FILE:
Case # 1243 (2022-2023)
DATE:
December 20, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. F.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
September 27, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Shaun Laubman, Chair
Professor Georges Farhat, Faculty Panel Member
Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one offence of knowingly having another person personate them at a midterm examination, contrary to section B.i.1(c) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was also charged for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the midterm examination, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, they were charged for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in their midterm examination, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the further alternative, they were charged with one count 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 of any kind in connection with the midterm examination, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Panel relied on the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), which contained the Student’s guilty plea regarding all the charges. Based on the ASF, students were required to submit a signature sheet and provide proof of identification to complete the online midterm examination. At the end of the examination, two students appeared to have uploaded each other’s IDs. The Student uploaded the solution with the photo ID and signature of another student (“Other Student”), and the Other Student uploaded the solution with photo ID and signature of the Student. Following an investigation, the Student met with the Dean’s Designate and admitted to hiring someone on WeChat to write the examination for them. The Student had paid approximately $200 to $300 to the personator to write their examination. The Student admitted that they had permitted the personator to log in to the Student’s Quercus account using the Student’s login credentials and to complete the midterm examination in their name. However, the personator mistakenly uploaded the midterm exam for the Other Student. Based on the admissions in the ASF, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count under section B.i.1(c) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the cases involving impersonation, including the case involving the Other Student who had paid the same personator to complete their midterm examination. In that case, the penalty was a zero in the course, a five-year suspension and notation on the Other Student’s transcript. The Panel stated that personation is a very serious offence and deserving of strong sanctions, and it indicated that the additional element of an economic aspect (i.e., paying the personator) increased the seriousness of the offence. According to the Panel, these factors militated in favour of a lengthy suspension. The Student’s early admission of guilt and cooperation during the sanction process pointed in favour of a lengthy suspension versus expulsion. The interest in maintaining consistency with the case involving the Other Student (University v. Toronto and P.L. (Case No. 1211, September 23, 2021), which involved nearly identical circumstances, also weighed in favour of accepting the parties’ Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The parties submitted that it was appropriate to have the suspension start retroactively because there was an early admission of guilt in the case and the Student had not taken any further cases in the intervening period. Relying on past cases, the Panel indicated it has the jurisdiction to impose retroactive start dates for penalties in appropriate cases. The Panel accepted the JSP and imposed the agreed-upon penalty on the Student.