FILE:
Case # 1274 (2022-2023)
DATE:
July 11, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
April 19, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Saskia Van Beers, 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
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, 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 the Student knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or obtained unauthorized assistance in an assessment. In the 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 an assessment.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 5:45 p.m., but the Panel waited until 6:00 p.m. before commencing the hearing. The Student did not appear. The University requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that the jurisdiction for proceeding in the absence of the Student is set out in ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and rule 17 of the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Panel further noted that the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party provided that reasonable notice of an oral hearing has been given to the party in accordance with the SPPA, and when a party does not attend and reasonable notice was given, a party is not entitled to further notice. The University provided evidence that the Student was served with the charges, Notice of Electronic Hearing, and other correspondence to the Student’s email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The Panel noted that students are responsible for maintaining in ROSI a current and valid mailing address and University-issued email account and are expected to retrieve mail and email on a frequent and consistent basis. Rule 9 of the Rules provides that a student may be served by sending a copy of a document to a student’s email address as contained in ROSI. The Panel noted that the service of documents to the Student’s email address contained in ROSI therefore met the requirements for service under rule 9. The University provided evidence that they took numerous steps to contact the Student including by email, telephone, and courier to the Student’s last known mailing address contained in ROSI. Given the evidence, the Panel found that notice had been given in accordance with the SPPA and the Rules and that there was no reason not to proceed in the absence of the Student in accordance with s. 7(3) of the SPPA. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s.B.i.1(b) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of one of the professors who taught the course for which the assessment in question was submitted and of a member of the Association of Professional Language Interpreters who provided a translation of a poster for Easy Edu, a commercial tutoring service. The Professor supplemented his affidavit with testimonial evidence. The Professor’s evidence outlined that after the assessment, the Professor was contacted by a student in the course who advised that there has been a review session online by a commercial tutoring service called Easy Edu. The review session included a copy of a student package that contained 22 questions. The Professor confirmed that those exact same 22 questions had been provided to another student who subsequently admitted they had paid a tutor to check their answers during the assessment period. Another student emailed the Professor, and the Student Academic Integrity office, expressing concerns with the academic integrity of this particular assessment and attached a link to a YouTube video of the Easy Edu review session. Upon review of the YouTube video, the Professor noted that all 22 questions in the student package were solved, there were at least 180 attendees, and the session occurred during the assessment period. The Panel noted that the Professor testified that the student package had four different authors on it and that in his view, a proficient person could both modify the questions and develop solutions to all the questions in a one-hour period. The Professor further testified that although the video was in another language, he was able to understand the math as seen in the video and confirmed that the 22 questions that were solved during the review session were the ones he had written for the assessment. Furthermore, review of the rough work submitted by the Student revealed a number of similarities with the answers that Easy Edu provided in the review session. The Panel noted that the Professor confirmed that he was able to see the names of the attendees at the review session and these names included the name of the Student. The Panel was convinced, on a balance of probabilities, that the student whose name appeared on the review video was the same person as the Student who is the subject of these charges. The Panel further noted that there was only one student by that name in the course, and therefore only one student of that name would be motivated to attend. Furthermore, the similarities of the specific idiosyncratic notations between the Easy Edu answers and the Student’s rough work established that the Student received and used unauthorized assistance to complete the assessment, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In consideration of all the evidence, the Panel found that the University had established the first charge. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
In determining sanction, the Panel carefully considered the factors set out in University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that there was no evidence of the Student’s character other than those in relation to the offence. The Panel noted that this was the Student’s first offence, but it was unable to make any findings in relation to the likelihood of repetition of offence in the future. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted that the University must be able to trust that asynchronous testing will be completed with the same academic integrity as if the test were administered in person. Regarding the detriment to the University, the Panel accepted that the University’s trust in the Student was harmed as a result of this incident and noted that the University is harmed whenever students participate in mass cheating incidents, as they potentially send a message to the broader community regarding the University’s integrity. The Panel outlined that general deterrence is an important factor in these cases especially since it is apparent that the abuse of asynchronous/online testing is an ongoing issue at the University. The Panel noted that unauthorized assistance strikes at the heart of academic integrity, and it is appropriate to send a strong message to student that this type of misconduct will be treated very seriously. In determining the appropriate length of suspension, the Panel had particular regard for two cases provided to it by the University: University of Toronto and D.K. (Case No. 1119, July 21, 2021) (D.K.) and University of Toronto and S.C. (Case No. 1215, January 13, 2022) (S.C.). The Panel agreed that where there is the use of a commercial provider there ought to be consequences over and above the typical two-year suspension for unauthorized assistance and conventional academic dishonesty. S.C. and D.K. are good examples of incremental increased in the length of suspension. Given the absence of any other aggravating factors and any prior misconduct, the Panel determined that a suspension of two-and-a-half years, representing the aggravation of a commercial nature of enterprise only, was appropriate. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a two-and-a-half-year suspension; a three-and-a-half-year notation on the transcript; and a report to the Provost office for publication.