Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
1
INTRODUCTION
The applicant, Tsimidis was charged with academic dishonesty after his study notes were found
in his possession during an examination and was withdrawn from his program of study by the
respondent, Certified General Accountants of Ontario (CGAO). The applicant then appealed to
the Appeals Committee of CGA Ontario, which was rejected. Neither the oral hearing was
Issue
Whether CGAO breached the rules of natural justice and the duty of procedural fairness?
There are three pre dominant procedural fairness issues that has been dealt in the case, namely:
3. Whether reasons or justifications for the withdrawal and denial of appeal were
provided.
The respondent just relied on the invigilator's report and did not further investigate the
applicant's act. In the process of appeal, the applicant was given an option to submit his
contentions in just two pages. Relying on the precedents, it can be established where fact-finding
and credibility are the main issues; procedural fairness requires those issues to be determined at
an oral hearing. 1 Reliance can also be placed on Singh v Canada and Hundal v. Spt of Motor
Vehicle, for requiring oral hearing to be conducted where there is an issue of credibility involved.
1
Khan v University of Ottawa (1997), 34 O.R. (3d) 535 (C.A.)
2
Courts’ Decision:
The Court quashed the decisions of CGAO and the Appeal Committee. The Court also remitted
the matter to the Appeals Committee for rehearing with a oral hearing.
The respondent failed to act in accordance with its own procedures set out in the Student
The Court in paragraph 31 stated that, “The jurisprudence is clear that if fact finding and
credibility are central issues ………… an oral hearing even if the procedure before the
Analysis:
A. Statute / Regulation
The Academic Integrity section in the Student handbook is vague with regards to oral hearing
being a mandate. But it does accord an opportunity to the students to provide facts regarding the
alleged violation. It is also silent regarding the consequences of not adhering the regulation.
B. Common law:
The CGA and Appeal Committee is an administrative body and the decision given is final
3
The relationship shared by CGA and Applicant is fiduciary/ trustworthiness. Applicant
was doing his Programme under CGA with the expectation that CGA would act fairly.
The decision has a serious impact on the rights, interest and privileges of the applicant.
It is mentioned in Academic Integrity Procedure that the manager of the program investigates
the alleged accusation. It also accords an opportunity to the students to provide for the facts
and finally, the manager of the Program makes the final decision. In my view, the nature of
decision of CGAO resembles a quasi-judicial decision and the manager of the program acts
like an adjudicator. Therefore, the level of PF will be high. Arrow goes up.
The Student Handbook provides a process of Appeal. Therefore, the applicant has a right to
further recourse and the decision of CGA was not determinative. The level of PF will be low.
The decision has a significant impact on the livelihood and career of the applicant. Since the
question of credibility and academic integrity has been reprimanded and the maximum
penalty of withdrawal has been awarded without even considering the lesser option available,
4
s a serious prejudice to the applicant’s career, background and reputation is caused. Therefore,
4. Legitimate Expectation:
In my analysis, the legitimate expectations of the applicant would be to have an oral hearing
to show cause maximum penalty not to be applied. The relationship of trustworthiness plays
an important role on his expectation. Moreover, the Student Handbook clearly specifies that
opportunity must be accorded to the students to provide facts regarding the alleged violation.
But since, the procedure of oral hearing per se has not been mandated by the Handbook, I
would conclude the level of PF owed is medium, the arrow goes sideways.
The CGA is a specialized body to deal with such matters. Therefore, the court must give some
deference to its decision making power. The interference of the court should be minimum.
After conducting the Baker analysis, I am convinced that the level of PF owed by the DM is
high. Since the issue of credibility is at stake, the decision will have an adverse impact on the
livelihood and the career of the Applicant. Therefore, he is entitled to have an oral hearing.
I completely agree with the decision of the Court and the jurisprudence in Khan, Hundal and
Singh that an oral hearing must be granted in cases of credibility. An imposition of maximum
penalty by going against the very basic principle of natural justice is not only unfair but it denies