November 1, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. D.W.
HEARING DATE:
July 29, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Professor Dionne Aleman, Faculty Panel Member
Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Raashil Jain-Sarker, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly forging, altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto, or uttered, circulated or made use of such forged, altered or falsified document, namely a Verification of Student Illness or Injury form, submitted in support of a request for a deferral of a final exam in SOCC26H3 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (“Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submitted jointly by the University and the Student. The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course at the University of Toronto Scarborough and was required to write a final exam worth 35% of their final grade. The Student did not attend to write the final exam, and subsequently submitted a petition for a deferred final exam for the Course (the “Petition”). In the Petition, the Student claimed to have become ill and submitted a VOI purporting to detail the Student’s illness. The Student’s Petition was initially granted, and they were given permission to write the deferred exam in the Course in August 2023. The Petitions Offence had received a VOI bearing the name of the same doctor from at least one other student during the exam period that was similar in content to the VOI submitted by the Student, prompting the Petitions Office to investigate further. The doctor who had purportedly signed the VOI subsequently confirmed that he had not, in fact, signed the VOI. The Student subsequently admitted in an email and in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate that they had purchased the VOI from a source on WeChat for $130, and submitted it in support of their Petition. On the basis of the ASF, the submissions of counsel and of the Student’s representative, the Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to the charge of knowingly circulating and making use of a falsified document, contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a Joint Submission on Penalty prepared and presented by the University and the Student. The Panel further considered the sentencing factors laid out in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77- 3, November 5, 1976) decision. With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel noted that Student admitted the offence, demonstrated remorse, and cooperated with the discipline process. The Panel further noted that this was the first offence for the Student, and that there was little to no likelihood of a repetition of the offence. With respect to the nature of the offence and the detriment to the University, the Panel noted that the offence was a serious one and implicated a medical professional, which undermined the credibility of the Student and the University’s procedure for assessing and granting academic accommodations. The Panel further observed that the offence involved a commercial aspect which made it more serious. With respect to the need for deterrence, the Panel concluded that the sanction in the circumstances must be severe enough to deter other students from committing a similar offence. The Panel found that the JSP was reasonable, not unconscionable and within the accepted range for similar cases.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero; a two-year suspension from the University; a three-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.