DATE:
January 10, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v Y.Z.
HEARING DATE:
October 15, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Simon Clements, Chair Professor
Marvin Zuker, Faculty Panel Member
Kathy Haddadkar-Ghavi, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea and/or the work of another in connection with a paper (the “Paper”) submitted in partial completion of the requirements of CCT109H5F (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the Paper. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation.
Neither the Student nor a representative of the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions on proceeding in the absence of the Student and submitted affidavit evidence in support of its position. The evidence detailed that counsel for the University had exchanged several emails with the Student regarding the scheduling of a hearing date, though the Student failed to confirm their availability for the date of the hearing. The Panel concluded that the University had provided reasonable notice to the Student, and that the Student had made a deliberate choice to not engage further with the University after the initial email correspondence. The Panel therefore determined that it would proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
The Panel proceeded to consider affidavit evidence submitted by the University in connection to the alleged offences. The evidence detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course in Summer 2022 and was required to submit a paper worth 25% of their final grade in the course, in response to one of several essay prompts provided by the course instructor, and with reference to a pre-selected bibliography of relevant sources. The Student submitted the Paper, along with a dated copy of an academic integrity checklist affirming that the assignment was completed entirely by their own efforts. The course instructor, upon reviewing the Student’s Paper, became concerned that the Student had not completed the Paper independently because it failed to respond to any of the pre-selected essay prompts or to reference any of the sources contained in the pre-selected bibliography. The paper was also, in the course instructor’s opinion, written with a different style and format than another assignment submitted earlier (the “Previous Assignment”) in the course by the Student. The course instructor proceeded to attempt to schedule a virtual meeting to discuss the paper with the Student, but the Student stated that they were unable to meet. The matter was then referred to the Office of the Dean at UTM for further action. The Student attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate and admitted to receiving assistance with their paper from another individual online and whom they had paid to write the paper. On the basis of the Student’s admission at the Dean’s meeting, and the fact that the paper was not written by the same individual who had submitted the Previous Assignment, the Panel found that it was more probable than not that the Student did not write the paper. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of plagiarism, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the balance of the charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered additional evidence submitted by the University with respect to the Student’s prior academic offence and the sanctioning factors enumerated in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976-7-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the character of the Student, the Panel noted that the Student’s failure to engage in the disciplinary process is suggestive of a disregard for the seriousness of the conduct which the Student engaged in. The Panel further noted that there was a serious risk – in view of the Student’s prior offence – that the Student would offend again. The Panel noted that previous cases of the Discipline Appeals Board and the Tribunal indicate that the proper approach in cases involving purchased essays is to presume that the sanction is expulsion and then determine if there are any extenuating factors that would make a lesser penalty more appropriate. In this case, the Panel did not find that there were any mitigating or extenuating circumstances – and the only evidence of the Student’s character, namely their prior academic offence, was an aggravating factor militating towards expulsion as the appropriate sanction. Accordingly, the Tribunal recommended that the Student be expelled.