Search

Trial Division — s. B.i.3(b) of Code — academic dishonesty — knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with a midterm examination, namely a Scantron sheet that the Student submitted in a midterm examination —Student attended the hearing and was represented—Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”)—finding of guilt — grade of zero in the course - suspension for just over 29 months – a notation on the transcript for 40 months or graduation, whichever date is later – report to Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld — Student’s initial legal representative not permitted to give evidence at hearing — University’s adjournment request in order to call reply evidence granted with terms to negate any potential prejudice to the Student — Student’s production motion requesting University counsel’s notes denied because notes prepared by counsel of interviews conducted in preparation for a hearing are subject to litigation privilege, but to ensure full disclosure of underlying facts within proposed reply witnesses’ knowledge, University was ordered to review counsel notes and provide a summary of any additional facts not reflected in “Will Say” summaries already produced.  

Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(c) and B.i.1(b) of Code – academic misconduct – impersonation – Student knowingly had another student personate him when the other student submitted an in-class assignment in the Student’s name – Student knowingly did or omitted to do something for the purpose of aiding or assisting students to obtain unauthorized assistance in connection with course assignments – In his capacity as a teaching assistant, the Student provided unauthorized assistance to two students registered in a programming course – the Student did not attend hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – Joint Book of Documents (“JBD”) – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – finding of guilt – teaching assistants must be beyond reproach – final grade of zero – five-year suspension – recommendation of expulsion – publication of a notice of the decision and the sanctions imposed, with the name of the Student withheld.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aid – unauthorized assistance - Student knowingly used or possessed unauthorized aids or obtained unauthorized assistance during several exams by accessing the internet and performing Google searches - No aids were allowed during tests - Students were not permitted to access any online or outside assistance - tests and exams contained a statement warning that the exam was proctored and electronically monitored and that the use of any written or electronic material was not permitted - Reference to academic conduct and offences with a link to the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters was also included on the tests – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – Joint Book of Documents (“JBD”) – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – The Student attended the hearing – finding of guilt in relation to six counts – Student took responsibility for her actions - grade assignment of zero for the course – suspension from May 23, 2019 to August 31, 2022 - notation on academic record and transcript from the date of the Order to August 31, 2024 or her graduation from the Physician Assistant Program, whichever occurs first; report to the Provost for publication of a notice of the decision and the sanctions imposed, with the name of the Student withheld - Exceptionally, the sanctions did not commence from the date they were imposed by the Panel; they were backdated - Discipline Appeals Board decision in The University of Toronto and M. A. (Case No. 837, December 22, 2016)

Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – falsified academic record – Student submitted falsified transcript in application for admission to University and course outlines in respect of courses she had never taken in support of application for transfer credits - University’s evidentiary onus in cases of alleged forgery – enough to show Student had knowledge of forged documents and made use of them - University not required to prove each and every fact particularized - where offence has requirement of ‘knowing’, shall be deemed to have been committed if person ought reasonably to have known – knowledge is objective standard and University need not prove actual/subjective knowledge – Vetrovec v The Queen [1982] 1 S.C.R. 811 – in assessing witness credibility Tribunal should scrutinize witness’ evidence in light of what they said on previous occasions – evidence of imperfect witness in this case not sufficient on its own but was corroborated by significant circumstantial evidence - finding of guilt – sanction to be determined at later date .