DATE:
April 15, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.C. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
February 7, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ira Parghi, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Brinda Batra, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chris Steinburg, Counsel for the Student, Steinburg Law
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student (for part of the hearing)
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining authorized assistance in connection with a term test and final exam in a course (the “Assessments”) under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In addition, and in the alterative, the Student was charged with two counts under sections B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1(a) for knowingly aiding and assisting other students in the course to use or possess an unauthorized aid in connection with the Assessments. In addition, and in the alternative, to all of the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code.
The Student was present for part of the hearing via Zoom, but was disconnected due to poor connectivity. The Student’s counsel, upon conferring with the Student, obtained instructions to proceed in the Student’s absence. Counsel for the University also advised that they too were agreeable to proceeding in the absence of the Student. The Panel was satisfied that the hearing could proceed in the absence of the Student and continued in the absence of the Student.
As part of the course, the Student was required to write a term test and final exam, worth 30% and 35% of their final grade respectively. Students were expected to complete the Assessments independently and were not permitted to communicate with anyone while completing their submissions.
The Panel considered a Joint Book of Documents (“JBD”), which included an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), submitted by the University and the Student. The ASF detailed that the professor in the course noticed several unusual similarities between the Student’s answers and other students’ answers, and prepared a report setting out the similarities in detail. The Professor was unsuccessful in scheduling a meeting to discuss his concerns with the Student and proceeded to examine similarities between the Student’s submissions and other students’ submissions on prior term tests. The Professor subsequently identified several similarities between the Student’s answers and those of two other students on one of the term tests. The Student did not attend meetings with faculty or the Dean’s designate, and the matter was forwarded to the Provost. Several students in the class subsequently admitted that they had collaborated with other students using a link to a Google Doc shared by the Student. In the ASF, the Student ultimately admitted and acknowledged that he had invited other students to join a Google Doc in which other students could share answers to the Exam. The Student further admitted to all of the charges against him.
Upon reviewing the ASF, the Panel was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Student was guilty of two counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code; two counts of knowingly aiding and assisting other students, contrary to ss. B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1(a) of the Code; and 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, contrary to s. B.I.3(b) of the Code. In view of the Panel’s findings, the University withdrew one count under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in connection with the term test.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) submitted by the Student and the University. The Panel noted that when a JSP is filed, the Tribunal is not bound to follow it, but it also noted that the case law is clear that a JSP should be disregarded only where giving effect to the sanction would be contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel considered the principles and factors relevant to sanction as articulated in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the nature of the offences and the detriment to the University, the Panel noted that the offences were serious and undermined the process of academic evaluation at the University. The Panel further noted that the Student’s encouragement to other students to not say anything to the Dean’s office regarding the document sharing scheme suggested that the Student’s conduct was pre-meditated, deliberate, and extensive. With respect to the need for deterrence, the Panel noted that there was a strong need for both specific deterrence (in view of the Student’s prior and similar offence) and general deterrence to discourage other students from providing or receiving unauthorized assistance during assessments, and from pressuring others to not admit academic misconduct to University administrators. Finally, with respect to the character of the Student, the Panel considered that the Student had demonstrated some insight and remorse for their actions, and further acknowledged that the Student was suffering from attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety and depression at the time of the offence. In view of the Mr. C factors, and previous similar decisions of the Tribunal, the Panel was satisfied that the JSP was appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.