FILE:
Case # 1424 (2023-2024)
DATE:
July 17, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.S. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
April 14, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Joelle Ruskin, Chair
Professor Richard B. Day, Faculty Panel Member
Dylan Dingwell, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The Student was charged with respect to academic offences in two separate courses. Charges pertaining to the first course, (“MAT334”), are as follows. The Student was charged with knowingly representing as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in term test 1, contrary to s. B.i.1(d)) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized assistance in connection with term test 1. In the alternative, 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 advantage in connection with term test 1 contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Charges pertaining to the second course, (the “ECO Course”), are as follows. The Student was charged with knowingly obtaining and or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with two term tests in the ECO Course contrary to s. B.i.1(b). In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) for knowingly representing as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with two term tests in the ECO Course. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic advantage in connection with two ECO Course term tests.
In Fall 2021, the Student enrolled in MAT334. Students in the course were required to write two term tests and prohibited from using or receiving any aids. The Student’s submission for term test 1 was substantially similar to the answers given by a number of other students in the course. The Student’s answers and those of another student had verbatim similarities and non-verbatim conceptual similarities, including the use of an advanced theorem that had not been taught in the course lectures. The answers were correct, but the degree of similarities was striking given the many ways other students in the course answered the questions.
In Fall 2020 and Winter 2021, the Student was enrolled in the ECO course. Students in the Course were required to write four term tests, each administered online. Students were not permitted to collaborate or use aids. The Student’s answers for term test 2 and term test 3 were substantially similar to answers provided by other students in the Course. The Student’s term test 2 answers included striking similarities and in certain instances were virtually identical those of another student. The Student’s term test 3 answers were also strikingly similar and in certain instances virtually identical.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice via email, telephone, and courier. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided according to the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Assistant Discipline Counsel made submissions that where the University leads evidence that a student’s answer is similar to another’s, the Panel should consider the nature of the question, the nature of the similarities, the degree of the similarities, the student’s explanation, and any other relevant factors. Applying this submitted framework to the Student’s charges, the Panel was satisfied that the evidence established that the University proved on a balance of probabilities the facts to support a conviction on the MAT334 and ECO Course charges under s. B.i.1(b).
In determining the sanctions, the Panel considered the University’s submission that given that the Student did not participate in the proceedings, there was no evidence presented regarding character or mitigating circumstances. With respect to the likelihood of repetition of offence, while the Student had no prior offences, she had committed three concurrent offences suggested to the Panel there was a real likelihood of re-offence. With respect to deterrence, the Panel echoed a previous case and posited that there is a strong need to deter others from committing a similar offence as this offence poses a threat to the University’s integrity and reputation. After deliberation, the Panel accepted the University submission on sanctions.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in both courses; a suspension from the University for a period of three years; a notation of the sanction on the Student’s academic record for a period of four years, and a report to the Provost for publication.