DATE:
May 3, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. W.K. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 28, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Alexandra Clark, Chair
Professor Glen Jones, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Madison Kerr, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (“Code”) on the basis that the Student 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 which purported to be a degree certificate from the University. The Student was also charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with a document that purported to be a degree certificate from the University.
The Panel received an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) which outlined that the Student admitted that, as part of an application for employment, he misrepresented his academic status by altering and falsifying a copy of another person’s degree certificate to make it appear as if it was his degree certificate and that he had graduated from the University of Toronto. The Panel confirmed with the Student that his admission was voluntary, informed, and unequivocal. The ASF further outlined that the Student had only earned 20.5 credits and had never graduated from the University. The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Office of Convocation received an email from a background verification service seeking confirmation that the Student had been conferred a Bachelor of Arts degree by the University. The Office of Convocation advised the verification service company that the Student had not been granted a degree by the University. Subsequent to this, the Office of Convocation forwarded the email along with a copy of the degree certificate to the Associate Registrar for further investigation. The ASF further outlined that the Associate Registrar determined that the Student had not graduated from the University and the Degree was not legitimate. The Student attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate and at the meeting, the Student admitted to the academic offence and apologized for his actions. The Panel noted that the evidence contained in the ASF and accompanying documents clearly proved that the Student had knowingly forged a degree certificate and had made use of this forged document as part of a job application. Therefore, the Panel found the Student guilty of the first charge. The University withdrew the second charge.
The parties entered a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”), which was provided to the Panel for consideration. The Panel noted while it retains the discretion to reject joint submissions in appropriate cases, the fact that adversarial parties have agreed on the appropriate sanction is a strong indication that the appropriate balancing of interests has occurred. The Student tendered a book of documents relating to his personal circumstances at the time of the offence. The Panel noted that the Student and his family experienced significant financial hardship brough on by the Covid-19 pandemic, and that familial conflicts magnified during this time. In an attempt to secure employment that would allow him to live independently and escape his difficult family situation, he forged the degree certificate to support his application. The Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanction set out by this Tribunal in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that this was the Student’s first offence, he entered into an agreed statement of facts and a joint submission on penalty, attended and participated in the Tribunal’s hearing, and accepted responsibility for his actions. Regarding the likelihood of a repetition of the offence, the Panel noted that although the Student admitted to the offence at the first opportunity and understood the seriousness of the offence, it was concerned that the offence may not have come to light if the prospective employer had not employed a verification service to check on the Student’s academic qualifications. The Panel noted that a falsified degree certificate in order to secure employment is one of the most serious academic offences a student can commit, and this offence can devalue the University’s reputation for academic excellence and is profoundly unfair to students who fully complete their degrees. The Panel further noted that deliberate dishonesty must always be denounced and deterred in order to protect the academic integrity of the University. The Panel also considered other cases of the Tribunal that dealt with similar offences. The Panel noted that although the Tribunal is not bound by past decision, it strives to develop a consistent body of case law so that students are treated fairly and equitably. The Panel was satisfied that the facts of this case did not warrant expulsion, and that a five-year suspension was an appropriate penalty. The Panel noted that it was persuaded by the Student’s expression of remorse, his acceptance of responsibility for the offence, and the significant difficulties that he was experiencing at the time of the offence. The Panel sought clarification from the University about the joint proposal for a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript until graduation because the authorities presented by the University appeared to show that a five-year suspension is usually accompanied by a seven-year notation. The University could not point to an express discussion of the issue in existing case law. The Panel noted that, in its view, one of the central purposes of the notation is to ensure that future professors and invigilators are aware of the Student’s disciplinary history and are able to provide appropriate scrutiny of the Student’s work. In light of this central purpose and the significant mitigating factors in this case, the Panel agreed that a notation “until graduation” was flexible and would fulfil the aims of the sanction. Therefore, the Panel noted that the JSP does not bring the administration of justice into disrepute and is not otherwise contrary to the public interest. It strikes a fair balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a five-year suspension; a notation on the transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.