DATE:
August 8, 2024
HEARING DATE:
April 26, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
Simon Clements, Chair
Professor Kevin Wang, Faculty Panel Member
Harvi Karatha, 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:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with nine counts each of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance or plagiarizing the work of another in nine assessments across five courses contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and (d) of the Code. In the alternative to each of the charges, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for of the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions to the Panel on proceeding with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The University presented evidence that the Student initially responded to emails sent to their email address in ROSI, but did not engage further with the University. The University unsuccessfully attempted to contact the Student by phone. The evidence further detailed that the Student had last accessed the email address in ROSI after the time that the charges and Notice of Virtual Hearing had been sent to that address. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that the University had provided reasonable notice to the Student and determined that it would proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
In two meetings with the Dean’s Designate, the Student admitted guilt with respect to all charges except for those with respect to assessments in MAT334 II (the “Test Assessment) and MAT334 I (the “Exam Assessment”). The Panel determined that, in view of the Student’s admissions of guilt relating to the seven charges at the Dean’s meetings, it did not need to hear further evidence from the University relating to those charges. The University adduced further evidence relating to the remaining two charges, in connection with the Test Assessment and the Exam Assessment, where there had not been an admission of guilt.
With respect to the charge stemming from the Test Assessment, the University tendered evidence detailing how the Student was required to write 11 weekly tests in MAT334 II. The Test Assessment, term test 9, was administered in-person, in-class. While grading the Student’s submission, the course instructor noticed that the Student’s answer to a test question included concepts that were beyond the scope of MAT334 II. In particular, the Student’s use of an advanced concept to answer a question was not taught in class and the answer went beyond the question actually asked. The course instructor subsequently discovered a web page containing an answer to the test question which was highly similar to the Student’s answer in structure, notation and method – similarities which were unlikely to be the product of coincidence. The Student, at the Dean’s meeting explained that a Student in another section of the course had told them how to answer the question, but the course instructor determined that no other student in the course answered the question using the same method.
With respect to the charge stemming from the Exam Assessment, the Panel heard evidence that detailed, among other things, that the Student was required to write a final assessment in MAT334 I worth 30% of their final grade. The course instructors found that the Student’s answer to one of the questions on the Exam Assessment was similar to an answer to the same question posted on a website, Chegg.com. The University tendered an affidavit of an instructional support assistant in the Department of Mathematics, who opined that the Student’s answer was highly and unusually similar to the answer posted on Chegg, both of which contained the same rare error, and that it was highly unlikely that the Student completed the Exam Assessment independently.
The Panel concluded, based on the evidence presented by the University, that the Student had obtained unauthorized assistance to complete both the Test and Exam Assessment, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered additional evidence submitted by the University with respect to the Student’s prior academic offence, and considered the sentencing principles enunciated in the University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the character of the person charged and the likelihood of repetition of the offence, the Panel noted the Student’s failure to participate in any aspect of the discipline proceeding, the absence of any extenuating circumstances, and the Student’s prior academic offences. The Panel concluded that the risk that the Student will offend again, given the pattern of serial cheating was palpable. With respect to the nature of the offence, detriment to the University and general deterrence, the Panel considered prior decisions of the Tribunal and concluded that unauthorized assistance is a serious offence that is made easier by online learning, and that requires strong general deterrence to dissuade students from the temptation to consider cheating.
Finally, the Panel considered prior decisions where the Student has been charged with multiple offences involving plagiarism and unauthorized assistance and concluded that the range of sanction ranges from a four-year suspension to the recommendation for expulsion. In this case, the Panel concluded that the Student, given their pattern of academic misconduct, could not be trusted to follow the rules, and recommended to the President of the University that the Student be expelled.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation for expulsion; an immediate suspension for five years or until Governing Council makes it decision on expulsion, whichever comes first; a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.