DATE: January 26, 2022
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. J.T.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE: October 13, 2021, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Mr. Doug F. Harrison
Dr. Wendy Rotenberg, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Alena Zelinka, 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
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that the Student knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged 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 in connection with a final exam.
The Panel convened the hearing at the scheduled time. The Panel then waited fifteen minutes to allow the Student or a representative of the Student to appear. Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared. The Panel noted that in order to proceed in the Student’s absence, it must determine if reasonable notice was provided to the Student as required by s. 6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and rule 13 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Regarding service, the Panel noted that pursuant to rule 9(c) of the Rules, delivery by email to a student’s email address as recorded in ROSI is permitted and considered valid service. The University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students (“Policy”) indicates that students are responsible for maintaining a current email address through ROSI. The University provided evidence that the Student was served with the charges and the notice of electronic hearing via email to the email address of the Student contained in ROSI. The Panel further noted that the Student’s email account was accessed by someone after the charges and notice of electronic hearing were sent to the Student. The Panel also received evidence that the charges, a letter from Assistant Discipline Counsel, and the notice of electronic hearing were sent via courier to the address the Student provided in ROSI at their mailing address but were undeliverable because the building required an access code. In a further attempt to reach the Student, Assistant Discipline Counsel’s assistant attempted to call the Student at the number the Student provided in ROSI but the call went to a voicemail box that was identified by the telephone number only. The assistant left a message letting the Student know that a hearing had been scheduled and the date and time of the hearing. She also indicated that the Student should check their email account. Based on the evidence and submissions of counsel for the University, the Panel concluded that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges in accordance with SPPA and the Rules. The Panel ordered the hearing to proceed in the absence of the Student.
In support of the charges, the Panel received affidavit evidence from the course coordinator for the course in which the final exam in question was submitted. The course coordinator was present at the hearing and addressed questions from the Panel. The Panel noted that the final exam was administrated online as an open-book exam which was made available to the students for a 24-hour period. During the 24-hour period, the instructors and teaching assistants found a number of questions and answers from the final exam posted on Chegg.com. In marking the Student’s exam, the course instructors determined that there were substantial similarities between the Student’s answers and those that were posted on Chegg.com. The Panel further noted that upon further review the course coordinator came to the same determination as the instructors and teaching assistants because the answers to the problems took the same approach, with the same or very similar steps as the Chegg.com answers. It was unlikely that the number and degree of similarities, including unnecessary steps and wrong notations, were coincidental. It was evident to the Panel that the Student submitted answers that had originated from Chegg.com. Based on the foregoing, the Panel was satisfied that the Student, on a balance of probabilities, made use of the answers from Chegg.com to complete the final exam. The Panel concluded that the alternative charge, use of an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance, fit the circumstances. The Panel, therefore, found the Student guilty of using an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistant in a final exam, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. Given this finding, the University withdrew the charge made in the further alternative under s.B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Regarding the appropriate sanction, the Panel noted that s. C.ii.(b) of the Code sets out that the Tribunal may impose a range of sanctions on a student who has been convicted under the Code. Furthermore, the Code contains the “Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions” in Appendix “C”, which outlines that, absent exceptional circumstances, the Provost will request a suspension of two years for a student’s first offence. In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors set out in University of Toronto and C. (Case 1976/77-3; dated November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character and extenuating circumstances, the Panel noted that there was no evidence with respect to either of these factors since the Student did not participate in the process at all. Furthermore, there was no evidence of remorse, insight or a willingness to take responsibility for their actions. With respect to the likelihood of repetition, the Panel considered that the Student was in first year at the time of the offence and has not enrolled in the University since. Additionally, there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct but also no evidence to show that the Student appreciated the gravity of the misconduct. With respect to the nature of the offence, the detriment to the University, and the need for deterrence, the Panel considered this to be an extremely serious offence that harms the institution and the academic process. It is a serious breach of academic integrity and can be seen as an attempt to defraud the University. Thus, the associated penalty must act as a general deterrent against this type of behaviour. The Panel also considered various previous decisions of the Tribunal provided by Assistant Discipline Counsel. In reviewing the cases, the Panel noted that the sanction in a particular case is to be determined based on the circumstances of that case, however, students must be treated fairly and equitably when being sanctioned. Based on the foregoing, the Panel determined that the sanction requested by the Provost was reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.