Search

Discipline Appeals Board – Student appealed on the basis that they were not in attendance at the trial and were not represented at the trial hearing – Provost seeks an order dismissing the appeal summarily and without a formal hearing because it is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – sections C.ii.(a)7, C.ii.(a).11, and E.7(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (“Code”) – section 4.2.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – the procedures of the Tribunal shall conform to the requirements of the SPPA – there are two divisions of the Tribunal; (a) Trial and (b) Appeal – the University has determined that SPPA procedures are to apply to hearings and appeals before its Tribunal, and that by including section C.ii.(a)7 in the Code, they have advised their students of such an application – courts have long distinguished between procedural and substantive matters in this regard and have been willing to intervene on procedural matters (Re Polten and Governing Council of University of Toronto (1976), 8 O.R. (2d) 749 (Divisional Court); 1975 CanLII 709) – section 4.2.1(1) of the SPPA applies, and Associate Chair may hear the motion as a panel of one person – an appeal can be classified as frivolous or vexatious if the student takes no steps to move the appeal forward and fails to engage with the process or comply with Directions – the Student’s failure to communicate and engage in the process to advance the appeal renders the appeal vexatious – the Student’s own statements indicated that they used external aids in an assignment, which violated the assignment’s requirements to do the work independently – the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – motion granted – appeal dismissed summarily and without formal hearing

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) and B.i.3(b) of the Code – falsified documents and documents with falsified information – academic accommodation sought – document purporting to be doctor’s medical certificate – personal statement misrepresenting illness – Student did not attend hearing – Student given reasonable notice of Hearing – misrepresentations in the letter fell under s. B.i.1(a) as letter was not forged, rather it contained falsified information – finding of guilt – grade of zero in courses at issue; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled; report to Provost for publication

Discipline Appeals Board – Student appeals on the basis that the Tribunal did not address that the University failed to prove that the difference on her exam demonstrated that she had falsified the exam, that the Tribunal did not adequately consider her evidence, and that she is entitled to the presumption of innocence – request to reverse the Tribunal’s decision – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – falsified exam – Student asked the Discipline Appeal Board (“DAB”) to reassess and reexamine the evidence – DAB does not have the jurisdiction nor the relevant information to be able to attempt to reassess the weight of the evidence on which the Tribunal relied – the University is required to establish its case on a balance of probabilities and not on the basis of a criminal standard (beyond a reasonable doubt) – there was a reasonable basis for each of the Tribunal’s specific findings – appeal dismissed

Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged and falsified academic record – Student knowingly forged or falsified an academic record, uttered, circulated or made use of such forged, altered or falsified record, namely a degree certificate – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – guilty plea – Student admitted that he altered and falsified a degree certificate that belonged to another person and submitted it with an application for employment – finding of guilt – the JSP strikes a balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors – a five-year suspension; a notation on the transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.