DATE:
August 24, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.Z. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
May 27, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Dena Varah, Chair
Professor Marc Laflamme, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Madison Kerr, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT in ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.3(a) Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that they knowingly forged or in any other way altered or falsified an academic record, and/or uttered, circulated or made use of such forged, altered or falsified record, namely, a document that purported to be a Transcript of Consolidated Academic Record from the University of Toronto.
The Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) filed evidence that the Student was served with the charges and the notice of hearing by way of email to their email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). Counsel also filed evidence that their office sent various letters and other communications to the Student to the email address provided in ROSI. Counsel’s assistant also sent a letter to the permanent address contained in the contact information in ROSI. The Panel noted that the evidence before them also outlined that no one had accessed the Student’s email account since early 2020. The Student did not respond to any of the correspondence from the University. The Panel concluded that pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) the Student received reasonable notice of the hearing. The Panel noted that the Rules provide that service is effected by sending a copy of the documents to the Student’s mailing address contained in ROSI or by emailing a copy to the email address contained in ROSI. The Panel was therefore satisfied to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Assistant Registrar at the University. The Panel noted that it was the Assistant Registrar’s evidence that their office received a request to verify the transcript of the Student (the “Purported Transcript”) from a University in Sydney. The affidavit evidence of the Assistant Registrar outlined that the student number on the Purported Transcript did not exist, so she undertook a search of ROSI for a student with the personal information that marched the personal information from the Purported Transcript. The Panel noted that the search matched only one student, the Student. The Panel further noted that the Purported Transcript did not match the true transcript of the Student nor was it an accurate reflection of their academic record. The Panel accepted that the Student submitted or made use of the Purported Transcript to gain admission to another university. The Panel also accepted that the Purported Transcript was a forged document. It purported to be an official document from the University that accurately reflected the Student’s academic record but, in fact, bore no relationship to reality. The Panel was satisfied that the Student had knowingly forged or in any other way altered or falsified an academic record, and/or uttered, circulated or made use of such forged, altered or falsified record, contrary to s. B.i.3(a) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel noted that the Student’s actions were a deliberate attempt to obtain a benefit of an academic record and degree that they did not earn. The Panel considered the factors and principles related to sanction outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In considering the aforementioned factors, the Panel outlined that there was no evidence of the character of the Student, the likelihood of repetition, or extenuating circumstances. The Panel noted that forgery of a transcript is amongst the most serious offences a student can commit. Forged transcripts and other academic records negatively impact the entire University community as they undermine the credibility and standing of the institution. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: immediate suspension for a period of up to five years or until Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion; a corresponding notation on the transcript; a recommendation that the Student be expelled, as per s. C.ii(b)(i) of Code; and a report to the Provost for publication.