FILE:
Case # 1301 (2023-2024)
DATE:
October 23, 2023
Parties:
University of Toronto v. M.S. (“the Student”)
Hearing Date(s):
June 13, 2023, in person
July 25, 2023, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ivan Hsieh, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
Joshua Lee, Co-Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) in connection with a term test in order to obtain academic credit, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged with knowingly representing as their own, an idea or expression of an idea, or work of another in a writing assignment, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The Student was further charged with knowingly forging, or in any other way, altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University, or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified document or evidence, contrary to s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a writing assignment and knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit by submitting a forged, altered or falsified invoice, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) and B.i.3(b) of the Code, respectively. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly engaging 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 a writing assignment, contrary to s. B. i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Provost withdrew the charge made in relation to the term test under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. With respect to the remaining charges, the Student admitted that they (a) knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another; (b) knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance; and (c) knowingly 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 writing assignment.
Regarding the invoice submitted in support of the Student’s position that they did not commit an academic offence in connection with the term test, the Panel noted that the ASF outlined that an Academic Integrity Assistant (“AIA”) conducted various searches to verify the authenticity of the invoice. The AIA found that the name of the company on the invoice did not appear in any Google searches and when the AIA attended the address for the company listed on the invoice, no company by that name existed at that address. The Panel received affidavit evidence of an employee of the car repair shop located at the addressed listed for the company on the invoice. Their affidavit outlined that to the best of their knowledge, since 2017, there has never been a company by the name listed on the invoice at that location. The Student admits that the invoice is (a) forged, altered, or falsified; (b) the invoice was a document or evidence required by the University; and (c) the Student uttered, circulated or made use of the invoice. The Student denied that they knew or reasonably ought to have known that the invoice was forged, altered, or falsified. The Panel was divided. The Majority Panel (the “Majority”) found the Student guilty under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The Majority noted that a student does not need actual knowledge, but it can be established on an objective test of whether a student knew or ought to have known. Furthermore, the Code penalizes not just intentional acts of forgery but also acts of forgery which result from unreasonable ignorance or reckless indifference. The University Tribunal’s Appeal Division confirmed this principle in University of Toronto and C.Z., (Case No. 512, July 27, 2006), in respect to the offence of plagiarism. The Majority found that this principle applies equally to forgery offences. The Majority noted that where there are circumstances present for a student to reasonably believe that a document required by the University may be forged, altered or falsified, before submitting the document, a student should take steps to assess the authenticity of the document. Otherwise, students could blindly submit documents to the University without considering their authenticity and face no consequences under the Code. Furthermore, such a result would undermine the purpose of forgery offences which is to foster and support the integrity of the University community. It was the Student’s evidence that upon receipt of the invoice, they checked the invoice to confirm whether their name and amount was accurate. Based on the evidence before it, the Majority found that in the suspicious circumstances of this case and the awareness of the University’s need of the invoice as part of the academic discipline proceeding, a reasonable person would have taken some additional steps to verify and assess whether the invoice was authentic. The Majority further found that the Student did not need to be certain of the authenticity of the invoice when they chose to submit it to the University, but they also could not be recklessly indifferent to its authenticity, which they were.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel noted that the JSP in this case is reasonable. The Panel took into consideration the seriousness of the offences and the fact that these were not the Student’s first offences. Therefore, there is a likelihood that the Student may commit another offence. The Panel noted that forgery and plagiarism are on the most serious end of the spectrum of Code offences because these offences are a breach of the University’s trust relationship with its students. The Panel also considered certain mitigating factors such as the Student’s cooperation in the process and entering into the ASF and JSP, thereby showing insight and remorse. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a notation on the transcript for six years or until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.