DATE:
September 30, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. D.B.
HEARING DATE
June 3, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
F. Paul Morrison, Chair Professor
Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member
Alexander Bowie, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP Chloe Hendrie, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with academic misconduct stemming from incidents in three different courses (collectively, the “Courses): MAT102 (the “First Course”) and CSC148 in Summer 2021 (the “Second Course”) and Winter 2022 (the “Third Course”). The Student was charged with four counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a term test in the First Course, and several assignments submitted in the Second and Third Course, 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 three counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with assignments submitted in the Second and Third Courses. In the alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with four counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts submitted jointly by the University and the Student. With respect to the First Course, the ASF detailed that the Student was required to write a term test worth 24% of their final grade. The term test was administered online, and students were permitted to use only their class notes and textbook to the complete the test. During the marking process, one of the Teaching Assistants (the “TA”) responsible for grading observed illogical and unusual similarities between the Student’s submission and the submission of another student (“K.C”) in the class. The TA notified the course instructor who subsequently observed further similarities between the answers submitted by K.C. and the Student in response to another question. The course instructor concluded that, given the nature and the similarities observed, it was very likely that the students had worked together or shared their work.
The Student and K.C. were also enrolled in the Second Course. Students enrolled in the Second Course were required to submit two assignments, each worth 15% of their grade. The Student’s second Assignment was submitted to Measure of Software Similarity (“MOSS”), a system which detects programming and coding similarities and is used as a plagiarism detection program for software. MOSS identified similarities in the code submitted by the Student and KC in their submissions for the second Assignment, including identical pieces of code. K.C. subsequently admitted to the course instructor, in a meeting, that they had discussed parts of the solutions for the second Assignment with other students.
The Student attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate and admitted to receiving unauthorized assistance from K.C., in the form of notes from a prior semester, to complete the term test in the First Couse. The Student further admitted, during the same meeting, to receiving unauthorized assistance from K.C. to complete Assignment 2, and admitted that he had shared his code for the second Assignment with K.C.
The Student re-enrolled in CSC148, the Third Course, in Winter 2022. Students in the course were required to submit two assignments, to be completed individually, and each worth 15% of their final grade. The Student submitted their first assignment through MOSS. MOSS detected similarities between the Student’s submission and the assignments submitted by four other students in the Course, including identical pieces of code. The Course instructor concluded that the similarities between the submissions could not have happened by coincidence. The students admitted either to the course instructor or to the UTM Academic Integrity Office that they had collaborated with others and/or obtained unauthorized assistance from online sources to complete the first assignment. The Student also submitted their second assignment to MOSS. Again, MOSS detected similarities between the Student’s submission and an assignment submitted by another student in January 2022. The course instructor subsequently reviewed the Student’s code and the 2022 code and concluded that every function in the Student’s code had virtually identical implementations to the 2022 submission, other than cosmetic changes. The course instructor forwarded the matter with respect to both the first and second assignment to the UTM Academic Integrity Office.
As part of the ASF, the Student admitted the alleged academic misconduct in the First, Second and Third Courses. On the basis of the ASF and the submissions made by the University, the Panel found the Student guilty of three counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code, and one count knowingly representing as your own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty and Joint Submission on Penalty (the “ASF/JSP”) submitted by the University and the Student. The ASF/JSP detailed that the Student had committed and previously been sanctioned for concurrent academic offences related to two assignments in a previous course. The ASF/JSP also included the Student’s evidence that at the time of the offences the Student was dealing with a difficult domestic situation which caused them to receive poor grades and make poor decisions but had since become a motivated student at Sheridan College. The Panel noted that, but for the Student’s cooperation, the Student could face a penalty that would include a recommendation for expulsion from the University. The Panel did not, however, find that the penalty proposed in the ASFP/JSP was objectively unreasonable or unconscionable, and accepted the agreed-upon sanction.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses, a five-year suspension from the University; and a five-year notation of the sanction on the Student’s academic record and transcript.