DATE:
November 21, 2024 (Amended: December 18, 2024)
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. T.K.
HEARING DATE:
August 12, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexandra Clark, Chair Professor
Richard B. Day, Faculty Panel Member
Zoë Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ryan Shah, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with academic misconduct stemming from five courses: BIO207, JCP221, BIO202, BIO354, and SLA100 (collectively, the “Courses”).
The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own the idea or expression of an idea, and/or work of another in respect of an assignment submitted in BIO207 (the “BIO207 Assignment”), contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged, in connection with the BIO207 Assignment, with knowingly submitting academic work containing a purported statement of fact and/or reference to a source which had been concocted, contrary to section B.i.1(f) of the Code.
The Student was charged with knowingly doing something for the purpose of aiding or assisting another member to use or possess an unauthorized aid or to obtain unauthorized assistance in respect of an assignment in JCP221 (the “JCP221 Assignment”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged, in connection with the JCP221 Assignment, with knowingly doing something for the purpose of aiding or assisting another member to represent the member’s own their idea or expression of an idea and/or work, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
The Student was charged with knowingly possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in respect of the final report submitted in BIO202 (the “BIO202 Report”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged with knowingly representing as their own the idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another, in connection with the BIO202 Report, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code.
The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance and/or doing something for the purpose of aiding or assisting another member to possess an unauthorized aid or to obtain unauthorized assistance in respect of a mid-term exam submitted in BIO354 (the “BIO354 Exam”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
The Student was charged with knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying any document or evidence required by the University, and/or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered or falsified document, namely, evidence of her knowledge of the Russian language required by the Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures in connection with SLA100 (the “SLA100 Assessment”), contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code. In the alternative to this charge, the student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty, or misconduct, contrary to section B.I.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The Panel considered affidavit evidence tendered by the University which detailed that while the student initially engaged with the disciplinary process and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts regarding some of the charges, the Student stopped accessing their ROSI email and was not responsive to the University’s further attempts at contact by phone and email. The Panel determined that the Student had received reasonable notice of the initial and revised charges as well as the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) related to the charges stemming from the BIO207 Assignment and the BIO202 Report. The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in BIO207 in Winter 2021 and was required to submit a three-page analysis of a genetic disease, namely the BIO207 Assignment, worth 10% of their final mark. The Student submitted the case study assignment, which was flagged by a plagiarism detection service which indicated the Student’s submission contained verbatim and near verbatim similarities to online sources and papers submitted by other students at the University. The Student’s case study also contained a citation to a source for a distinct and unrelated proposition (the “Source”). The ASF further detailed the Student’s enrollment in BIO202 in Summer 2021, and the Student’s submission of the BIO202 Report. The Student’s rough draft and final submission of the BIO202 Report were flagged by a plagiarism detection software, which identified similarities with another student paper submitted to the University. The Student admitted, in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, that they had committed plagiarism and misrepresented the contents of the Source with respect to the BIO207 Assignment and had committed plagiarism in connection with the BIO202 Report. Based on the facts contained in the ASF and the Student’s admissions, the Panel found the Student guilty of two counts under section B.i.1(d) of the Code and one count under section B.i.1(f) of the Code.
The University tendered the affidavit evidence of the course instructor in JCP221 in connection with the charges stemming from the JCP221 Assignment. The affidavit detailed that the Student was required to submit an assignment worth 20% of their final grade. The course instructor, upon reviewing the Student’s JCP221 Assignment, noticed that the Student’s answers for one of the questions were virtually identical to those submitted by another student (“JS”) enrolled in the Course. JS subsequently admitted that they had downloaded their answers from a WhatsApp group chat. The Student admitted, in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, that they had uploaded a portion of their assignment to a WhatsApp group chat by mistake. They denied committing an academic offence. The Panel concluded that, on a balance of probabilities the Student knowingly did something for the purpose of aiding or assisting another member to obtain unauthorized assistance in respect of the JCP221 Assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
The University tendered an additional affidavit from the course instructor in BIO 354, with respect to the charges stemming from the BIO354 Exam. The evidence detailed that the Student was required write an open-book mid-term exam worth 25% of their final mark. The Student’s exam submission was flagged by a plagiarism detection service which identified verbatim and near-verbatim similarities to a submission by another student (“U.G”) in the course. The University also provided the affidavit evidence of U.G. to the Panel which included and admission that they had written the midterm exam in collaboration with two other students, one of whom was the Student, at a university library and had copied answers directly from library materials. In a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student denied committing an academic offence and claimed that they had completed the mid-term test alone and had merely brainstormed with UG and another student. Based on the affidavit evidence, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
Lastly, the University tendered affidavit evidence of the course instructor and teaching assistant (the “TA”) in SLA100 (collectively, the “Instructors”), an introductory Russian course intended for students with no experience learning Russian. Heritage speakers were not allowed to enroll in the course. Both the course instructor and the TA noticed that Student may have had background knowledge of Russian and asked the Student to take a placement test, the SLA100 Assessment, to assess their appropriate course level. During the placement test, the Student professed that they had no knowledge of the Russian language and was permitted to remain enrolled in SLA100. The Instructors found that the Student’s written work often used grammatical structures that were not taught in SLA100, and included advanced grammar, phrases and vocabulary that both Instructors found to be well above the level of a beginner Russian speaker. While the Panel declined to find the Student guilty of forging the SLA100 Assessment, contrary to section B.i.1(a) of the Code, it found the Student guilty of knowingly using and misrepresenting their more advanced Russian language skills to obtain an academic advantage, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submissions made by the University as well as affidavit evidence detailing the Student’s one prior academic offence, namely obtaining unauthorized assistance on three quizzes and a term test in a previous course. The Panel also considered the sanctioning factors laid out in the University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that while the Student initially engaged with the discipline process and signed an ASF with respect to the initial charges, they denied the balance of the charges, failed to attend the hearing, and did not provide any mitigating or character evidence. The Panel indicated that the Students repeated offences, of obtaining unauthorized assistance, plagiarism, concoction and other academic miscount required the strongest possible sanction in order to deter others. The Panel also considered several prior decisions of the Tribunal where expulsion was recommended for repeated offences of a similar nature. The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a recommendation to the President of the university that the student be expelled from the University; a five-year suspension from the University; and a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.