DATE:
January 10, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. P.F.
HEARING DATE:
October 22, 2024
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Faye Mishna, Faculty Panel Member
Liwei Liao, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chloe Hendrie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged in connection with three different courses (the “Courses”). The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with an assignment in FAH292 (the “Assignment Offence”), and a quiz submitted in FAH215 (the “Quiz Offence”), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged, in connection with a final exam in MAT135 (the “Exam Offence”) with knowingly doing or omitting to do anything for the purpose of aiding or assisting another member or other members to commit an offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code, or attempted to do so, contrary to sections B.ii.1(a)(ii) and/or B.ii.2 of the Code, or if that person were a member, would have committed an offence under sections B.I.1(b) and B.II.1(a)(ii) of the Code, or attempted to do so, contrary to sections B.II.1(a)(iii) and/or B.II.2 of the Code. The Student was also charged, in connection with the MAT135 exam, with knowingly abetting, counselling, procuring or conspiring with another member or other members to commit or be a party to an offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code, contrary to section B.ii.1(a)(iv) of the Code, or if they were a member, would have committed or have been a party to an offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code, contrary to section B.ii.1(a)(v) of the Code.
The Panel addressed two procedural issues before considering the Student’s liability with respect to the charges. First, the Panel considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear allegations relating to all three offences even though the Student was not an active student nor enrolled in classes for one of the offences. The Panel confirmed that the meaning of Student for the purposes of the Code includes someone who “is currently or was previously engaged in academic work” at the University. Accordingly, the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear a matter involving someone who was formerly a student. Second, the Panel considered whether to proceed in the absence of the Student and whether the University had provided reasonable notice of the charges and the hearing. The Panel considered evidence which detailed, that the University sent the Student notice to the Student’s University email address, delivered the notices via courier to the address listed in Student’s ROSI account, and made several attempts to contact the Student by phone. The Panel found that the University had met its burden to demonstrate that it took reasonable steps to notify the student of the charges and the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the student.
The Student was enrolled in FAH292 in Winter 2021 and was required to complete five assignments collectively worth 80% of their final grade. Students were instructed not to research any sources beyond the text listed in the Assignment. The Student submitted their Assignment through Turnitin, a plagiarism detection software, which identified unusual similarities including the use of verbatim or near verbatim language between the Student’s assignment and an online source by another author. The Student was also enrolled in FAH215 in Winter 2021, and was required to write three online quizzes, each worth 15% of the final mark. Students were not permitted to use any aids and were asked to acknowledge that they were aware of the academic integrity policies at the University at the outset of the quiz. Upon review of the Student’s responses from Quiz 2, the course instructor observed that the student’s answer to one of the questions contained verbatim or near verbatim content to an online source. The Student did not respond to subsequent requests to attend a meeting with a Dean’s Designate to discuss either the Assignment or Quiz Offence.
With respect to the Exam Offence, the Student was not enrolled in MAT135 at the time of the offence. Students in MAT135 were required to write a final exam in the course. Before the exam, the course instructor received an anonymous email warning them that there was a scheme to cheat on the MAT135 exam, in particular that a ghostwriting agency was planning to help students cheat. As students entered the exam room, the course instructor noticed an individual, whom they did not recognize, taking pictures of the exam booklet with their phone. Upon being confronted, Student the admitted that they were not a student in the course. The Student admitted that they had taken photos of the MAT135 exam with the intention of sending them to another individual on WeChat which provided exam ghostwriting services for hire. The Student did not attend a meeting with the Dean’s Designate.
The Panel found the Student guilty of two counts of plagiarism, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code, in connection with the Assignment Offence and the Quiz Offence. The Panel also found that the Student participated in a premediated, coordinated, and organized scheme to sell exam ghostwriting services through WeChat, contrary to s. B.i.1(b), B.ii.1(a)(ii), and B.ii.2 of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and considered the sentencing factors outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3), though no evidence was filed on the issue of penalty. The Panel noted that the Student’s pattern of behaviour suggested a likelihood that they would reoffend. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel concluded that the conduct, particularly related to the Exam Offence, was deliberate, premediated and egregious. It further noted, with respect to the Assignment and Quiz Offences, that plagiarism is a serious offence which risks damaging the reputation of the University. The Panel also concluded that the misconduct perpetrated by the Student must attract the most serious of consequences to ensure deterrence. Finally, based on its review of prior relevant decisions of the Tribunal, the Panel noted a recommendation for expulsion was appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University and a final grade of zero in the Courses.