Sentencing Principles

FILE: Case #542 (2008-2009)
DATE: April 29, 2009
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. M.S.

Hearing Date(s): March 26, 2009

Panel Members:
John A. Keefe, Chair
Professor Lesley Lavack, Faculty Member
Jamon Camisso, Student Member

Nick Shkordoff, DLS for the Student
Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – altered term assignments resubmitted – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – prior academic offence – good prospect of rehabilitation – sentencing principle – see R. v. Michael Tsicos – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Student charged with six offences under the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student altered and resubmitted two term assignments. The matter proceeded on an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Student pleaded guilty to two charges under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The Panel found that the facts supported the finding of a contravention of the Code. The parties submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel considered that the Student has been sanctioned previously for similar academic dishonesty. The Panel observed that the proposed penalty involved a lengthy suspension when combined with the Student’s earlier academic suspension. The Panel considered that the Student pleaded guilty, cooperated with the proceedings, acknowledged the seriousness of the offence and took responsibility for his conduct, and found that there was a good prospect of rehabilitation. The Panel considered that there was a Joint Submission on Penalty and the sentencing principle enunciated in R. v. Michael Tsicos, and accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.