Case Details
DATE:
November 10, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
August 21, 2025 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
R. Seumas M. Woods, Chair
Professor Mary Silcox, Faculty Panel Member
Dr. Matthaeus Ware, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
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 knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid in a final exam in STAB52H3 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.I.1(b) 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”) and Joint Submission of Penalty (“JSP”). The ASF detailed that the Student was required to write a final exam in the Course. During the exam, the Student was observed using and possessing a button camera and miniature earpieces. The Student admitted to an invigilator that they had used the aids to obtain assistance from a third party. The Student also admitted they paid a third party for the unauthorized aids and assistance. Based on the ASF and the admissions within, the Panel found the Student guilty of use of an unauthorized aid, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP submitted by the parties and case law. The Panel noted that the starting point for cases in which students use spyware is a recommendation for expulsion. Using spyware to cheat is a technologically updated and better-organized method of having someone personate you in an exam. They further stated that students need to know they will face harsh penalties if they use spyware to cheat. On the other hand, they noted that the Student had no prior record of academic misconduct and that they immediately admitted guilt and gave invigilators access to the spyware and their communications with the third party who provided it. Further, the Student cooperated with the University by agreeing to the facts and penalties. The Panel found that the sanction appropriately recognized the Student’s early admission of misconduct, apology, and cooperation. The Panel conclude that the sanction proposed in the JSP is consistent with the sanctions imposed in similar cases and there was no basis to reject it.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension, and a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript for six years.