DATE:
April 8, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. T.P. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
August 14, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Johanna Braden, Chair Professor Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member Matthaeus Ware, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student faced two sets of charges. The first set of charges (the “First Charges”) were as follows. The Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam. In the further the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code, for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with a final exam.
The second set of charges (the “Second Charges”) were as follows. The Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code for knowingly forging, altering, or falsifying a Verification of Illness Form (“VOI”) which was submitted in support of a petition to have the final exams for three courses deferred. In the alternative to both charges under s. B.i.1(a), the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with the petitions submitted to defer writing of three final exams.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the Hearing. The University filed a consent form, signed by the Student, in which they attested, among other things, that they had signed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty (“ASFP”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) and that they did not wish to participate further in the proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded with the hearing in the Student’s absence.
The Student admitted both sets of charges through the signed ASF. The parties submitted affidavit evidence to establish the charges. With respect to the First Charges, the Panel reviewed affidavit evidence of the Professor in the Course, which described the Professor’s use of an online program which detected marked similarities between the work submitted by the Student as part of the final exam and the work submitted by three other Students.
In respect of the Second Charges, the University provided affidavit evidence from an Academic Integrity Assistant in the Office of the Vice-Principal and Dean at the University of Toronto Scarborough, as well as the Doctor who purportedly signed the VOI form submitted by the Student. The Doctor’s evidence was that the VOI was a forgery and that they had neither written nor authorized it. While the Student initially denied the allegation that the VOI was fraudulent at the Dean’s Designate meeting, the Student admitted in the ASF that the VOI was, in fact, forged and that he had never been a patient of the Doctor.
Based on the affidavit evidence as well as the Student’s admissions and acknowledgements in the ASF, the Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Student committed the offences as charged. Accordingly, the Student was found guilty of one count plagiarism, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code, and two counts of knowingly forging, altering or falsifying a VOI in support of the Student’s petition for final exam deferrals. The remaining alternative charges were withdrawn by the University.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the ASFP submitted by the parties. The ASFP documented that the Student had committed a prior offence of plagiarism and was sanctioned at the Departmental level. The Student also submitted a letter of apology, expressing remorse and regret. The Panel further considered the sanctioning factors set out in the decision of the University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3). With respect to the character of the Student, the Panel noted that there was little evidence of the Student’s character other than the Student’s commission of several dishonest acts in five different courses but noted that the Student had accepted a degree of responsibility for his actions by admitting the charges against him. The Panel also expressed serious concern that the Student had exhibited a pattern of dishonesty that suggested that a significant sanction was required to ensure that the offence is not repeated. With respect to the nature of the offences committed and the detriment to the University, the Panel noted that the offences involved deliberate fabrication which variously undermined the University’s system of grading and process of medical accommodation. The Panel did not find that the Student was facing any extenuating circumstances and was unwilling to accept the Student’s explanation of feeling unwell given that the Student had failed, at the relevant time, to obtain a legitimate VOI. The Panel further considered the need for general deterrence and noted that significant sanctions are required to deter students from engaging in similar misconduct that has the potential to slip past University administrators and professors. Finally, the Panel considered sanctions imposed in other decisions with similar fact patterns. The Panel reiterated that it can only depart from a JSP where it concludes that the agreement is so unreasonable or unconscionable that it would lead a reasonable observer to believe that the proper functioning of the justice system had broken down. Given the test, the Panel accepted the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a three-year and four-month suspension from the University; a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.