Case Details
DATE:
June 18, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.J. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATES:
May 30, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michelle S. Henry, Chair
Professor Kevin Wang, Faculty Panel Member
Zoe Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly having someone personate them during a deferred final exam in STAD29H3 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.I.1(c) of the Code. The Student was also charged with forging a TCard with her name and student number presented at the deferred final exam, contrary to section B.I.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) entered into by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course and was required to complete the final exam worth 40% of their grade. The Student did not write the exam herself but arranged for another person to attend and write the exam in her place. (the “personator”) Prior to the exam, the Student or someone on her behalf created a falsified TCard which was designed to look like an authentic TCard. The personator presented the falsified TCard during the exam to create the impression that she was the Student. An exam invigilator noticed that the TCard did not look normal, and invigilators discovered several differences between this TCard and authentic TCards. They looked the Student up and saw the picture online did not match the Personator. After being confronted, the Personator eventually admitted that she was not the student and that she was writing the exam for the Student for free as a friend. The Student admitted at the Dean’s Meeting and in the ASF that she had someone personate her at the exam and that she created the false TCard. Based on the evidence, including the Student’s admissions, the Panel concluded that the student was guilty of personation and forgery.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP, heard submissions from counsel for the University, and considered the relevant sanctioning factors. The Panel noted that the Student admitted the offence at the Dean’s Meeting and cooperated and participated in the academic discipline process. The Student apologized and submitted a personal letter to the Panel. With respect to the likelihood of repetition, the Panel noted that there was no record of prior offences, and the Student had the requisite number of credits required to graduate. The Panel further stated that impersonation is considered one of the most egregious offences and is also very had to detect. As a result, such offences usually attract the highest of penalties. The Panel agreed that, given the seriousness of the offence, it is important to send a strong message that this type of misconduct cannot be tolerated. Finally, the Panel did not find any extenuating circumstances, though the Student did raise some personal hardships she was experiencing at the time of the offence. The Panel agreed that the recommended sanctions were reasonable and appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero In the Course; a five-year suspension; and a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.