FILE:
Case # 1408 (2022-2023)
DATE:
June 6, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. L.Y. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
March 3, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Shaun Laubman, Chair
Professor Kevin Wang, Faculty Panel Member
Ben Kitching, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ryan Shah, Articling Student, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Quasi-Judicial Administrative Assistant, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code for knowingly forging or in any other way falsifying an academic record or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered, or falsified record, namely a purported letter from the registrar and a transcript which the Student provided to Canada Border Services Agency. The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an assignment (“Assignment 3”), contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The Student was also charged under s. B.i.1(f) of the Code with knowingly submitting academic work containing a purported statement of fact and/or reference to a source which has been concocted in connection with Assignment 3. In addition, and in the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code with knowingly engaging in any form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described, in order to obtain academic credit or advantage in connection with the purported registrar letter, transcript, and Assignment 3.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Student did not participate in the disciplinary process at all. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice, both when the offences occurred in 2018 and again in 2022-2023 communications, via email, telephone, and courier. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided.
The first incident, pertaining to Assignment 3, took place in Winter 2019. The Student was enrolled in SOCA03Y3 (“the Course”). For Assignment 3, students were required to conduct a minimum of two short interviews with friends or relatives and write a paper analyzing the responses. Students were prohibited from approaching/interviewing strangers and were required to obtain informed consent forms. The Student’s assignment did not adhere to the guidelines presented in the assignment. The Course instructor noted that the Student’s assignment was in certain instances incoherent with unusual vocabulary yet used headings that employed advanced research concepts not taught in the Course. The instructor also reviewed the sources the Student cited and found that the information in the sources did not match or relate to the information and subject matter in Assignment 3.
The Panel considered the evidence related to this incident and agreed with the University, finding the Student guilty under s. B.i.1(f) of the Code for concocting a source. The Panel disagreed with the University regarding the plagiarism charge, maintaining that the evidence did not establish plagiarism. Consequently, the Panel found the Student not guilty of plagiarism under s. B.i.1(d).
The second incident occurred when the Student provided the Canada Border Services Agency with a falsified letter from the Registrar of the University of Toronto and transcript. In December 2019, the Canadian Border Services Agency sought authentication from the University regarding two documents pertaining to the Student: a letter stating the Student has completed the requirements for a degree (“CBSA Letter”) and a document purporting to be the Student’s official University academic record (“the CBSA Transcript”). A comparison between the CBSA Transcript and the Student’s actual transcript showed that almost all the information was inaccurate. Similarly, the CBSA Letter was falsified as the information was incorrect and purported to be from a staff member who had retired by the date of the letter.
The Panel considered the evidence relating to the forged letter and transcript. The Panel found the Student guilty of two charges under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code for knowingly forging or in any other way falsifying an academic record or making use of such forged, altered, or falsified record.
In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Panel considered similar cases presented by the University. The Panel found no evidence of extenuating circumstances or the Student’s character as he did not participate in the hearing. The Panel found a significant likelihood of repetition given that the Student committed multiple offences. The Panel also found that while the offence of concocting facts or references would not warrant expulsion, two offences of forgery do. The Panel found that the falsification offences were a detriment to the University and needed general deterrence, which favoured the most significant penalty available, which is expulsion.
For these reasons, the Panel accepted the University’s recommendation and imposed the following sanctions: suspension from the University for a period of five years from the date of the Tribunal’s order or until the Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion; a corresponding notation on the transcript; a recommendation that the Student be expelled; and a report to the Provost for publication.