DATE:
March 5, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. W.X.
HEARING DATE:
December 6, 2024 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Dr. Lynda Mainwaring, Faculty Panel Member
Alwin Xie, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Sonia Patel, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Jia Li, Quasi-Judicial Administrative Assistant, Office of Appeals Discipline and Faculty Grievances Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto, or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified document, namely, a document purporting to be a Discharge Summary from North York general, in support of a petition to defer a makeup test and final exam in ECO101 and the final exam in MAT135 (collectively, the "Courses"), contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”).
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University requested that the hearing proceed in the Student's absence and submitted affidavit evidence in support of the request. The evidence detailed that the Student was advised verbally, and via email correspondence, of the allegations of academic misconduct and of the date of the hearing by Assistant Discipline Counsel and undertook to look at their emails to obtain further information. Based on the totality of the evidence, the Panel was satisfied that the Student was aware of the hearing date and time, and that reasonable notice of the oral hearing was given. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The Panel received affidavit evidence which detailed that the Student submitted a petition in support of an exam deferral request in the Courses, which included a personal statement and a document purporting to be a Discharge Summary from North York General Hospital (the "Hospital"), which was purportedly signed by a doctor. The Student claimed, in the personal statement, that they had suffered an injury that hampered their ability to prepare for their examinations. The Student’s petition was initially returned with comments from a member of the College Registrar's Office, requesting further information. The Student proceeded to submit a revised petition, attaching the same Discharge Summary. An Academic Integrity Specialist reviewed the Discharge summary and observed that it was unusual in that it did not match the formatting of most hospital documentation, include a stamp, nor did it include contact information for either the hospital or the doctor. The Academic Integrity Specialist was subsequently advised by the Hospital that the doctor who purportedly signed the Discharge Summary was not credentialed at the Hospital. The doctor that purportedly signed the Discharge Summary later confirmed that the Student had never been their patient and that they had not signed the Discharge Summary. The Student did not attend either of the final exams in the Courses. The Student subsequently attended a meeting with the Dean's Designate to discuss the allegations and explained that it was their aunt who had procured the note from the Hospital.
Based on the evidence presented by the University, the Tribunal found the Student guilty of two counts of circulating or making use of a forged or falsified document contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. The Panel concluded that even if the Student did not procure the Discharge Summary, the Student reasonably ought to have known it was falsified. They had the obligation to obtain the necessary document to support their request and to ensure the veracity of the document.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and reviewed relevant past decisions of the Tribunal. The Panel also considered the factors set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the character of the Student and the likelihood of a repetition of the offence, the Panel noted that, absent the Student's attendance there was very little evidence. While the Panel noted that the Student was young, and in their first term at the University, the fact that the Student submitted the same Discharge Summary on two separate occasions was an aggravating circumstance, demonstrating a perseverance of academic misconduct that was troubling. The Panel noted that there was no evidence before the Panel of mitigating or extenuating circumstances. With respect to the nature of the offence committed, the detriment to the University, and the need for deterrence, the Panel observed that the use of falsified or forged documents constitutes a breach of trust between the University and its students, which simultaneously undermines the integrity that the broader community places in the University. The Panel concluded that despite the fact that the Student was at the start of their academic career, the multiple findings, the gravity of the offence, and the impact on the medical community warranted a serious sanction.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a two-year and eight-month suspension; and a three-year and eight-month notation on the Student's academic record and transcript.