DATE:
March 18, 2025
PARTIES:
The University of Toronto v. J.F.
HEARING DATES:
October 2 and 28, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Professor Mary Silcox, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Jesse Wright, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with three counts under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code for knowingly altering or falsifying a document or evidence or uttered, circulated or made use of any such altered or falsified document in connection with three different courses (the “Courses”).
With respect to liability, the University submitted the affidavit evidence of three witnesses. The affidavit evidence detailed that the Student did not write their final exams in the Courses and submitted a petition to defer the exams in August 2023. The petition was denied, as the Student had not submitted any supporting documentation. In November 2023, the Student submitted a further petition to defer the exams in the Courses, which included three Verification of Student Illness or Injury forms (the “VOIs”). purportedly completed by a doctor. On investigation, it was determined that there is no doctor of that name, though there is a doctor with a similar name. This doctor was contacted and confirmed he had never seen a patient with the Student’s name and date of birth, nor had he completed the three VOIs. At a Dean’s Meeting, the Student claimed to have visited a doctor referred to them by a friend. The friend provided them with the VOIs over WeChat and asked them to pay for the VOIs to a separate WeChat contact, which the student did.
The Student testified that they had been referred to a doctor by a friend and, when they received the VOIs, they did not check them because they did not think there was a problem. They had never previously sought a VOI, so didn’t know what it was supposed to look like. They did not think there was anything wrong about paying for the VOIs at the time.
The Tribunal was satisfied that the VOIs were falsified, as the doctor did not exist. The Tribunal found that the Student’s story was both vague and inconsistent in a number of respects. Further, descriptions of their ailments in the documents did not match their earlier claims. The panel determined that the student did not visit a doctor, and it was more likely than not that the Student purchased the false VOIs after their initial petition was denied.
The Panel then considered whether the student knowingly ought to have known the documents were false. They found that the evidence indicated that the Student ought reasonably to have known the VOIs were false. The student did not know the doctor's name or verify the address on the documents. The Panel concluded that the Student failed to take reasonable steps to determine that the VOIs were legitimate.
Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly circulating and making use of a falsified document required by the University of Toronto, contrary to section B.I.1(a) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered submissions made by the Student and the University. The Panel considered the submissions in light of the factors and principles as set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Student had no prior academic offences, but their lack of insight raised concerns about potential repetition. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted it involved serious dishonesty regarding medical records, implicated a third party (the doctor), and that the Student purchased the notes, an aggravating factor. Further, the panel noted the importance of deterring similar future offences among students. The Panel found no evidence of extenuating circumstances surrounding the offence. Finally, the Panel noted the sanctions for forged medical evidence ranged from 2 years to expulsion. The Panel concluded that a strong sanction was warranted but was not prepared to recommend expulsion.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; four-year suspension; five year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.