Case Details
DATE:
October 16, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.G.
Hearing Date:
June 18, 2025, via Zoom
Members of the Panel:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Laiba Butt, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
In Attendance:
The Student
The Student was charged with one count forgery, namely a falsified transcript purportedly from Athabasca University, in support of their eligibility for Guaranteed Admission to the second year of the Rotman Commerce program, contrary to B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”).
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The ASF detailed that, in order to obtain guaranteed admission to the Rotman Commerce program, the Student had to successfully complete certain courses with grades above specified levels. The Student failed to obtain these grade levels. The Student then emailed Rotman Academic Services claiming to have taken three courses over the summer at Athabasca University and attached a transcript purporting to be from Athabasca University. The Student admitted that they did not take the courses and/or did not earn the grades listed on the transcript. The Student further admitted to forging the academic record. On the basis of the facts in the ASF and the Student’s admissions, the Panel found the student guilty of forgery under section B.I.3(a) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP submitted by the parties, case law, and the sanctioning factors. The Panel noted that the Student admitted the offence and demonstrated remorse. It was the Student’s first offence, and they apologized for their behaviour. The Panel concluded that the Student demonstrated insight into their actions and that there is little to no likelihood of repetition. The Panel stated that the nature of the offence committed is egregious, as it required deliberation, planning, and implementation. They also noted that it is not easy to detect and causes detriment to the University. With respect to deterrence, the Panel noted that had the University accepted the Student’s forged transcript, they would have received a benefit to which they were not entitled, and depriving another, worthy student of that benefit and, that, had they gone on to graduate from the program, their degree would have tarnished the University’s reputation, and the degrees rightly earned by other students. The Panel concluded that not only must a strong message be sent to the Student in this instance, but also to the wider community to deter others from attempting something similar. The Tribunal found that the JSP was reasonable and within the accepted range for similar cases.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a five-year suspension; and a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.