DATE:
April 16, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. K.Y.A.S
HEARING DATE:
January 16, 2025
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair Professor
Jennifer Lake, Faculty Panel Member
Charles Buck, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Jesse Wright, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Hillson Tse, Counsel for the Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christina Amodio, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid, or obtaining unauthorized assistance, in connection with a final exam in BIO39H3 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the o Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”).
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”). The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course and was required to write a final exam worth 30% of their final grade. The Student wrote the final exam in an accommodated setting at the same time as other students and with several invigilators present. During the exam, several invigilators observed the Student behaving suspiciously and, upon further observation, found that the Student was holding a phone between their exam papers. The Student completed the exam and afterward admitted to the exam invigilators that they had a phone in their possession during the exam and had taken photos of the exam. The Student further admitted to sending the photos of the exam to a tutor through WhatsApp. The Student repeated their admissions in a meeting with the Dean’s Designate but further explained that they had suffered a concussion, failed to register for disability services on time, and due to symptoms arising from the concussion attempted to use the phone as an aid during the exam. The Student plead guilty to all of the charges.
On the basis of the ASF and the Student’s admissions, the Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to possession or use of an unauthorized aid, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University and the Student. The Panel concluded that a multi-year suspension was warranted in this case, and found that, based on its review of the Tribunal cases relied on by the Student and the University, a three-year suspension was appropriate. In particular, the Panel rejected the University’s submission that a five-year suspension was appropriate and noted that in cases where a five-year suspension had been imposed, the student had made a payment in connection with the unauthorized assistance. There was no evidence of any payments being made by the Student nor any evidence of coordination by the Student with other students. The Panel further rejected the University’s position that the Student’s conduct was akin to impersonation, noting that impersonation is a separate, more serious offence under the Code than obtaining unauthorized assistance, and was not the offence charged in this case. The Panel further considered the sentencing factors in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Student’s admissions of guilt and decision to enter into the ASF were positive factors in assessing the Student’s character. The Panel further observed that the Student’s decision not to enter into a joint submission on penalty was not relevant to assessing sanction and does not weigh against the Student’s character nor is it an aggravating factor. The Panel concluded that the fact that this was the Student’s first offence weighed against an increased likelihood that the Student would re-offend. With respect to the nature of the Student’s offence, the Panel observed that obtaining unauthorized assistance is a serious offence that breaches the University’s trust relationship with its students and concluded that the penalty in this case must act as a general deterrent against such misconduct. In the absence of any evidence documenting the Student’s professed medical conditions, the Panel did not find that any extenuating circumstances were established.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a three-year suspension from the University; and a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.