DATE:
August 31, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.M. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
June 2, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Karen Symes, Chair
Professor Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Dylan Dingwell, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The charges against the Student arose out of academic misconduct in two courses. On one occasion, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(c) Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that they knowingly had someone personate them during an on-line test. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s.B.i.1(b) of the on the basis that they knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance during an online test. In the alternative to both charges, the Student was charged with 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 in connection with an on-line test, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. On a second occasion, the Student was charged under s.B.i.1(b) of the Code on the basis that they knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly doing or omitting to do something for the purpose of engaging 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 hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”). The ASF outlined that the Student admitted that they sent various emails to an individual to complete an online test and an exam. The Panel noted that the ASF also outlined that the Student wrote a letter to the Professor in one of the courses outlining that they provided their Quercus username and password to a friend who discussed the exam questions with them. The same letter expressed remorse for their actions and an understanding of the serious nature of the academic misconduct. The Student attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate at which time they were confronted with an email message received by an individual claiming that the Student had relied on services of a third party to complete an exam. Once confronted, the Student admitted that they provided their Quercus username and password to a tutor from a website called Study Pool and paid $50 to $60 for the service. The Student also admitted that a friend did not help with the online test as initially outlined in the Student’s email to the Professor. During this meeting, the Student also admitted to paying $400 to an individual to assist the Student in writing their final exam in the other course. The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that Student confirmed that the statements and admissions made with respect to both courses to the Dean’s Designate were true and accurate. Upon review of the admissions made by the Student, the ASF, and the supporting materials, the Panel concluded that the charges under s.B.i.1(b) and s.B.i.1(c) of the Code had been proven with clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities. The Panel accepted the guilty plea of the Student in respect to those charges. The University withdrew the remaining charges made in the alternative.
The Student and the University requested different penalties. The Student asked the Panel to consider a suspension of two to three years and asked the offence not to be noted on their transcript for six years. The Student was concerned that the length of the suspension and notation would unduly delay their ability to complete a degree and then pursue further education. The Panel also received oral testimony from the Student. The Student testified that they committed these offences in their freshman year which was a difficult time for them. Furthermore, the Student was attending school remotely from China where they were in quarantine for most of the year which caused them to be isolated from the academic community. The Student also testified that they have worked hard to bring their grades up and they value their academic community. The Student told the Panel that they do not want their freshman mistakes to cause irreversible errors for their entire life.
Upon review of the evidence, hearing submissions from both parties, and deliberations, the Panel concluded that the penalty requested by the University was appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel determined that the penalty requested by the Student was insufficient to address the conduct and resulting harm to the University in this case. In making this determination, the Panel noted that the Student committed very serious offences and that preventing this type of offence from occurring is critical to ensuring that a University of Toronto degree is earned and cannot be bought. The Panel further noted that the Student admitted to the offences which demonstrates insight and remorse into the misconduct. These were the Student’s first academic offences but the conduct involved multiple offences in different courses. The Panel agreed with the University’s submission that the Student’s admission of guilt was tempered by the fact that they initially lied and minimized the misconduct by saying that a friend had assisted them but only after being confronted with the evidence did they admit to hiring third party services; the Panel indicated that this factual history was an aggravating factor that weighed in favour of a serious penalty. The Panel noted that the parties agreed that there were many mitigating factors in this case, and that Assistant Discipline Counsel agreed that but-for the mitigating factors, the appropriate penalty would have been expulsion. The Panel believed that there was a real risk of repetition of similar offences in this case and that a significant penalty was required to address this concern. Upon review of the cases provided by the parties and having regard for all the circumstances, the Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the courses; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.