Case Details
Date:
January 21, 2026
Parties:
University of Toronto v. M.C.
Hearing Date:
December 4, 2025
Panel Members:
Amy Block, Chair
Professor Francois Pitt, Faculty Panel Member
Laiba Butt, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Tina Lie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of unauthorized aid, contrary to section B.I.1(b), of the Code. The charge of unauthorized related to a final exam in PHY100HS (the “Course”).
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student and filed evidence that they sent numerous emails about the scheduling of the hearing and served the Notice of Hearing to the Student’s email listed in ROSI. The Panel found that the Student had reasonable notice 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. The University’s evidence established that the exams of the Student and another student in the Course were virtually identical, including the same mistakes and formatting. At their Dean’s Meetings, both Students agreed that they sat next to each other during the exam. They both denied guilt and also indicated they were not aware of the other student copying off their exam paper. The Course Professor testified and provided evidence as to why it was believed that it was the Student who copied off the other student, including that the Student arrived at the same result as the other student for one question, but omitted a step in their calculations. The Panel concluded that the striking similarities in the exams could not be the product of coincidence and that it was the Student who copied the answers from the other student. The Panel found the Student guilty of unauthorized aid.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered past precedents and the standard sentencing factors. The Panel noted as an aggravating factor that the Student had one prior offence that was virtually identical misconduct committed only two months prior to the current offence. Because the Student did not participate in the hearing, there was no mitigating information regarding the Student’s character or extenuating circumstances. The Panel stated that there was a real risk of the same offence being repeated, absent a significant sanction and noted that cheating is unfair to other students and jeopardizes the University’s reputation. Finally, the Panel stated that the sanction was consistent with previous cases.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: final grade of zero in the Course; a three-year suspension from the University; and a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.