Case Details
DATE:
January 7, 2026
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.L.
HEARING DATE:
November 28, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Lisa Talbot, Chair
Professor Jennifer Lake, Faculty Panel Member
Sameer Farjan, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Chloe Hendrie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Itzel Rendon Jimenez, Office Manager and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids in connection with a final exam, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (the “Code”).
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 attended at a hearing in June, which was adjourned at their request. The Student was contacted several times after that date via their email address in ROSI. The Panel was satisfied that Student was provided with reasonable notice and service. As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University introduced affidavit evidence with respect to the charge. The evidence established that the exam included “listening” questions in which music clips were played and students were to answer questions about the clips. Twenty seconds after the music clips started playing, an invigilator observed the Student looking at their hand. Upon further investigation, the invigilator saw dense writing on the student’s palm, though they could not tell what was written there. A few minutes later the invigilator approached the Student and asked to see their hands. The Student showed their hands, and the invigilator noted smudged writing on their palm, which was illegible. The Student claimed that they had been taking notes on their hand. The Panel rejected the Student’s explanation because the Student would not have had enough time to write the notes, they did not see the Student writing any notes on their had, and the Student had written notes on their exam booklet. The Panel found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the student was in possession of and consulted with an unauthorized aid and that the Student rubbed the notes off their palm to avoid detection. The Panel found the Student guilty of possessing unauthorized aid contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered prior case law. The Panel noted that significant time and resources were expended to prepare for the first hearing and then to prepare again for the second hearing. Further, as the Student did not attend the hearing, the Panel had no evidence of remorse or that the Student attempted to take any responsibility for their actions. They also had no evidence of any mitigating circumstances. The Panel stated that unauthorized aid threat to the integrity of the University’s processes for evaluating students, is unfair to other students, and jeopardizes the University’s reputation. They concluded that the penalty should be severe enough to deter others from considering breaching the prohibition on using unauthorized aids in a final exam. Finally, the Panel stated that the case law was consistent with a two-year suspension for a conviction for cheating.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension from the University for a period of two years; a three-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.