DATE:
March 17, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
February 8, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. Christopher Wirth Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Jihyun Kwon, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, 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(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 term assessment. In the 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 term assessment.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The Panel waited 15 minutes to afford the Student an opportunity to attend. When the Student did not appear, the University requested that the Panel proceed in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that pursuant to rule 16 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) a notice of electronic hearing must contain a statement that if a person does not attend the hearing, the Panel may proceed in the person’s absence. Furthermore, rule 17 outlines that where a notice of electronic hearing was given to a person and that person does not attend, the Panel may proceed in their absence. The Panel further noted that rules 16 and 17 conform to the notice requirements outlines in ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”). The Panel outlined that in accordance with the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students a student is responsible for maintaining a current and valid mailing and email address in the University’s Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). Furthermore, a student is expected to monitor and retrieve their email on a frequent and consistent basis. Rule 9 outlines that a notice of hearing may be served on a student by various means, including by way of email to a student’s email address as provided in ROSI. The University’s evidence on service outlined that the Student had not responded to email correspondence nor had his email account been accessed since his meeting with his Professor regarding the alleged academic misconduct. The Panel noted that the University attempted to reach the Student via telephone at the number listed in ROSI but they were unable to reach the Student. Furthermore, the University couriered a copy of the charges, notice of hearing and a letter from Assistant Discipline Counsel to both the mailing and permanent address for the Student provided in ROSI but in both instances the courier company could not deliver the package directly to the Student. In considering the evidence on notice, the Panel outlined that the Student did not receive actual notice of the charges, the notice of electronic hearing nor a copy of the disclosure. The Panel further outlined that the Rules do not require actual notice and the University did everything it reasonably could have done to contact the Student. Based on the foregoing, the Panel was satisfied that the Student had been given reasonable notice of the hearing in compliance with the notice requirements of the SPPA and the Rules. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charges laid under ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.3(b) of the Code, the Panel considered affidavit and testimonial evidence of the Professor who taught the course for which the term assessment in question was submitted. The Panel noted that the Professor’s affidavit outlined that another student in the course notified him that they attended a review session that provided solutions to questions that were similar to those on the term assessment. This student provided the Professor a copy of the package they received which contained solutions to various questions (“Study Guide”). The Professor outlined that the Study Guide contained 22 questions that corresponded directly with those on the term assessment. The Professor used a statistical software program to compare the questions in the Study Guide to those of the students in the course. The Student was the only student who had received all 22 questions from the Study Guide in his version of the term assessment. The Panel noted that subsequent to this, the Professor emailed the Student advising that a version of the term assessment had been provided to a commercial tutoring service and that he was concerned about the similarity of the Student’s assessment with the Study Guide. In his response to the Professor, the Student admitted that he paid a tutor to check his answers during the assessment period. In his testimony, the Professor stated that all the questions on the term assessment were new questions for that year and the Student had not been active in the course or the course related material until a week before the term assessment. The Panel noted that the evidence established that the Student used a commercial tutoring service to assist him in completing the term assessment to which he clearly admitted in his email to the Professor. The Panel was also satisfied that the commercial tutoring service used the Student’s copy of the term assessment to prepare its Study Guide which was then distributed to other students in the course, and that by his actions, the Student knew or ought reasonably to have known that the tutoring service would use his copy of the term assessment to aid others taking the term assessment. The Panel found on a balance of probabilities the evidence sufficiently clear, cogent and convincing to discharge the burden of proof on the University. The Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code, and of knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors for determining an appropriate sanction as outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In additional to these factors, the Panel considered other decisions of the Tribunal involving similar conduct which were provided by the University. The Panel noted that no two cases are identical, and it is not bound by past decisions of the Tribunal. However, the Tribunal does attempt to develop a consistent body of cases so that students are treated fairly and consistently in similar circumstances. In their decision on sanction, the Panel outlined that by cheating on the term assessment, the Student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning. Furthermore, by providing the term assessment to a commercial tutoring service, the Student permitted it to assist over 100 other students to cheat. The Panel noted that in today’s online world, it is easy for students to find new ways to access unauthorized assistance and so any sanction must denounce cheating and deter others in order to protect the academic integrity of the University. Furthermore, students must understand that this type of misconduct will have serious repercussions, so they will be dissuaded from the temptation to cheat. The Panel accepted the University’s submission that by using a paid commercial tutoring service, the Student committed a serious form of academic misconduct, however, the Panel was satisfied that despite this aggravating factor, given the Student’s admissions and remorse, a five-year suspension was appropriate. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the course; five-year suspension; six-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.