Case Details
DATE:
December 29, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.M.
HEARING DATE:
September 9, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michael Hines, Chair
Professor Michael Evans, Faculty Panel Member
Ozanay Bozkaya, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with possessing an unauthorized aid in a final exam in MAT246 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.
The Student signed a consent form in which they attested that they had signed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”), and that they did not wish to attend or participate further in the proceeding. On that basis, the Tribunal proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The ASF detailed that the Student was one of several students who used spyware to receive answers to a final exam in the Course. The professor received a tipoff about the cheating and invigilators observed suspicious behaviour of some students during the exam, catching some with spyware. Following the exam, the professor compared the answers of the students who took the exam to those who had been caught with spyware. The Student had answers that were strikingly similar to those of the others who had been caught cheating. The Student denied guilt at the Dean’s Meeting but admitted in the ASF that they used electronic aids during the exam. On the basis of the ASF and the admissions contained within, the Panel found that the University met its burden of proof for the allegation of unauthorized aid under s. B.I.1(b).
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP, submissions of Discipline Counsel, and that the Student had signed an undertaking not to register for any courses or apply for admission to any programs at the University. The Panel noted that the Student had a prior offence and that, as the Student did not participate in the hearing there was no direct evidence of the Student’s character before them or any evidence of extenuating circumstances. They further noted that while the Student ultimately acknowledged their wrongdoing, they initially denied guilt. Given the evidence of the prior offence, the Panel indicated there was a real risk of reoffending, absent a significant sanction. The Panel stated that the deliberate, premeditated reliance on unauthorized forms of assistance in an examination is a very serious offence that strikes at the heart of the University’s core values of honesty and integrity. The Panel concluded that the sanctions proposed in the JSP were in the range of those imposed for similar cases and would not be contrary to the public interest nor would they bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension from the University for a period of five years; a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.