DATE:
December 11, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.Y. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
November 22, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Roslyn M. Tsao, Chair
Professor Ramona Alaggia, Faculty Panel Member
Emily Hawes, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Janet Song, Co-Counsel for the University, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances, University of Toronto
The Trial Division of the University Tribunal found the Student guilty of the offence of obtaining unauthorized assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019. On appeal before the Discipline Appeals Board (“Board”), the Student sought to admit fresh evidence regarding their personal circumstances at the time of the offence and requested a reduction in the length of a four-year suspension in light of such evidence.
The Board outlined that there were two issues on appeal. The first issue was whether the Board should exercise its discretion to admit the Student’s fresh statements in the Student’s Appeal Submission and Factum for the purposes of the appeal on penalty. The second issue was whether the Board should exercise its discretion to set aside the Joint Submission of Penalty ("JSP") presented to the Tribunal and subsequently accepted by it.
On the first issue, the Board noted that it had authority in exceptional circumstances to allow the introduction of further evidence on appeal, at its discretion, where such evidence was unavailable at the time of or was not adduced at the original hearing. The Board declined to exercise its discretion to admit the fresh evidence in the Student’s Appeal Submission and Factum for several reasons. First, the Board found that the evidence was unsworn, vague, and unsubstantiated. Second, the evidence as it related to the Student’s personal circumstances was available at the time of the original hearing, and could not be tested on cross-examination by the University on appeal as it would have been at the original hearing. Finally, the Board noted that the Student had joined in the Agreed Statement of Facts detailing the Student’s personal circumstances, which was canvassed by the Tribunal.
With respect to the second issue, namely, whether the JSP should be set aside and the sanction varied, the Board noted that while it possessed the jurisdiction to vary sanction, it declined to do so in this case. The Board found that the Student had failed to demonstrate any reason to permit them to resile from the JSP, and further noted that the Board ought to afford significant deference to the Tribunal to approve the JSP’s provided by the University and the Student, provided that the JSP is voluntarily entered into with a full appreciation of its consequences. The Board concluded that there was no basis to set aside the JSP.
The Student’s appeal was dismissed.