Case Details
DATE:
November 14, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. C.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE:
August 15, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair
Dr. Paul Kingston, Faculty Panel Member
Maria Dzevitski, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Chloe Hendrie, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chew Chang, Representative for the Student, Chang Legal & Notary Public
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Quasi-Judicial Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly having someone personate them during a midterm test in CIN301 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.I.1(c) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) entered into by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was required to complete a midterm test worth 25% of their grade in the Course. The Student did not write the exam herself but arranged for another person to attend and write the exam in their place. (the “Personator”). One of the teaching assistants at the exam recognized the name on the midterm handed in as the Student but noted that the Personator did not look like the Student. The Professor then compared the handwriting on the midterm to in-class writing exercises submitted by the student and noted that the handwriting was substantially different. The Student admitted that they paid someone $800 to personate them during the midterm. Based on the evidence, including the Student’s admissions, the Panel concluded that the student was guilty of personation and forgery.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP, submissions from the parties, and the relevant sanctioning factors. The Panel noted that the Student’s decision to enter into the ASF at an early stage in the process saved the University time and expense and demonstrates that they have taken responsibility for their actions. This was the Student’s first offence, which weighs against a likelihood they will reoffend, suggesting that the conduct was out of character. In addition, the Panel noted that the Student was only 0.5 credits from graduating, also making it less likely they will re-offend. On the other hand, the Panel stated that impersonation is considered one of the most egregious offences. And further, paying to obtain unauthorized assistance is recognized as an aggravating factor as it suggests pre-meditation by the student and arguably a greater degree of sophistication and coordination for the offence. Given the seriousness of the offence, it is important to send a strong message that this type of misconduct cannot be tolerated. The Panel found that, while the Student raised some personal hardships they were experiencing at the time of the midterm, they stated there was no evidence provided to support the existence or relevance of these hardships. Finally, they noted that the five-year suspension is within the range of suspensions that have been imposed in similar cases.
The Panel agreed to back-date the suspension by three months, as they found there were exceptional circumstances to do so. If the suspension started on the date of the hearing, the Student would not be able to convocated until June 2031, rather than Fall 2030, as there is no convocation in the Winter term of 2030.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero In the Course; a five-year suspension; and a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.