DATE: March 11, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. M.V.
Hearing Date(s): July 23, 2008
Panel Members:
Raj Anand, Chair
Professor Ikuko Komuro-Lee, Faculty Member
Sujata Pokhrel, Student Member
Appearances:
Rob Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Sarah Crowder, DLS for the Student
In Attendance:
Dr. Krista Gourlay, Office of Student Academic Integrity
M.V., the Student
Trial Division - s. B.I.1(a) and s. B.I.1(d) of Code – forged documents – forged medical certificate – false doctor’s letter - plagiarism – altered date and content from a previous medical certificate – doctor’s letter – submitted essay containing passages plagiarized from internet – purchased essay over the internet – Agreed Statement of Facts – Joint Submission on Penalty – Sopinka principles – no prior offences – three offences treated concurrently – early admission of events and acts – lengthy period of reflection – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade of zero in seven courses; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost
Student charged with two offences under s. B.I.1(a) and one offence under s. B.I.1(d) of the Code. Charges relate to the allegations that the Student altered a legitimately obtained medical certificate and submitted it under false pretenses, that the Student submitted a doctor’s letter knowing that the content of the letter was false, and to plagiarism. The Panel considered and accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel then considered the Sopinka factors from the Mr. C case. The Panel considered the significant undertaking involved in falsifying the medical certificate, the obtaining and distribution of information from a doctor that was known to be false, and plagiarism of an essay in analyzing the seriousness of the academic misconduct. The Panel then considered the early admission of the acts and events, the Student’s willingness to work with the University in entering a Joint Submission. The Panel reviewed the proximity of the three offences and found, although there could be some debate as to whether they could be characterized as the actions of a repeat offender, they would be seen as concurrent offences because none of them came before the Tribunal previously. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in seven course; a five-year suspension; a seven-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.