DATE:
June 21, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.K. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 22, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. Christopher Wirth, Chair
Dr. Pascal van Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Yazan Zamel, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, 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. Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that he knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code on the basis that he knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam. In the further alternative, the Student 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 final exam.
The Panel adjourned the hearing for fifteen minutes for the Student to arrive and for counsel to attempt to obtain information as to whether the Student intended to attend the hearing. When the hearing resumed, the Student was not in attendance and counsel was able to advise the Panel that he has been in communication with the Student who advised that he was aware of the hearing but did not intend to appear. Given this evidence, the Panel decided to proceed with the hearing in the Student’s absence.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”). The ASF outlined that the Professor who taught the course for which the final exam in question was submitted reviewed the exams and found that an answer to one of the questions on the exam was posted to Chegg.com. Upon review of the Student’s exam, the Professor found that there were substantial similarities between the Student’s answer and the answer posted on Chegg.com. The ASF further outlined that the Student met with the Dean’s Designate regarding the allegations and during the meeting, the Student admitted that he obtained unauthorized assistance in the exam from Chegg.com. The Panel noted that in the ASF the Student admitted to knowingly accessing Chegg.com during the exam, used answers that had been posted to Chegg.com, represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the exam, committed plagiarism, and obtained unauthorized assistance in the exam. Furthermore, the Panel noted that the Student acknowledged that he signed the ASF freely and voluntarily, knowing of the potentially consequences, and that he had been given the opportunity to seek the advice of counsel. Based on the evidence, the submissions of counsel for the University, and the ASF, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly representing as his own idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an exam, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the charges made in the alternative and the further alternative.
In determining sanction, the Panel received an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty (“ASFP”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel noted that the ASFP outlined that the Student had three prior offences which were all resolved at the divisional level. The Panel considered the factors on determining sanction outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) as well as other decisions of the Tribunal that involved similar misconduct. The Panel noted that by cheating on the exam, the Student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning. Furthermore, 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. The Panel further noted that students must understand that this type of misconduct will have serious repercussions in order to dissuade them from the temptation to cheat. The Panel was satisfied that the JSP was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course, a three-year suspension; a notation on the transcript until graduation, and a report to the Provost for publication.