DATE:
February 22, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. L.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
December 7, 2021, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Mr. Simon Clements, Chair
Dr. Chris Koenig-Woodyard, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Julie Farmer, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(c) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that she knowingly personated an individual at a final exam. The Student was also charged under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code on the basis that she knowingly forged or in any other way altered or falsified a document required by the University, or that she knowingly uttered, circulated or made use of that forged, altered or falsified document, namely a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud, or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with a final exam.
Neither the Student nor a legal representative of the Student appeared at the hearing. Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) advised the Panel that the Student, nor a legal representative for the Student, had responded to the Notice of Electronic Hearing. Counsel requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that s. 6 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (“SPPA”) outlines that parties to a proceeding shall be given reasonable notice of hearing by the tribunal. Furthermore, s. 7(3) of the SPPA outlines that where reasonable notice of a hearing has been given to a party to a proceeding in accordance with the SPPA and the party does not participate in accordance with notice, the tribunal may proceed without the party’s participation. The Panel noted that rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) mirrors that which is outlined in s. 7(3) of the SPPA. The Panel also outlined that rule 9 of the Rules provides that the charges, a notice of hearing, and disclosure may be served on a student by email or courier to the student’s email or postal address in University of Toronto Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students provides that students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and email account in ROSI. Students are expected to monitor and retrieve all mail, including emails, on a frequent and consistent basis. The Panel noted that the onus of proof is on the University to demonstrate that it provided a student with reasonable notice of the hearing. The University provided evidence that the Student had been served via email and courier at her ROSI-listed email and postal addresses with the charges and Notice of Electronic Hearing. The University also provided evidence that Counsel’s assistant attempted to call the Student at the telephone number in ROSI but was unable to reach the Student or leave a message as the voicemail box had not been initialized. The University also provided evidence that the last time someone accessed the Student’s email account was after the Notice of Electronic Hearing and the charges were served on the Student by email. Therefore, the Panel noted that the Student would have been able to read the Notice of Electronic Hearing. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing had been provided and that it could hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student. The hearing proceeded on the basis that the Student denied the charges made against her.
Regarding the charges under ss. B.i.1(c) and B.i.1(a) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Professor who was the course coordinator of course for which the exam in question was submitted. The Professor’s affidavit outlined that she found one exam booklet with identifying information that did not match any of the students enrolled in the course. The Panel noted that the Professor’s affidavit also outlined that an Associate Professor who assisted her in reviewing the exam requested that the Computer Science Undergraduate Office search the student name and number that appeared on the exam booklet. No student with the student number or student name identified on the exam booklet turned up in their search. On review of the exam sign-in sheets and the class list, it was discovered that the Student signed in as present for the exam but did not submit a completed exam booklet. The University requested that the Student attend a meeting to discuss the exam. The Panel received affidavit evidence of the administrator who was present at the meeting with the Student. The administrator’s affidavit outlined that the Student denied that the exam booklet in question was her exam.
The Panel heard testimonial evidence of a Forensic Document Examiner, Diane Kruger, who was accepted as an expert in forensic document examination. Ms. Kruger testified that a name, student ID, and student number which had originally been written on the cover of the exam booklet had been erased and replaced. Ms. Kruger further testified that she attempted to recover the erased writing by visual inspection under various light sources and microscopic inspection, however, because the erasures were so thorough, she was not able to recover the erased writing. The Panel noted that Ms. Kruger outlined that it appeared as though lower-case letters “ssa” had been erased from the first name field on the exam. Furthermore, it appeared as though an upper case “L” and lower-case “y” had been erased from the family name field. The Panel found that the only reasonable explanation for the Student being present at the exam but no exam booklet with her name on it was received is that when the Student realized she was going to fail the exam she erased her name and student number and replaced it with a fictitious name and student number. The Student was found guilty
of forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, and/or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified record. The University withdrew the first and third charge.
In determining sanction, the Panel received various authorities dealing with similar offences involving the falsification of documents. The Panel noted that the most relevant of these authorities imposed a sanction of a zero in the course, a two-year suspension, and a three-year notation. The Panel also considered the factors outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that there was no evidence of extenuating circumstances and no evidence of insight into her conduct. The University submitted that the forgery or falsification of an academic record is an offence of the utmost seriousness because such falsification both undermines the credibility of the University and of other students who have legitimately earned their degrees. The Panel agreed with this submission. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the courses; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.