Case Details
DATE:
November 3, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. B.L.
HEARING DATE:
July 7, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Karen Symes, Chair
Professor Manfred Schneider, Faculty Panel Member
Ariana Abbaszadeh, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christina Amodio, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly forging an academic record, contrary to section B.I.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (the “Code”).
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions on the issue of notice and requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The University filed evidence that the Student was served with the charges and Notice of Hearing via their email address in ROSI. The Panel was satisfied that the Student was provided with reasonable notice and proper service of the hearing. As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University introduced affidavit evidence with respect to the charge. The University’s evidence established that the University’s registrar’s office received a request from the University of Hong Kong to verify a transcript they had received from the Student. The registrar’s office found a number of discrepancies between the submitted transcript and the Student’s official transcript, including that the Student had been conferred an Honours Bachelor of Arts degree, which was not true, the number of total credits earned by the student was increased, and the grades and marks were improved. Further, the Student had not made a request for a copy of their transcript on or around the date recorded on the submitted transcript as the date it was ordered. While the Panel had concerns about gaps in the evidentiary record about who submitted the transcript or the Students knowledge. However, the Panel was persuaded that it was more likely than not that the Student was the one who provided the submitted transcript, as there was no evidence that anyone other than the Student stood to gain from the falsified transcript. The Panel found the Student guilty of forgery of an academic record contrary to section B.I.3(a) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered prior case law. The Panel noted that the Student had six prior academic offences. The four latest offences were addressed collectively, and the Student received a suspension of five years for those offences. The Panel stated that forgery is regarded as a most-serious academic offence that undermines the integrity of the University in that it misrepresents a student's academic accomplishments. The Panel further stated that preventing this type of offence is critical to protecting the reputation of the University. Given the seriousness of the offence, a recommendation of expulsion is commonly imposed other than in exceptional circumstances. The Panel noted that many cases where expulsion was ordered for forgery were comparatively less serious than the present case. They found that the Student had been warned multiple times about the seriousness of this type of conduct but appeared to be unrepentant and to have learned nothing from prior sanctions. There are no mitigating factors or extenuating circumstances present. Finally, the Panel found that there is a high likelihood of repetition if the Student is allowed to remain a part of the University.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; a five-year suspension and a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.