Case Details
DATE:
December 23, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
September 24, 2025 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michelle S. Henry, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Victoria Zhang-Liu, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ryan Shah, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hillson Tse, Counsel to the Student, RGZ Law
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christina Amodio, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of plagiarism in relation to a coding project in CSC258H5F (the “Course”), contrary to section B.I.1 (d) of the Code of Behaviour and Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”).
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF). The ASF detailed that the Student was required to submit a coding assignment called the assembly project in the Course. The Student admitted that they hired a third party to write the assembly project on their behalf, paying them $300. The plagiarism was detected, as the third party plagiarised much of the assembly project from a student who had taken the course the year prior. Based on the ASF and the admissions within, the Panel found the Student guilty of plagiarism, contrary to section B.I.1(d) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submissions of the parties, the testimony of the Student and the Student’s father. The Panel was also provided with an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty that detailed two prior offences committed by the Student. The Student testified to significant cannabis use, their efforts to obtain treatment, and apologized for their actions. The Student sought leave to submit the evidence of a Psychiatrist and Addiction Specialist, despite the fact that the Student did not comply with the Rules of Procedure regarding medical evidence. The Panel admitted the Psychiatrist’s evidence, pursuant to Rule 74. However, the Panel gave the evidence no weight as they found no nexus between the cannabis use and the misconduct. They found that the medical evidence provided did not explain, excuse or lessen the seriousness of the Student’s actions.
To begin, the Panel reviewed prior case law and found that the sanction of expulsion was consistent with similar cases. The Panel noted that the Student admitted to the offence and cooperated in the academic discipline process. However, the Student had committed two prior offences, received a lenient penalty, and took advantage of the leniency. The Panel went on to note that purchasing academic work is considered one of the most egregious offences as it involves intention, planning and deliberation to enter a transaction, as well as a commercial element. The Panel stated that the University must send a strong message to reinforce the importance of academic integrity and discourage future violations. Finally, the Panel indicated that they did not consider the Student’s struggles as mitigating factors, given the deficiencies in the medical evidence the Student sought to rely on.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; a five-year suspension and a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a final grade of zero in the Course.