DATE:
October 8, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.M.
HEARING DATE:
June 25, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michael Hines, Chair
Professor Zoraida Beekhoo, Faculty Panel Member
Zoë Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with respect to two separate incidents. The first incident concerned an assignment in a biology course, BIO220 (the "Assignment Offence"). With respect to BIO220, the Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an authorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment submitted in BIO220, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count 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. In the further alternative, the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The second incident arose out of an examination regarding a chemistry course, CHM135 (the "Examination Offence"). With respect to CHM135, the Student was charged knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in the final exam in CHM135, contrary to section B.i.1(b). In the alternative, the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University requested an Order that the Hearing proceed in the Student's absence. The University tendered affidavit evidence detailing the efforts made to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing. The Panel was satisfied, based on the affidavit evidence, that reasonable efforts had been undertaken by the Dean's Office, the Office of the Vice Provost and counsel for the University to locate the Student and bring the charges and notice of the hearing to the Student's attention. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The Panel heard the University's evidence on the merits of the Assignment Offence through the affidavit of the course instructor in BIO220. The Student was required to complete a reading assignment, worth 5% of their grade, in which they were asked to read an assigned article and answer questions about it. Upon grading the Student's assignment, the Student's teaching assistant and the course instructor suspected that the Student had obtained unauthorized assistance because their answers appeared to correspond to a different article than the one that students had been assigned to read. The Panel was of the view that the facts proven by the University, as described in the affidavit, more accurately fell under section B.i.1(d) of the Code, since the precise means through which the offensive material was obtained could not be clearly established though it was clear that the Student represented as their own work that of another. The University asked the Panel to consider evidence regarding the misconduct of other students in the course - some of whom had used ChatGPT to complete the assignment - to support a finding of guilt with respect to the first charge under section B.i.1(b). The Panel concluded that evidence regarding the misconduct of other students had little, if any, probative value. Without any evidence of complicity to at least inferentially support a direct nexus between the Student and one of the other students who admitted to using artificial intelligence tools, the Panel concluded it would be unfair to judge the Student based upon the actions of other students.
With respect to the Exam Offence, the University led its evidence on the merits through the affidavit of the Chief Presiding Officer ("CPO") for the Exam in CHM135. During the exam, the CPO escorted the Student to the washroom. While the Student was in the washroom, the CPO heard what sounded like the rustling of paper and light tapping on a phone in the bathroom stall and asked the Student to come out. The Student came out of the stall and handed over the exam papers and their phone which was powered on and had been used to photograph the exam papers. The Student signed a form acknowledging that they had brought an unauthorized aid into the final exam, and subsequently admitted that they intended to send photos of the exam to another student. Based on the University's uncontested evidence, the Panel concluded that the Student had brought an unauthorized aid into the exam and committed an academic offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from and considered affidavit evidence tendered by the University. In particular, the Panel heard evidence that the Student had previously admitted to plagiarism in connection with assignments submitted in two prior courses, and was warned at the time that more severe consequences would follow for future academic misconduct. The University additionally considered the sentencing factors from the case of University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student's character and the likelihood of repetition, the Panel noted the Student's failure to attend the hearing, the two prior instances of misconduct, and concluded that there was a real risk of the same offences under review being repeated absent a significant sanction. The Panel also noted that there was no evidence of any extenuating circumstances. With respect to the nature of the offence and the detriment to the University, the Panel noted that plagiarism and reliance on unauthorized assistance in an examination were serious offences that strike at the University's core values of honesty and integrity. The Panel further concluded that a serious sanction was warranted to discourage other students from committing similar offences.
The Panel next considered prior cases identified by the University in support of its proposed sanction. The Panel first noted the general principle that like cases should be treated alike - to that extent, it concluded that, in this case, any cases involving the commission of multiple offences of plagiarism or unauthorized assistance, or cases involving Joint Submissions on Penalty carried less precedential value and were of little assistance. The Panel concluded that the imposition of a three-year suspension, as proposed by the University, would not be inconsistent with relevant Tribunal case law or the Provost's Guidance on Sanctions.
In view of the Mr. C factors, the case law provided by the University, and the number and nature of the offences that were proven in this case, the Panel accepted the recommendation of the University with respect to sanction. The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in BIO220 and CHM135; a three-year suspension; and a four-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.