FILE:
Case # 1337 (2022-2023)
DATE:
November 9, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. B.H. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
July 27, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Nader Hasan, Chair
Professor Ernest Lam, Faculty Panel Member
David Allens, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Justin Nathens, Student Representative, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under section B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a term test. Alternatively, they were charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the term test, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code, and with one count for 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 with the term test, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), which included the Student’s admission that they had obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with the term test. Based on the ASF, the University’s Student Web Service (“SWS”) Activity Log showed that on the day of the term test, the Student had logged into SWS from an IP address that was the same IP address logged by Chegg.com and associated with the Student’s email address. This email address posted the questions from the term test. The Student was a Chegg.com subscriber. During their meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student denied submitting the questions to Chegg.com. But they subsequently admitted to having posted the questions to Chegg.com and having requested, obtained, and used Chegg.com’s answers to the questions for use on the test. The Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea and found them guilty of one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the other charges.
Additionally, the parties submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”), which the Panel found reasonable. It also found the recommended sanctions appropriate in the circumstances. In determining sanction, the Panel considered the seriousness of the offence and the mitigating factors. According to the Panel, despite the initial denial, the Student eventually cooperated in the process and entered into the ASF and JSP, thereby showing insight and remorse.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a suspension of two years and four months; a notation on the Student's transcript until their graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld.