DATE:
April 10, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.P. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 18, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Johanna Braden, Chair
Dr. Susanna Chow, Faculty Panel Member
Zoë Reichert, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Adam Goodman, Counsel for the Student, Barrister & Solicitor
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with four counts under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code for knowingly altering or falsifying a document or evidence or uttered, circulated or made use of any such altered or falsified document in connection with three different courses (the “Courses”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student admitted all the charges. The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts tendered as evidence by the Student and the University. The Student was enrolled in, and received final grades, in the Courses. The Student subsequently advised the Registrar and the Professors in each of the Courses that the final grade in of the Courses was incorrect and that instructors had not recorded assessments submitted by email. In their email to the Professors, the Student attached screenshots purporting to show Quercus gradebook entries that indicated that the Student had completed various assignments which had not, in fact, been submitted (the “Screenshots”) and that, therefore they should have received higher final grades. In one of the courses, the Student attached answers to two assignments which the Student asserted had been submitted in a timely manner, in an attempt to raise their final grade – assignments which the Student had failed to complete at all. The Student subsequently admitted to the Registrar, and in a later meeting with the Dean’s Designate, that they had fraudulently created the Screenshots and expressed remorse for their actions.
The Panel concluded that the ASF provided ample evidence to support the charges and found the Student guilty of all four counts under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The alternative charge of violating s. B.i.3(b) of the Code was withdrawn by the University.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard a joint submission from the University and the Student. The Panel also considered additional evidence, including a letter of apology, submitted by the Student. The Panel considered the evidence and submissions in light of the factors and principles relevant to sanction as set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In particular, the Panel noted, with respect to the Student’s character, that the Student had a good academic record with no prior history of misconduct and admitted her misconduct. The Panel noted, however, that it was concerned that if the Student was faced again with similarly stressful circumstances, they might repeat the academic offence. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel considered the offence to be deliberate and the product of calculated dishonesty that was designed to take advantage of the University’s grading system and required general deterrence. Lastly, the Panel noted that while it was not bound by previous decisions of the Tribunal, it considered previous cases to determine the range of penalties ordered in other cases. The Panel concluded that the jointly proposed sanction was reasonable and represented an appropriate balance of the mitigating and aggravating factors in this case.
The Panel agreed to backdate the suspension as per the joint submission as it was tailored so that suspension did not expire mid-way through an academic term.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a four-year suspension; a notation on the Student’s transcript and academic record for five years, or the Student’s graduation, whichever occurs first; and a report to the Provost for publication.