DATE:
February 18, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v J.Z.
HEARING DATE(S):
November 18, 2024 and January 9, 2025
MEMBERS OF THE PANEL:
Alexandra Clark, Chair Professor
Francois Pitt, Faculty Panel Member
Alwin Xie, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, 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 obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in MATA22H3 (the “Course”), and/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”).
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) executed by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the course and was required to write an in-person final exam worth 40% of the Student’s grade. During the final exam, an invigilator found that the Student had a smartphone in their pocket and was using it to make a telephone call to another person. The Student subsequently admitted to the invigilator that they had hired an exam cheating service and had planned to receive answers to the final exam via a miniature earpiece, after sending the service photos of the final exam. The Student explained that they had not been able to send a photo of the final exam to the cheating service before they were caught. In a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student repeated their admissions that they had possessed unauthorized communication devices during the exam and that such misconduct constituted an academic offence. The Student further admitted that they had paid $1000 for the third-party exam cheating service to receive answers to the final exam. Based on the facts and admissions contained in the ASF, the Panel found the Student guilty of obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the Panel and the Student. In particular, the Student sought to tender two documents: a typed statement setting out their explanation for why they had engaged in the misconduct at issue (the “Student’s Statement”), and a document, entitled “Certificate of Diagnosis”, prepared in another language with a purported English translation attached to it (the “Medical Note”). The Student’s Statement contained an expression of remorse and explained that the Student had begun experiencing severe psychological distress after their academic performance had begun to decline – pressures which caused him to use a cheating service. The Student claimed that the cheating service had threatened to expose him to the University, and the Student therefore felt pressure to continue with the arrangement. The Student admitted, on cross-examination, that even in the face of the reported threats of exposure from the cheating service, it was the Student alone who ultimately made the decision to use the earpiece and cell phone to cheat on the final exam. The Panel considered the Medical Note to be very limited evidence of the fact that the Student had reported some of the difficulties with their mental health prior to the exam, but did not otherwise rely on it in determining the appropriate penalty.
The Panel further considered the sanctioning factors set out in the decision of the University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). While the Panel considered the offence committed by the Student to be among the most serious forms of misconduct, it found that there were legitimate factors of mitigation, and that the Student was sincere in accepting responsibility for their actions. The Panel found that the sanction proposed by the Provost was consistent with the range of sanctions imposed in prior decisions of the Tribunal engaging similar facts.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension from the University; and a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.