DATE:
August 16, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.Z.
HEARING DATE:
April 17, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
R. Seumas M. Woods, Chair
Dr. Emily Nacol, Faculty Panel Member
Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, for the University
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, for the University
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with offences in connection with assessments in two courses: MAT 135 (the “First Course”) and ENV100 (the “Second Course”). The Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in the First Course, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). With respect to the Second Course, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly having another person personate them during an online test, contrary to section B.I.1(c) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student were present at the hearing. As a result, the Panel considered whether it could proceed in the Student’s absence. The University submitted that the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure entitled the Tribunal to proceed since the Student had been provided with adequate notice of the hearing and provided the Panel with affidavit evidence in support of that position. Based on the evidence, the Panel concluded that the Student had received notice of both the charges and the date of the hearing, as required by the Rules. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The Panel proceeded to consider affidavit evidence tendered by the University in support of its position on the merits of the Charges. The first affidavit contained the evidence of the course instructor in the First Course. The Student was enrolled in MAT135 and was evaluated on the basis of, among other things, a final exam administered online, and worth 34% of the final grade in the Course. Students were required to submit their exam answers to Crowdmark and were required to complete the exam independently. After the final exam window had closed, the instructor team discovered that some of the exam questions and solutions had been posted to Chegg.com (“Chegg”) which was not one of the permitted online resources for the exam. In reviewing the Student’s final exam answers, the Professor discovered that the Student’s solutions to one of the questions was strikingly similar to the Chegg solution. The Student denied, in an email to the course instructor, that the solution had been obtained from Chegg. The Professor subsequently forwarded the matter to the Academic Integrity Unit.
The second affidavit contained the evidence of the course instructor in the Second Course. The Student was enrolled in the course and was required to complete three term tests, worth 10% of the final grade each. The second test was administered remotely, and students were expected to complete the test independently. The Student’s submission was flagged by the teaching assistant after they discovered that the Student had answered most of the questions for one section of the test in a different language, and for another section used unusually sophisticated language that went far beyond the scope of the Course to respond to the questions. Upon further investigation, the course instructor discovered that some of the Student’s answers were very similar to the English translation of a news article posted to a Chinese language news website. The course instructors emailed the Student to inform the Student that they suspected that the Student obtained unauthorized assistance to complete the second test and invited the Student to meet with them. Upon receiving no response from the Student, the matter was reported to the Chair of the Department of Geology, Geomatics and Environment.
The third affidavit contained the evidence of the Dean’s Designate for Academic Integrity. The Student attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, and admitted to obtaining solutions for the final exam in the First Course from Chegg, and further admitted to having another individual write their test in the Second Course.
Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Student was found guilty of knowingly using an authorized aid in connection with the final exam in the First Course, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code, and one count of personation in connection with the final exam in the Second Course, contrary to section B.I.1(c) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the sanctioning factors laid out in the University of Toronto v Mr. C (Case No. 1976/1977-3, November 5, 1976) as well as submissions by the University with respect to similar prior decisions of the Tribunal. With respect to the character of the Student, the Panel noted that the Student chose not to participate in the disciplinary process, and the only evidence of character was the Student’s academic misconduct. It noted that both the acts and the Student’s decision not to participate tended to support a recommendation for expulsion rather than any lesser penalty. The Panel further observed, with respect to the likelihood of repetition, that the Student’s successive acts of academic misconduct suggested a high risk of repetition absent a significant sanction. With respect to the nature of the offence and detriment to the University, the Panel noted that the use of an unauthorized aid and personation are both serious sanctions, and with respect to the latter offence, that the display of a lack of integrity weighed in favour of a serious sanction. Finally, the Panel noted that a serious sanction, consistent with past Tribunals, was merited to send a message to other students that personation would not be tolerated.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the First and Second Courses; a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Counsil that the Student be expelled; a five-year suspension; and a report to the Provost.