FILE:
Case # 1184 (2022-2023)
DATE:
September 7, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. G.K.R. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
June 8, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas Harrison, Chair
Professor Margaret MacNeill, Faculty Panel Member
Madison Kerr, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with eight offences under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”), three of which were made in the addition and in the alternative. The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or the work of another in two assignments contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The Student was also charged with three counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with academic work in a course, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In addition and in the alternative, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The ASF outlined that the professor who taught the course became aware that the solutions to the assignments in the course were posted on Chegg.com. The professor requested that the assignment questions and posted solutions be removed from the website and that an investigation be opened. Chegg.com provided the professor with the relevant information pertaining to who accessed the questions and answers. Upon review of this data, the professor determined that the answers given by the Student to questions in two assignments were virtually identical to the Chegg solutions. The ASF also outlined that at the Dean’s Designate meeting, the Student denied copying the answers to the assignments from Chegg.com but admitted to using videos from Khan Academy to assist in “learning how to solve the problem” and that the answers on the assignments were exactly how the online solution was answered on Khan Academy. The Student also denied that they had committed an academic offence. The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Student admitted to accessing Chegg.com to obtain unauthorized assistance while working on two assignments, and in doing so used the answers that had been posted to Chegg.com to provide answers to some of the questions on the assignments. The Student also admitted to obtaining unauthorized assistance on the assignments. The Student acknowledged that they signed the ASF freely and voluntarily, knowing of the potential consequences, and that they were given the opportunity to seek the advice of counsel before doing so. On the basis of both the Student’s admissions and the ASF, the Panel was satisfied that the offence of knowingly using or possessing unauthorized aid, or aids, or obtaining unauthorized assistance in both assignments was made out by the University. The Panel found the Student guilty of two counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance in both assignments, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining six charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel reviewed and considered the JSP as well as the Agreed Statement of Facts on Sanction. The Agreed Statement of Facts on Sanction outlined that the Student had committed four prior offences of academic misconduct. In support of the JSP, the Panel was directed to a number of previous Tribunal decisions. The Panel noted that while the Student admitted to knowingly accessing Chegg.com to obtain unauthorized assistance, there was no proof that the Student paid money for that access. Furthermore, the Student did not submit an entire assignment based on answers from Chegg.com. However, the Student had four prior offences on their record. The Panel noted that although the Student ultimately cooperated with the University, the Student initially denied the misconduct. The Panel noted that the proposed penalty is serious and lengthy, and that the Student will not be able to graduate until the suspension expires. The Panel further noted that the temptation to cheat on assignments, due to access to websites like Chegg.com is great, and it must do what it can to assist the University in ensuring that the penalties for those who are caught are harsh enough to make a potential cheater think twice. The Panel did not recommend expulsion in this case as there was no proof that the Student paid for access to Chegg.com, and the Student did eventually cooperate with the University in this matter. The Panel found that a lengthy suspension and notation were appropriate in this case. Therefore, the Panel accepted that the JSP was reasonable and within the range of appropriate sanctions for the offences the Student was found to have committed. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a suspension of just under five-years; a six-year notation or until graduation on the transcript, whichever comes first; and a report to the Provost for publication.