DATE:
December 18, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.Z.
HEARING DATE:
August 22 and September 3, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Shaun Laubman, Chair
Professor Richard B. Day, Faculty Panel Member
Harvi Karatha, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with two counts of using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance, or attempting to do so, in connection with the final exam (the “Final Exam”) in ECO359 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) and B.ii.2 of the Code. The Student was also charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, or attempting to do so, in connection with the Final Exam, contrary to section B.i.1(d) and B.ii.2 of the Code. In the alternative, 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, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student was accused of using a micro button camera and earpieces to cheat during a final exam in the Couse. The University provided the Panel with five affidavits during the offence stage of the hearing. The affidavits established that the students writing the final exam in the Course were prohibited from using or possessing electronic devices. During the examination, one of the invigilators checked to see if the Student was wearing an earpiece or camera, at which point the Student revealed that they were wearing two mini earpieces. The invigilator also noted a large black button on the Student’s shirt that they believed to be a miniature camera, but which was not confiscated. The incident was reported and the Student subsequently admitted, in an email to the Student Academic Integrity Office, that they had asked other people to aid them during the exam but claimed that they were unable to successfully cheat. The Student further admitted, in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate that the Student had both a camera and earpieces and admitted to using these unauthorized aids during the exam. In subsequent correspondence with Assistant Discipline Counsel, the Student expressed that they had no intention of using the earpieces and camera to cheat and that the rules regarding electronic devices were unclear, such that their possession was merely an act of negligence rather than an intentional attempt at cheating.
The Student attested, in a statement adopted at the offence stage of the hearing, that they had not previously committed an academic offence. The Panel allowed the University to introduce evidence, at the offence stage, that the Student did, in fact, have prior offences, given that the probative value of such evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. The Student admitted, on cross-examination, that they had lied about their prior academic offences so as to receive a more lenient sanction. The Panel additionally found that the Student’s evidence as to whether she knew that the devices were prohibited was contradictory or unclear at best and concluded that her evidence as to her intentions was not credible in light of the Student’s lie about her academic record.
Based on the evidence presented before the Panel, and the submissions made by the Student and the University, the Panel found the Student guilt of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in the Course, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered affidavit evidence submitted by the University as well as the sanctioning factors laid out in University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the use of miniature earpieces and cameras is a serious breach of academic integrity and requires a strong sanction as a general deterrent. The Panel further observed, with respect to the likelihood of repetition, that the Student had three prior academic offences which suggested a strong likelihood that they would commit further offences absent a serious penalty. The Panel noted that the Student’s prior convictions and their ongoing attempts to minimize their culpability, including lying about their past record, are factors that weigh in favour of expulsion. The Panel declined to give much weight to vague, general and uncorroborated statements made by the Student that they were under significant personal stress due to their mental status and anxiety at the time of the offence.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension from the University; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.