FILE:
Case # 1423 (2022-2023)
DATE:
January 3, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.J. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
November 11, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Andrew Bernstein, Chair
Professor Vivienne Luk, Faculty Panel Member
Giselle Dalili, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Dmitriy Pak, Downtown Legal Services, for the Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly having someone personate them at a final exam and/or having an intent to commit the offence of personation under the Code, did or omitted to do something for the purpose of carrying out that intention (other than mere preparation to commit the offence), contrary to sections B.i.1(c) and B.ii.2 of the Code. Alternatively, the Student was also charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the exam and/or having an intent to commit the offence of unauthorized assistance under the Code, did or omitted to do something for the purpose of carrying out that intention (other than mere preparation to commit the offence), contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and B.ii.2 of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the final exam and/or having an intent to commit the offence of plagiarism under the Code, did or omitted to do something for the purpose of carrying out that intention (other than mere preparation to commit the offence), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged 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 final exam, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student accepted liability on all charges and agreed to a statement of facts containing evidence that the Student had posted an advertisement on Freelancer.com asking for help. Someone replied, and the Student sent them $200 and screenshots of the exam question and also sought their help. The individual, however, did not help the Student. Instead, they demanded more money and threatened the Student when the Student eventually indicated they had no more money. The individual subsequently advised both course instructors that the Student had tried to cheat. When confronted by the Dean’s designate, the Student admitted they had sought assistance. However, they maintained that they never received assistance and that the work they ultimately submitted was their own. The Panel found the Student guilty under section B.i.1(b). The University withdrew the other charges.
The Panel considered the parties’ joint submission on penalty (“JSP”) but raised concerns. The Panel noted that if it were not for the relevant case law, it might have concluded that its concerns rose to the level of making the penalty “unreasonable or unconscionable.” For example, the Panel wondered whether the harsh penalty in this case was accomplishing any legitimate objective of a system of academic discipline and whether, in the circumstances, the harshness of the likely punishments created incentives to agree to things that did not necessarily appear fair to the Student. While it did not necessarily agree with the case law, it recognized that consistency is a hallmark of an effective tribunal process and gave effect to the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a notation on the Student's transcript until their graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.