Decision written in letter format (LF), companion case to Case #04-05-08
DATE: May 31, 2005
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Ms. Y. W.
Hearing Date(s): May 16, 2004 [sic]
information not available
Mr. Jeremy Glick, DLS, for Student
Mr. Robert Centa, for University
Trial Division - s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.ii of Code – unauthorized aid – collaboration with another student during an exam – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – identical answers – other student admitted to providing assistance – extenuating fact of illness not helpful given honest options available – mitigating facts of guilty plea, expression of remorse, personal relationship with co-defendant, acceptance of appropriateness of sanctions – medical attention or deferral not sought – guilt not admitted at earliest opportunity – hearing three years after commission of offence - sufficient credits to graduate – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; three-year notation; and report to Provost
Student charged under s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.ii of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student collaborated with another student, and or used unauthorized aids during a term test. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Student’s test answers were virtually identical to the other student’s. The other Student admitted that he provided unauthorized assistance to the Student by permitting her to copy his answers into her examination booklet. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges. The Panel accepted her guilty plea. The parties submitted a Joint Submission with respect to sanction. The Student felt too ill to study for the test and when she advised the other student of her illness he offered to help her. The Panel noted the first paragraph of the Code and the first paragraph of Section B of the Code and found that the Student’s actions struck at the heart of academic integrity and flew in the face of other students who had worked hard and studied appropriately for their examinations. The Panel considered the elements of premeditation and deceit, the nature of the offence and the way it was committed, and the options available to a student when too ill to write an examination. The Panel found that the extenuating circumstances of the Student’s health were not that helpful given the other, honest options available. The Panel found that the mitigating facts were that the Student pleaded guilty; that she acknowledged that her actions were wrong and expressed remorse; that she was in a personal relationship with the co-defendant and that he had offered to help her out of concern; and that she accepted that significant sanctions were appropriate. The Panel expressed concern regarding the following factors: the co-defendant did not suggest that the Student obtain a doctor’s letter or seek to defer the writing of her test because of her illness; that the Student did not seek medical attention for her illness; that the Student did not admit her guilt at the earliest opportunity; and that due to circumstances beyond the control of the Student and the University, the offence was not heard until three years after having been committed and after the Student had obtained sufficient credits to graduate. The Panel considered the factors in the case of Mr C., and previous similar Tribunal cases, and accepted the Joint Submission with respect to Sanction. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation; and that a report be issued to the Provost.