DATE:
November 25, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.M.
HEARING DATE:
November 5, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Roslyn M. Tsao, Associate Chair
Professor Mary Silcox, Faculty Panel Member
Matthaeus Ware, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hillson Tse, Counsel for the Student, RGZ Law
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged in connection with final exams for ECO101H1 (“ECO101”) and MAT137Y1(“MAT137”). With respect to ECO101, the Student was charged with knowingly using and/or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in ECO101, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). With respect to MAT137, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly using and/or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in MAT137, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged with one count of knowingly aiding and assisting other students under sections B.i.1.(b) and B.ii.1(a)(ii) of the Code. The Student was further charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another. In the alternative, 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.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts submitted jointly by the University and the Student. The ASF detailed, among other things, that the Student was enrolled in ECO101 and MAT137 and was required to write final examinations in each course, worth 36% and 30% of their final grade, respectively. The ECO101 exam was administered in-person, and the exam instructions provided that students could use a non-programmable calculator and a ruler. During the ECO101 final exam, the chief presiding officer (the “CPO”) observed that the Student was using a programmable graphing calculator and confiscated it. The Student initially denied that the calculator was in fact programmable when asked by the CPO but eventually admitted that they used and possessed a graphing calculator on the ECO101 final exam.
The MAT137 final exam was also administered in person. Students were expressly prohibited from using or possessing any electronic devices. During the final exam, the course instructor received an email from a student (the “Informant”) who stated that several students were cheating on the exam by using a WeChat group chat to obtain assistance from a tutor. Screenshots of the group chat included images of the MAT137 final exam. Upon further review, the Professor identified the Student’s exam submission as one of the screenshots that was sent to the WeChat group chat as it contained several unique markings. The Panel concluded that a comparison of the unique marks on the Student’s final exam and the screenshot of the final exam sent to the WeChat positively confirmed that the Student’s exam was uploaded to the WeChat group chat. The Student later admitted that they had joined the WeChat group chat prior to the exam, had agreed to take and send pictures of the exam to the group chat for the purpose of cheating, and had received answers to every question on the final exam from a tutor via electronic devices.
The Student pleaded guilty to all six charges. Based on the ASF and the Book of Documents, the Panel found the Student guilty of possessing an unauthorized aid in connection with the final exam in ECO101 and MAT137, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code, and of knowingly aiding and assisting other students in connection with the final exam in MAT137, contrary to section B.i.1.(b) and B.ii.1(a)(ii) of the Code. The University withdrew the other three charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel reviewed a Joint Submission on Penalty submitted by the Student and the University, and considered the sanctioning factors laid out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No.: 1976/77-3, November 5). The Panel noted, with respect to the Student’s character, that there was no history of prior misconduct and that the Student was cooperative and prepared to enter into a plea in advance of the hearing date. The Panel noted however, that the fact that the ECO101 offence and warning took place a week before the second and third offences in MAT137 was an aggravating factor. The Panel further noted that the detrimental effect of the offences on the integrity of the academic institution and noted in particular that the offences in question involved premeditation, surreptitious use of technology, and the payment of money for assistance. Finally, the Panel noted that a serious and significant sanction is warranted for both specific and general deterrence. Based on its review of similar cases provided by the University, the Panel concluded that the JSP fell within an appropriate range of sanctions. Accordingly, the Panel accepted the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the ECO101; a final grade of zero in MAT137; a five-year suspension from the University; and a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.