DATE:
November 18, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. B.L.
HEARING DATE:
April 12, 2024 and June 19, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michael Hines, Chair
Professor Pascal van Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Amy Huang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Iggers, Articling Student, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with respect to three separate types of incidents. The first set of incidents involved two homework assignments in LINC12H3 (the "Assignment Offences"). With respect to LINC12H3, the Student was charged with two counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with the homework assignments, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The second incident arose out of an examination regarding another course, LINB09H3 (The "Examination Offence"). The Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with the homework assignments, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The third set of incidents related to an essay submitted by the Student in a third course, LINC02H3 (the “Essay Offences”). The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with four counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code.
The Student did not appear at the hearing. The University requested an order that the hearing proceed in the Student's absence, relying on affidavit evidence presented to the Panel. The affidavit satisfied the Panel that reasonable efforts had been made by the Dean's Office, the Office of the Vice-Provost and by counsel for the University to locate the Student and bring the charges and notice of the hearing to their attention. The Panel was satisfied that the Student was provided with reasonable notice of the hearing in accordance with The Panel was satisfied that the Student was provided with reasonable notice of the hearing in accordance with section 6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 and rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
With respect to the Assignment offences, the Panel considered the affidavit evidence of the course instructor. The evidence detailed that the Student was enrolled in LINC12H3 and was required to complete three homework assignments worth 10% each. While marking the first assignment submitted by the Student, the grader noticed that the Student's answer to one of the questions was unusually similar to the answers given by several other students, and that it did not reflect what had been taught in the course. Upon further review, the grader discovered that the Student's assignment contained many answers that were very similar to those submitted by several other students. The course instructor determined that it was unlikely that some of the similarities, including peculiar and identical errors, would have been the result of a coincidence. The Panel also considered additional affidavit evidence which detailed that the student was a member of a study group that had been assisted/taught by a hired tutor. Upon their own review of the student's submissions and the submissions of other students who had been flagged by the instructor, the Panel concluded that the Student obtained assistance from an unauthorized source in the completion of the first assignment. The fact that a common tutor connected the Student with other students in the course made more plausible the inference that a common source lay behind the similarly incorrect answers. With respect to the Second Assignment, the Panel was unable to review the assignment authored by the Student and by other members of the LINC12H3 class. In the absence of the comparable documents, the Panel was not prepared to find that the University had satisfied its onus of proof on that count. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student not guilty with respect to the charge stemming from the second homework assignment.
The University led evidence on the merits of the Examination Offence through the affidavit of the course instructor in LINB09H3. The evidence detailed that the Student was required to write a final exam, administered online, worth 40% of their final grade. Following the exam, the course instructor was notified by a Teaching Assistant ("TA") that another student appeared to have copied their answer to Question 27 from Wikipedia. Upon a further review, the course instructor determined that six other students had submitted answers that appeared to be drawn from Wikipedia articles related to the question and contained idiosyncratic words/phrases which were not discussed in the course. The Student was among the seven students. In a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student admitted unequivocally to committing the Examination Offence. Based on the affidavit evidence and the Student’s admission, the Panel concluded that the Student made unauthorized use of the Wikipedia article to complete the final exam, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
With respect to the Essay Offences, the Panel considered the affidavit evidence of the course instructor in LINC02H3. The evidence detailed that the Student was required to complete a final paper, worth 30% of their final grade. Upon reviewing the Student’s paper, the course instructor identified a number of descriptions of sources that did not accurately reflect those sources and found cases in which the Student had used additional sources without referencing them. The course instructor invited the Student to provide additional information to clarify their citations, which the Student provided. The Student added four additional non-English sources which the course instructor was not able to verify or otherwise determine the accuracy of their use by the Student, and found a set of online slides written in Chinese that the Student appeared to have copied and translated. The Panel concluded that the Student was guilty of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code, and knowingly submitting their final essay which contained a purported statement of fact or reference to a source which has been concocted, contrary to section B.i.1(f) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered the affidavit evidence related to the Student’s prior record of academic misconduct. The Student had engaged in two earlier incidents of academic misconduct, namely plagiarism and obtaining unauthorized assistance, which were resolved at the divisional level. The Panel further noted that the academic misconduct at issue – plagiarism and reliance on unauthorized forms of assistance in an examination - are serious offences that strike at the heart of the University’s core values of honesty and integrity, and merit serious sanctions. The Panel noted, however, that given that the Student had nearly completed the requisite number of credits for graduation the Panel decided that a recommendation for expulsion was not the appropriate sanction.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a five-year suspension; a notation on the Student's academic record until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.