DATE:
March 3, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.X.
HEARING DATE:
July 18, September 25, and November 20, 2024 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair Professor
Susanna Chow, Faculty Panel Member
James Wang, Student Panel Member
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with knowingly using and/or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a term test in ECO220, or attempted to do so, contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and/or B.ii.2 of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with a term test in ECO220 (the "Course"), or attempted to do so, contrary to sections B.i.1(d) and/or B.ii.2 of the Code.
The Panel proceeded to consider affidavit evidence submitted by the University, of the Course instructor and an Academic Integrity Specialist at the University. The evidence detailed that the Student was enrolled in the course and was required to write four term tests. During the second term test, the Course instructor noticed that the Student's behaviour was odd as they were not writing, reading or engaging with the test, and asked a teaching assistant (the "TA") to monitor the Student. The TA reported to the Course Instructor that the Student was wearing a large black button on the front of their shirt, which appeared to be a miniature camera. When approached by the Course Instructor, the Student attempted to hide the button. The button was confiscated by the Course Instructor and was, in fact, a miniature camera, alongside a tiny microphone, an earpiece, control buttons, and an invisible communication device (collectively, the "Devices"). The Student was permitted to finish the exam and received a 0%. The Student admitted, in a meeting with the Dean's Designate, that he had the Devices during the test but did not use them, and had received the camera for free from a man who contacted them on WeChat offering to help them pass exams. The Student further admitted that they had committed an academic offence by wearing the Devices during the test.
At the hearing, the Student asserted that he had not committed an academic offence and sought to introduce medical evidence relating to his mental health. The Panel refused to admit the evidence on the basis that the Student had failed to comply with the requirements of Rules 77, 78 and 79 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure or the Order of the Panel in advance of the hearing. In the alternative, the Panel concluded that the three medical notes that the Student sought to have admitted as medical evidence were inadmissible as hearsay, and there would be serious prejudice were the Panel to admit the three notes into evidence, given that none of the authors of the notes or their curricula vitae were available at the hearing.
The Panel concluded on the available evidence, that the Student knew or ought to have known that their possession of the Devices was an offence, contrary to section B.i.1(b) and/or section B.ii.2 of the Code and made a finding of guilt. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sentence, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered the sanctioning principles set out in the decision of University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel also considered evidence tendered by the University related to two prior offences committed by the Student in different courses. The Panel noted that the fact of, and the time of, the prior offences suggested that the Student had not demonstrated insight into the nature of their actions and not taken responsibility for their serious violations of the Code. The Panel further observed that the offence of obtaining unauthorized assistance on a test or exam is an extremely serious breach of academic integrity, and the penalty must act as a general deterrent against the surreptitious behaviour that the Student engaged in. The Panel noted that while the Student offered an apology, it determined that even if it were an honest and earnest apology, the apology was not sufficient to be a mitigating factor given that the Student had offered a very similar apology in respect of the prior offences committed only two months before the misconduct at issue. The Panel further noted that the Student did not cooperate in the preparation of an agreed statement of facts and the University was required to expend significant resources investigating and prosecuting the charge.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; a five-year suspension and a corresponding notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; and a final grade of zero in the Course.