Case Details
Date:
November 17, 2025
Parties:
University of Toronto v. Q.Z.
Hearing Date:
August 20, 2025
Members of the Panel:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Albert Cheng, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Tina Lie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
In Attendance:
The Student
The Student was charged with one count of plagiarism, one count of unauthorized aid, and one count of forgery, contrary to sections B.I.1(d), B.I.1(b), and B.I.1(a) of the Code. The charges of plagiarism and unauthorized related to a coding assignment in a statistics course. The forgery charge related to a forged verification of illness form (“VOI”) to support a petition to rewrite a final exam in an economics course.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions on the issue of notice and requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The University filed evidence that the Student responded to emails surrounding the scheduling of the hearing and that the University served the Notice of Hearing to the email listed in ROSI. The Panel found that the University complied with the Rules and took reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and of the hearing. As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University introduced affidavit evidence with respect to the charges. With respect to the unauthorized aid allegation, the University’s evidence established that the professor of the Statistics course received whistleblower emails that online tutoring services were providing answers to Assignment 1 in the Statistics course. Upon reviewing the Student’s answers in Assignment 1, the professor found striking similarities between their answers and the online answers. The Panel found that the syntax used by the Student was not taught in the course, her answers were identical in many places to the online answers and included the same words and phrases. The Panel concluded that the answers the Student submitted were provided by the online tutoring service and found the Student guilty of unauthorised aid and plagiarism in relation to the assignment.
With respect to the allegation of forgery, the University’s evidence was that the Student submitted a petition to rewrite a final exam in an Economics Course, stating that they accidentally picked up the wrong exam and worked on it for an hour before realising it was incorrect. That petition was denied, and the Student filed an appeal which provided an additional reason for the request: that they had a high fever. The student submitted a VOI in support of their appeal, dated April 18, the day of the exam. At a Dean’s Designate meeting, the Student denied committing the offence and indicated they had visited the clinic both on April 18 and a later date (May 8). They said they lost the April 18 note after they submitted their initial petition and got a replacement note on May 8. The Student then submitted another VOI, dated May 8, and medical records that documented that they attended the clinic on May 8. At the end of these records, there was a statement referring to a visit on May 8 to review “an absence” on April 18. The Student also submitted clinic billing information that documented visits on May 8 and in July but did not list a visit in April. The Panel found that the Student did not visit the clinic in April but first visited the clinic in May. They concluded the Student falsified the initial VOI to make it appear that they attended on April 18. As such, the Panel found the student guilty of forgery.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered past precedents and the standard sentencing factors. The Panel found that there were no mitigating factors and, though the student engaged at various points in the process, they did not take responsibility. The Panel also stated that there was a likelihood the Student would reoffend, given that they were on notice regarding the offences in the Statistics course when they submitted the forged document. Further, there was no evidence of any extenuating circumstances. The Panel stated that forging a document is deliberate, premeditated and egregious. With respect to the plagiarism, the Panel noted that it risks damaging the reputation of the University. The Panel indicated that both offences must attract serious consequences to ensure deterrence. Finally, the Panel stated that the sanction was consistent with previous cases.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: final grades of zero in the Courses; a three-year suspension from the University; and a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.