DATE:
March 29, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.M.H. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
January 5, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Sabrina Bandali, Chair
Professor Marc Laflamme, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Lauren Membreno-Lepore, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ms. Adrianna Mills, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that he knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or aids, or obtained unauthorized assistance in a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code on the basis that he knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a final exam. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that he knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with a final exam.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”). The ASF outlined that the Professor who taught the course for which the final exam in question was submitted discovered that nine questions from the exam were posted on Chegg.com. The Professor suspected that the Student had posted the questions because all nine of the questions on Chegg.com had been assigned to the Student through the question pools. The ASF indicated that the Student met with the Dean’s Designate at which time he admitted to posting the nine questions from the final exam on Chegg.com and that he copied the answer to one of the questions on the final exam. The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Student admitted to accessing Chegg.com to obtain unauthorized assistance during the final exam, posting nine questions on Chegg.com and requesting answers to those questions, viewing answers that had been posted to Chegg.com, and using answers that had been posted to answer a question on the exam. The Panel noted that the onus is on the University to establish on a balance of probabilities, using clear and convincing evidence, that one or more of the academic offences charged was committed by the Student. The Panel further moted that the Student admitted and pled guilty to the first charge. The Panel was satisfied that the Student’s admissions were voluntary, informed and unequivocal. Furthermore, the evidence contained in the ASF and supporting documentation provided a clear evidentiary basis for a finding of guilt. The Panel concluded that the first charge had been proven with clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities and accepted the guilty plea of the Student in respect of that charge. The University withdrew the second and third charges.
The Panel received a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel noted that it was aware of the value in respecting and deferring to a JSP. In accordance with the Discipline Appeals Board decision in University of Toronto and M.A. (Case No. 837, December 22, 2016), a joint submission may be rejected by a panel only in circumstances where to give effect to it would be contrary to public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanctions set out by the Tribunal in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel considered the serious nature of the offence, and the need for general deterrence, especially in the context of the shift to online learning. Balanced against these factors were the Student’s cooperation in the process, early admission of the misconduct, and entry into the ASF and JSP, which demonstrated insight and that he is taking responsibility for his actions. The Panel noted that in its view, the JSP in this case was reasonable. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course, 28-month suspension, a notation on the transcript until graduation, and a report to the Provost for publication.