Case Details
Date:
November 5, 2025
Parties:
University of Toronto v Y.W.W.
Hearing Dates:
September 25, 2025, via Zoom
Board Members:
Roslyn M. Tsao, Chair
Professor Ron Levi, Teaching Staff Board Member
Albert Pan, Student Board Member
Appearances:
Lily Harmer, Counsel for the University of Toronto
William Webb, Co-Counsel for the University of Toronto
Daniel Walker, Counsel for the Former Student, Bobila Walker Law
Hearing Secretary:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
In Attendance:
The Former Student
The Former Student was charged with on count of infamous conduct, one count of disgraceful conduct, and one count of conduct unbecoming a graduate of the University. The Former Student was alleged to have participated in a commercial scheme to assist current students at the University to cheat by providing them with unauthorized assistance with respect to assignments
The hearing proceeded by way of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The ASF detailed that students in an economics course (the “Course”) were required to write several term assessments, including Term Assessment 2 (the “Assessment”). A student in the Course told the Professor that they had attended a review session put on by Easy Edu (the “Review Session”) that provided solutions to questions that were similar to questions on the Assessment and that students who attended the session were provided with a study package based on questions in the actual Assessment. The document properties showed that the Former Student was one of the authors of the package. Following the Assessment, the professor received an email from a group of students who provided a link to the video of the Review Session, hosted by the Former Student. Approximately 100 students attended the Review Session. The Former Student admitted that they had access to a copy of the Assessment and used those questions to create the material for the Review Session, making changes to the questions on the Assessment. The Former Student further admitted that they aided and assisted the students for a commercial purpose, providing them with an unfair advantage.
Based on the admissions and facts contained in the ASF, the Board unanimously decided that the Former Student was guilty of conduct unbecoming of a graduate. The Board found that the Former Student’s conduct showed disregard for the damage caused by academic dishonesty; that they played a primary role in the commercial enterprise; that the Former Student used their own degrees from the University in furthering the commercial enterprise; and that the conduct, if not discovered and sanctioned, would undermine the integrity of the grading system.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Board considered the JSP, case law, and a further agreed statement of facts that set out the Former Student’s prior finding of guilt for providing unauthorized assistance. The Panel noted that the Review Session required deliberate and orchestrated planning and was for commercial gain. The potential detriment to the University’s reputation should such enterprises go unsanctioned is significant. Further, the Panel found that the Former Student had little regard for the value of their education or degrees from the University, making their conduct more egregious. The Panel stated that its priority was general deterrence of such conduct, rather than specific deterrence, given the Former Student’s prior offence. The Panel noted the high threshold for departing from a joint submission and indicated it was prepared to accept the JSP.
The Board imposed the following sanction: recall and cancellation of the Former Student’s degree, directed that the Former Student surrender their degree certificate, the name of the Former Student shall be erased from the register of graduates, and a permanent notation of the suspension on their record.