DATE:
February 14, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.X. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
November 27, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michelle S. Henry, Chair
Professor Irina D. Mihalache, Faculty Panel Member
Brinda Batra, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Janet Song, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with four counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with term test and final exams in several courses (collectively, the “Assessments”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with four counts for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in connection with the Assessments, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with two counts under section B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as the Student’s own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with the final exams in two courses.
Neither the Student nor a legal representative of the Student appeared at the hearing. The Panel considered evidence submitted by the University detailing several efforts to provide the Student with notice of the Charges and Virtual Hearing by telephone, mail, and email. Though there was no evidence that the Student received the notice by email or by mail, the Panel was satisfied that the Student had received reasonable notice of the charges and the hearing in accordance with the notice requirements set out in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure. Accordingly, the Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of the submissions and affidavit evidence provided by the University. The Panel received evidence about the Student’s conduct in three separate courses. In the first course, the Panel received evidence that the Student had participated in an online chat group in which participants shared answers to two tests. In the second course, the Panel noted that the Professor in the course observed that the Student’s answers were almost identical to those of another student, and suspected that the two students had collaborated on the final exam. Finally, in the third course, the Panel considered the evidence of the Professor in the course who outlined that the Student’s answers for a particular question on the exam were identical or nearly identical to the answers of other students, including a similar level of detail, and a similar incorrect approach.
Based on the all the evidence, the Panel found the Student guilty with respect to three counts of obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the Assessments, contrary to B.i.1(b) of the Code. In addition, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct in connection with the final exam in the remaining course, contrary to B.i.3(b) of the Code. Given these findings, the University withdrew the alternative charges under ss. B.i.3(b) and B.i.1(d) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel reviewed relevant past decisions of the Tribunal submitted by the University, and in particular, the sanctioning factors set out in University of Toronto v. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3) (“Mr. C”). With respect to the character of the Student, the Panel noted that the Student had failed to participate in the proceeding or to attend any meeting with the Dean’s Designate, and there was no evidence indicating that the Student had expressed remorse or insight into their actions. The Panel further noted, with respect to the likelihood of the offence, that the Student had previously committed one academic offence. With respect to the nature of the offences committed and the need for general deterrence, the Panel observed that obtaining unauthorized assistance on an academic examination is a serious offence that strikes at the heart of academic integrity, and that the appropriate sanction must send a strong message to other students that such misconduct is considered a serious offence. Finally, the Panel noted that the onus was on the Student to put forward any mitigating circumstances, and given their absence, there was no evidence before the Tribunal of any such circumstances. Based on the University’s submissions and the Mr. C factors, the Tribunal accepted the University’s proposed sanction.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero all three courses; a four-year suspension; a five-year notation, and a report to the Provost for publication.