DATE:
May 17, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.Y. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
February 27, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Shaun Laubman, Chair
Professor Zoraida Beekhoo, Faculty Panel Member
Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged for offences related to two separate courses (hereinafter, the “First Course” and “Second Course”, and collectively “the Courses”). The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exams in the Courses, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or work of another in connection with the final exams in the Courses, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with two counts of 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 in connection with the final exams in the Courses, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor any representative on their behalf appeared at the hearing. The University requested that the Tribunal proceed with the hearing in the Student’s absence and presented affidavit evidence in support of that submission. The Panel heard evidence that the Student had participated in a Dean’s Designate meeting and admitted guilt, and attempts were made by the University and Assistant Discipline Counsel (“ADC”) to notify the Student of the Tribunal process by phone and by email. Assistant An immigration advisor responded to ADC and advised the University that it should inform the Student regarding the hearing date and time. ADC attempted to call the Student and both couriered and emailed information regarding the hearing to the Student. Based on the evidence presented, the Tribunal was satisfied that the University had discharged its obligation under the Rules of Practice and Procedure to provide reasonable notice regarding the charges and the hearing. As a result, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The Panel was presented with three affidavits with evidence to support the University’s case at the offence phase. During the final exam for the First Course, the Student was found to be wearing a miniature camera poking out of a buttonhole in her jacket and connected to a cellphone that was turned on. During the final exam for the second Course, three days later, the Student was found to be wearing tiny earpieces in her ears, which were connected to a cell phone. In advance of the Dean’s Designate meeting, the Student responded to an email from the Academic Integrity Unit admitting to committing offences in both of the Courses. During the Dean’s Designate meeting the Student again admitted to using a cellphone with a camera and wearing an earpiece during the final exams in both Courses, and that she was being provided hints by other people during the exams, namely a tutoring service paid for by the Student. The Student pled guilty to the charges in connection with the final exams in both courses. Given the affidavit evidenced, the Panel concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence of the Student’s guilt for two counts of knowingly using and possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exams in the Courses, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered affidavit evidence tendered by the University outlining the Student’s prior academic offence, also for obtaining unauthorized assistance during a final exam, for which the Student was sanctioned. The Panel further consider the sanctioning factors outlined in the decision in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77- 3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted, with respect to the Student’s character, that there was no positive character evidence, or any direct evidence of extenuating circumstances. The Panel did, however, find that the Student’s prior commission of a similar academic offence, and the repetition of the offences that were at issue in this case – within days of one another – weighed in favour of a significant sanction, and suggested a strong likelihood of a repetition of the offence if the Student was given another opportunity to attend the University. The Panel also noted that this offence involved a commercial element as the Student paid a tutoring service to assist them with cheating on the final exams, and that consistent with prior Tribunal decisions, such offences require a strong deterrent to discourage others from committing the offence. The Panel was satisfied that the penalty requested by the University was reasonable and appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; an immediate suspension for up to five years or until the Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion; a final grade of zero in the Courses; and a report to the Provost for publication.