DATE:
May 5, 2009
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. F. M.
Hearing Date(s):
January 12, 2009
Panel Members:
Mr. Andrew Pinto, Chair
Professor Annette Sanger, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Song Li, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Professor Grant Allen, Vice-Dean, Undergraduate, Applied Science and Engineering
Ms. Betty-Ann Cambell, Law Clerk, Paliare Roland
The Student was charged with two offences under s. B.i.1(a) and alternatively, two offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted for re-grading an altered mid-term examination in one course and an altered term test in another course. The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. There had been no communication from the Student in relation to the charges. The Panel considered the efforts made by the University to serve the Student, the Policy on Official Correspondence with Students and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and found that all reasonable attempts to provide the Student with Notice of the hearing had been made. The Panel permitted the hearing to proceed in the Student’s absence. According to evidence submitted by the University, the Student denied that the submitted test booklet was his own and he claimed that he had asked a friend to submit the document on his behalf. The Student claimed that the friend, another student, submitted a different test booklet because he wanted to get him into trouble. The Student also denied submitting the documents regarding the mid-term exam and claimed that the documents submitted were not his own. The Student also implicated the other student in the events associated with the mid-term exam. The Panel considered the method of marking for the courses, the evidence, including testimony from the course professors, and the submissions of the University and found that the evidence was overwhelming. The Panel returned a finding of guilt on the two charges under s. B.i.1(a). The Panel considered the case of Mr. S.B. (Nov. 14, 2007) and whether the Student’s misconduct constituted a serious breach of trust giving rise to at least a two-year suspension and whether a two-year suspension should be imposed for each of the Student’s two infractions. The Panel concluded that the penalty requested by the University should be imposed. The Panel found that the Student had engaged in an on-going campaign of deception beyond the falsification of documents. The Panel found that on the balance of probabilities, the examination booklet and midterm test that the Student denied having submitted were the Student’s own. The Panel found that the Student denied sending emails from his own email account and that his claims regarding his health changed during the course of the hearing process. The Panel found that the Student’s implication and naming of a third party was a significant aggravating factor. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the two courses; a four-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.