FILE: Case #01-02-06 (2001-2002)
DATE: April 24, 2002
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. D.F.
Hearing Date(s): April 2, 2002
Sherry Liang, Co-Chair
Philip Berger, faculty member
Penny Schincariol, student member
D. F., representing himself
Linda R. Rothstein and Robert A. Centa, for the University
Ian McDonald, Associate Dean, UTSC
Sherylin Biason, UTSC
Heather Pagan, UTSC
Trial Division - B.ii.1(a)(iv) and s. B.i.3(b) of Code – procurement - attempted bribery of course instructor – guilty plea – finding of guilt under s. B.ii.1(a)(iv) and not guilty under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – prior academic offence – general deterrence not critical - conduct not at the farthest end of spectrum - leniency justified by extenuating facts – rehabilitation possible due to young age - five-year suspension; ten-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and report to Provost - recommendation that guidance and counseling be sought during suspension
Student charged with two offences under s. B.ii.1(a)(iv) and one offence under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student attempted to bribe a course instructor in return for an increased course grade. The Student pleaded guilty to three charges. The Panel considered the email in which the alleged bribe was communicated and found the Student guilty of the two offences under s. B.ii.1(a)(iv) and not guilty under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code because the Student had been found guilty of academic misconduct. The Student had been sanctioned previously for a prior academic offence. The Panel found that general deterrence was not critical on the facts of the case because the type of conduct was likely rare. The Panel found the Student’s conduct to be serious, although it did not place the conduct at the farthest end of the spectrum. The Panel found extenuating facts in the Student’s favour to justify leniency. The Panel found that a five-year suspension along with a ten-year notation was substantial and that the ten-year notation would serve as a reminder and would reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence. The Panel found that given the Student’s young age, there was potential for rehabilitation to a standard of academic conduct compatible with the University’s expectations. The Panel imposed a five-year suspension; a ten-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost. The Panel recommended that the Student seek professional guidance and counseling during his suspension.