FILE:
Case # 1287 (2023-2024)
DATE:
November 22, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.E.E. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
August 23, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dena Varah, Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Daniel Walker, Bobila Walker Law, Counsel for the Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances, University of Toronto
The Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.1(b) and two counts under s. B.ii.1(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”), on the basis that they knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a midterm test and final exam and knowingly aided and assisted other students to use or possess an authorized aid or aids to obtain unauthorized assistance. The Student was also charged with two counts 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 in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with a midterm test and final exam.
The Student was not in attendance to confirm that they had accepted the plea as set out in the Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), although his counsel, in a brief appearance, noted that the Student would not attend since the parties had entered into an ASF and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel reviewed the evidence outlined in the ASF and noted that the Student wrote the final exam in the course. Upon review of the exam answers, the Professor found several similarities in the answers on the final exam submitted by Student and other students (the “Involved Students”) in the course. The Professor, on further investigation of prior answers submitted by the Student on a midterm test, noted further similarities with answers submitted by other students, including similar mistakes and non-standard notation. The ASF outlined that at a Dean’s Designate meeting, one of the Involved Students, C.U.-O, had admitted that they had obtained the Student’s exam answers from a OneNote account which the Student had logged into earlier on C.U.-O’s computer. The ASF further outlined that the Student attended an initial meeting with the Dean’s Designate in which they denied that they had committed an academic offence but did not dispute logging into OneNote on C.U.-O’s laptop. The Student subsequently attended a second meeting with the Dean’s Designate and the Professor to discuss allegations that they had collaborated with other students during a midterm test. The Student denied that they had received unauthorized assistance on the test. Pursuant to the ASF, the Student pled guilty to all six charges. The Panel was satisfied that the Student agreed to and accepted the ASF and the plea contained in it.
The Panel reviewed the ASF, the documents in support thereof and considered the submissions of the Assistant Discipline Counsel and counsel for the Student. The Panel found that the evidence strongly supported that the Student provided and received unauthorized assistance on both the Final Exam and on Test 2. With regard to the charge under s. B.i.3(b), the Panel found that the affidavit provided by C.U.-O set out in detail the deceit that C.U.-O and the Student had engaged in so as to avoid the Student being charged with or held responsible for any offences. Accordingly, the University returned a finding of guilt with respect to the charges under ss. B.i.1(b), B.i.3(b), and B.ii.1(a) of the Code.
In determining an appropriate sanction, the Panel received, on consent of the parties, additional evidence that the Student had previously admitted to four prior academic offences related to plagiarism. The Student and the University submitted a JSP. The Panel noted that it should only depart from a JSP where the proposed sanction is so far outside the range of appropriate outcomes that accepting it would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Panel accepted the JSP because it was not contrary to the public interest, nor did it bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanction set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976), and noted that the character of the Student and the likelihood of the repetition of the offence would support the most severe sanction in the absence of the JSP: a recommendation that the Student be expelled. The Panel further noted that the sole mitigating factor was the fact that the Student cooperated and entered into an ASF on both the offence and penalty as well as a JSP. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript for six years; and a report to the Provost for publication.