DATE:
September 27, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.L.
HEARING DATE:
July 10, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
F. Paul Morrison, Chair
Professor Dionne Aleman, Faculty Panel Member
Laiba Butt, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged in connection with academic offences committed in two different courses. The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the "Code"), in connection with the final exam submitted in MGEB06H3 (the "First Course").
The Student was also charged with having someone knowingly personate them during a term test in MGEB02H3 (the "Second Course"), contrary to section B.i.1(c) of the Code. In the alternative to the foregoing charges in the First and Second Course, the Student was charged with two counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University sought an Order to proceed in the absence of the Student, and submitted a Book of Documents, containing affidavit evidence, in support of such Order. The affidavit evidence established that the Student had received proper and sufficient notice of the hearing, pursuant to the Rules of Practice and Procedure of the Tribunal and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, including notice of the particular date that the hearing would proceed. Accordingly, the Panel granted the Order that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student.
The Panel considered the affidavit evidence of four witnesses tendered by the University. With respect to the First Course, the Panel reviewed the affidavit evidence of an exam invigilator (the "Exam Invigilator") and the course instructor. The evidence detailed, among other things, that the Student was required to write a final exam worth 50% of their grade. During the exam, the Exam Invigilator discovered that the Student was in possession of a cell phone that was powered on. The course instructor saw that the Student had been sent photographs of several of the answers from the final exam through WeChat. The course instructor indicated that based on the WeChat conversation, that the Student had hired someone to provide them with exam answers.
With respect to the Second Couse, the Panel considered the affidavit evidence of one of the Teaching Assistants who was an invigilator for a term test, as well as a Special Police Constable (the "Constable") with the University of Toronto Campus Police ("Campus Police"). The Student was required to write a term test worth 25% of the Student's final grade. During the test, the Test invigilator noticed that an individual, who identified themselves as a Student, was holding a phone under their desk. When asked by the Exam Invigilator to hand over the phone, the individual proceeded to grab their exam paper and belongings and run out of the exam room. The Exam Invigilator reported the incident to Campus Police. In a subsequent interview with Campus Police, the Student admitted to the Constable that they had paid an individual to write the test in their place.
Based on the evidence tendered by the University, the Panel concluded that it clearly established that the Student had used a cell phone during the final exam in the First Course, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code, and had arranged for someone to impersonate them to write the term test in the Second Course, contrary to section B.i.1(c) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submissions of the University, including a Book of Documents containing relevant prior decisions of the Tribunal. The Panel noted that the sanction sought by the University was consistent with and justified by penalties imposed in previously decided cases of similar nature. In particular, the Panel noted case law in which the penalty for personation was expulsion even where there extenuating circumstances. In this case, the Student had neither cooperated nor participated in the disciplinary process and the Panel had no evidence of personal circumstances or other considerations that might otherwise affect the University's recommended penalty of expulsion.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation for expulsion; a five-year suspension, or until the Governing Council makes its decision on Expulsion; a five-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; final grade of zero in the Courses; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Note: This Case is being appealed