Search

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged or falsified document – Student knowingly forged or in any other way altered or falsified a document required by the University, or the Student knowingly uttered, circulated or made use of that forged, altered or falsified document, namely a final exam booklet –  Student did not appear – Rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 6 and 7(3) of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (“SPPA”) – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students – exam booklet contained identifying information that did not match the name of any of the students in the course – the Student signed in for the exam but an exam booklet for the Student was not submitted – expert evidence – a name, student ID, and student number originally written on the cover of the exam booklet was erased and replaced – finding of guilt – final grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.   

Discipline Appeals Board – Student appealed the sanction imposed by the Trial Division – Student took no steps to advance his appeal – Provost moved to dismiss the appeal summarily and without formal hearing – ss. C.II(a)(7), C.II(a)(11), E.7(a), and E.8 of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (“Code”) – s.7(a) of Appendix A of the Discipline Appeals Board’s Terms of Reference (“Terms”) – Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 3, 4.2.1(1), and 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act (“SPPA”) – the Code does not grant a single member of the Board jurisdiction to hear and decided a motion to dismiss an appeal summarily without formal hearing – s. C.II(a)(7) states that the procedures of the Tribunal “shall conform” to the requirements of the SPPA – the use of “conform” suggests that the Code and the Terms seek to make their procedures consistent with the SPPA – the Code and the Terms create a legitimate expectation in the sense employed in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 and in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504 that the Tribunal will conduct a hearing – an appeal to the Discipline Appeals Board (“Board”) falls within s. 3 of the SPPA – s. 4.2.1(1) of the SPPA applies to this motion – there is no statutory requirement that appeals (or this motion) be heard by a panel of more than one person – a motion in writing is sufficient to dismiss an appeal summarily – a single member of the Board, if designated, can dismiss an appeal summarily by way of a motion in writing, where the appeal is shown to be frivolous, vexatious, or without foundation –s. 4.6 of the SPPA does not apply to this motion nor does it affect the Associate Chair’s jurisdiction to hear and decide this motion – proposed grounds of appeal do not identify any errors in the Trial Division’s decision – Student did not lead any evidence at the trial as he failed to appear – Student would need leave to submit evidence at the appeal hearing – University of Toronto v. M.M. (Case No. 543, April 14, 2011) and University of Toronto v. D.B. (Case No. 1107, August 18, 2021) outline that absent special circumstances, a student who fails to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal of which they had reasonable notice cannot introduce evidence on appeal – no realistic prospect that a motion to admit new evidence would be granted – Student cannot establish an evidentiary basis for his appeal – appeal is frivolous and without foundation – a party who commences an appeal but then takes no steps to advance it ceases to have a genuine intention to appeal – without genuine intent to appeal, an appeal is viewed as vexatious – appeal dismissed