DATE:
February 27, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.S. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
November 15, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sarah Whitmore, Chair
Professor Dionne Aleman, Faculty Panel Member
Ben Kitching, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ryan Shah, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with several homework assignments, and tests in a course, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with two counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the Assessments, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The Student was also charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with quizzes in the course. In the alternative to that charge, the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection to the quizzes. In the alternative to all the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with three counts 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 to the assessments in the course, contrary to section B.I.3(b) of the Code.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The University asked the Tribunal to find that the Student had been provided with reasonable notice of the hearing, and that the hearing should proceed in the Student’s absence, under rule 21 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S. 22. The Panel found that the Student was active in corresponding with the Student Academic Integrity office and with Assistant Discipline Counsel, but ceased correspondence at a later date without explanation. The Panel was further satisfied that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing in accordance with the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and section 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act. The Panel made an additional finding that Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University was not obligated under the Law Society of Ontario’s Rules of Professional Conduct to cease communicating directly with the Student after being informed by the Student that they were represented by counsel whom the University was unable to contact or locate on the Law Society of Ontario’s Lawyer and Paralegal directory.
The Student was enrolled in a course in which students were required to submit several assessments for credit including, six homework assignments, 24 quizzes, and a final test. Students were required to complete each of the Assessments independently. With respect to five of the six homework assessments, the Panel found, based on the evidence adduced by the University, that the Student’s answers were highly similar in structure, notation and method to those posted on Chegg (the “Chegg Answers”) and that the Student had knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the case of one homework assignment, in which the Student’s answers were not similar to the Chegg Answers, the Panel found that the Student had nevertheless viewed several answers on Chegg before submitting the homework assignment. The Panel concluded that notwithstanding its finding that the Student did not incorporate any of the Chegg Answers, the Student had knowingly obtained assistance in connection with the homework assignment contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. With respect to the final test, the Panel additionally found the Student guilty of plagiarism contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code where the Panel found that the Student’s answers to numerous questions on the final test contained unusual similarities to Chegg Answers to the same questions.
Finally, with respect to the quizzes, the Student was alleged to have received unauthorized assistance with respect to 23 of the 24 quizzes in the course. The Panel heard evidence that the professor in the course was prompted to review the answers upon an admission of another Student in the course that they had collaborated with other students in the course on certain assessments, including the quizzes. The professor observed that the Student had submitted similar answers to another student in the class based on submission time and similar scoring. The Panel concluded that, based on the evidence, including identical incorrect answers, the Student was guilty on a balance of probabilities of unauthorized assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code with respect to 21 of the 23 quizzes. The Panel found the Student was not guilty of the offence with respect to two of the quizzes where the only evidence tendered in respect of such assessments was an admission by another student as to his collaboration with the Student.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Tribunal considered the factors set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) and a book of authorities submitted by the University. The Panel found that the Student did not participate in a Dean’s Designate meeting, attend the hearing, or make any attempt to take responsibility for their conduct. While such lack of participation was not an aggravating factor, the Panel found that there was no evidence of mitigating circumstances that would otherwise merit a more lenient sanction imposed on the basis of the Student’s character. The Panel refused to consider the Student’s failure to respond Assistant Discipline Counsel’s emails, and to otherwise move the matter forward promptly, as an aggravating factor, particularly in light of Assistant Discipline Counsel’s unexplained and unreasonably lengthy delay in attempting to communicate with the Student over a five month period. With respect to aggravating factors, the Panel did, however, conclude that there was a likelihood of repetition given the number of offences in the matter, and the significant time and resources required to prepare for the hearing which the Student failed to attend.
Based on the above factors and its review of similar cases, the Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course, a three-year suspension; and a four-year notation on the Student’s transcript.