individual grades on the purported transcript. The Student did not respond to requests to meet with the Dean’s Designate or other members of the University. The Panel noted that the penalty typically handed down in cases of forged academic records is expulsion. Here, the Student claimed a degree which had not been awarded and falsely suggested that he had achieved academic success considerably at variance from the results recorded on his transcript. The Panel took into account The University v MK, which emphasized the need to protect the integrity of the University and to deter such conduct. The Panel imposed a recommendation of expulsion; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; a 5-year suspension; and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.