DATE:
November 3, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. B.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 28, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dean F. Embry, Chair
Professor Ian Crandall, Faculty Panel Member
Brinda Batra, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Mr. William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with respect to academic offences in two separate courses. With respect to the first course (the “ECO course”), the Student was charged with two counts of 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 with two counts 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.
With respect to the second course (the “MAT course”), the Student was charged with one count of knowingly representing as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another on a final assessment, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized assistance in connection with a final assessment.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made concerted efforts to serve the Student with notice of the hearing to the Student’s email address, as listed in ROSI. The Panel found that the Student was provide with reasonable notice and proper service as contemplated by rules 17 and 21 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the students. With respect to the charge stemming from the MAT Course, the Panel granted the University’s motion to hear the merits of the proceedings against the Student alongside those of another student, enrolled in the same course, charged with the same academic misconduct, contrary to ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code.
With respect to the MAT Course, the University provided evidence that the Student’s answer shared several similarities to answers posted to Chegg.com, including non-standard notation and similar mistakes. The Panel found that this evidence demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Student copied the answers found on Chegg.com, though it did not find that either student had posted the questions on Chegg. Accordingly, the Panel found the student guilty of one count of using authorized assistance, contrary to B.i.1(b) of the Code in relation to the final assessment.
With respect to the ECO Course, the Panel received affidavit evidence from the course Professor. The Professor deposed, among other things, that students enrolled in the course were required to write four term tests, and the syllabus made it clear that students were prohibited from collaborating on term tests. The term tests were administered online. After the second and third term test were administered, a teaching assistant in the course raised concerns that the Student’s answers on each of these two tests were similar to the answers given by other students enrolled in the ECO Course. The Panel concluded that the similarities between the answers of the Student and other students on these term tests demonstrated that the Student had collaborated with other students in producing their answers. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of two additional counts of using unauthorized assistance, contrary to B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered several relevant sanctioning factors. First, the Panel considered the nature of the offence, and concluded that the use of unauthorized aids during test and assessments is a serious offence that strikes at the core of the academic process. The Panel also considered, as a minor aggravating factor, that the offence had a commercial aspect insofar as the Student had relied upon answers posted to Chegg.com – a subscription-based, commercial website. The Student’s absence from the hearing left the Panel with no evidence or mitigating factors to consider. Finally, the Panel considered the Student’s prior history of academic misconduct and observed that the fact that the Student had previously been found guilty of using an unauthorized aid in a prior academic year was strong evidence of a real risk of a future re-offence. Accordingly, given each of these aggravating factors and the absence of any mitigating factors, the Panel concluded that the sanctions proposed by the University were appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in both courses; a suspension from the University for a period of four 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.