COURT FILE NO.: 09/09
DATE: 20090120
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
MOHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
Applicant
(Moving Party)
- and -
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
Respondent
(Responding Party)
In Person
Robert Centa, for the Respondent
HEARD at Toronto: January 20, 2009
janet wilson J.: (Orally)
[1] Mohammad Chaudhry has applied for judicial review of the decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of Ryerson University dated December 19, 2008 (The Senate Decision).
[2] The Senate Decision concluded that the applicant had knowingly submitted falsified university documents in support of an appeal from an earlier allegation of academic misconduct involving plagiarism. The Senate Committee expelled the applicant from the University.
[3] Mr. Chaudhry seeks an interim order staying the Senate Decision pending the hearing for judicial review and allowing him to return to the University to complete his studies.
[4] To obtain interim relief, the applicant must satisfy the court that:
(i) either that he has raised a serious issue on the application or has a strong prima facie case;
(ii) the failure to grant the order will result in irreparable harm to him; and
(iii) the balance of convenience favours granting the injunction.
[5] The details and facts are fully outlined in the Senate Decision.
[6] Briefly, in June 2008, the applicant met with one of his professors in the presence of a third party facilitator who took notes. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss concerns about plagiarism in an assignment submitted by the applicant to the professor.
[7] After the discussion and in the presence of the third party, the professor concluded that the applicant had plagiarized the assignment in question. He determined that it would be appropriate to assign a penalty of zero for that assignment. These discussion were recorded by the third party in a prescribe form called “Summary of Discussion”.
[8] Two other employees of the University reviewed the Summary of Discussion prepared at the June 2008 meeting. These two individuals, along with the two individuals who were present at the meeting confirmed the conclusion outlined in the Summary of Discussion of plagiarism as well as the penalty. The applicant was notified in writing as to the conclusion of plagiarism and the penalty.
[9] In response, the applicant wrote to Ms. Bell who is a representative of the Academic Integrity Office at the University. He denied that the professor had concluded in the Summary of Discussion that plagiarism had taken place. Ms. Bells stated she would review the applicant’s file and get back to him.
[10] For a two-week period the applicant’s file was nowhere to be found. Ms. Bell searched her office diligently. Apparently there was a break in and other disciplinary files were taken from another office during this time frame.
[11] On July 10, 2008, the applicant filed an appeal from the charge of plagiarism. In support of this appeal, he submitted what is alleged to have been an altered Summary of Disclosure with respect to the June 2008 meeting. This Summary of Disclosure had changes in the body of the document and confirmed that no plagiarism had taken place and that there should be no penalty.
[12] On July 17, 2008, Ms. Bell found the applicant’s file in a prominent place in her office in a location that she had previously searched on several occasions. The file contained the revised Summary of Disclosure, which was a photocopy rather than the original. The Summary of Disclosure was the same document that the applicant submitted in his appeal dated July 10, 2008.
[13] In October 2008 the Faculty Appeal Tribunal heard the applicant’s appeal from the recommendation by a professor for the applicant’s expulsion for submitting false documents in support of his appeal. The Faculty Appeal Tribunal concluded that the applicant had knowingly submitted false documents in support of his appeal, and ordered expulsion of the applicant from the University.
[14] The applicant then sought a further appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee. The Senate Decision was rendered December 12, 2008. The applicant was represented by counsel. The Senate Committee in essence heard the matter anew. It heard viva voce evidence from the four individuals from the University involved in the file as well as the applicant.
[15] The Panel considered all of the evidence and concluded:
“The Panel was convinced that the documents had been changed in substantial ways, and that the gist of the facilitated discussion was altered. Whether the appellant had altered the document was irrelevant to the Panel: The appellant was present at the June 18 facilitated discussion, and he must have known that he document had been substantially changed. Rather than report the altered document to the Academic Integrity Office, he submitted the document, wrote a detailed letter to substantiate it and testified orally to the document’s veracity. He was therefore cognizant of the alterations and used them to his advantage.”
[16] The applicant argued before the Senate Appeals Committee that the university officials were conspiring against him in an unfair, biased manner. The Senate Decision rejects this assertion. And I note the same assertion was made before me today. The Senate Decision states:
“The Panel felt, on a balance of probabilities, that the suggestion of a conspiracy, which came from both the appellant (the student) and his counsel, had no merit. The Panel could find no motivation for so many University employees to pursue trumped up charges of Academic Misconduct against a student. The suggestion that they were trying to cover up shoddy practices in the OAI (Office of Academic Integrity) has no credibility; if they wanted to cover up bad practices, the quietest course of action would have been to let the matter go and not pursue charges.”
[17] I conclude in this unfortunate case that the applicant has not met his burden of proof warranting interim relief. The motion for interim relief is, therefore, dismissed. However, in my view it is appropriate that this matter be heard on an expedited basis. Counsel and Mr. Chaudhry are going to go to the Divisional Court office now to obtain a date in April 2009. I understand Mr. Chaudhry wishes sixty days from today’s date to enable him to perfect the appeal and counsel for the University has requested fifteen days to respond. I understand as well that the motion material and record is complete.
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 20, 2009
Released: January 22, 2009
COURT FILE NO.: 09/09
DATE: 20090120
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
B E T W E E N:
MOHAMMAD CHAUDHRY
Applicant
(Moving Party)
- and -
RYERSON UNIVERSITY
Respondent
(Responding Party)
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
JANET WILSON J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: January 20, 2009
Released: January 22, 2009