DATE:
January 29, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.W. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 11, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
R. Seumas M. Woods, Chair
Professor Vivienne Luk, Faculty Panel Member
Kerman Sekhon, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-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 two counts of knowingly obtaining and/or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with two tests, contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1 of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with two counts of 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 two tests, contrary to sections B.i.3(b) and B.ii.1 of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a legal representative of the Student appeared at the hearing. At the commencement of the hearing, counsel for the University requested an Order that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The Panel considered evidence submitted by the University that the Student had received notice of the charges and the hearing by via email, and that the email account had been accessed after such notice had been delivered. Based on this evidence, the Panel was satisfied that the Student had received reasonable notice of the charges and the hearing, and that the hearing could proceed in the Student’s absence.
The Panel first considered the affidavit evidence of the instructor in the course in which the term tests were submitted. In particular, the Professor deposed that after Test 3 was administered, they were alerted to the fact that individuals had shared screenshots of Test 2 and Test 3 on a social media platform. The Professor identified the posted screenshots had been shared by the Student, and referred the matter to the Chair of the Department of Language Studies at the University of Toronto Mississauga (the “Dean’s Designate”) for further action. The Panel further considered the affidavit evidence of the Dean’s Designate, who met with the Student to discuss the Professor’s concerns regarding the term tests. In particular, the Panel heard evidence that, at this meeting, the Student admitted to sharing answers for the term tests with other students, using a translation aid to complete Test 2, and checking their answers on Test 3 with another student. Based on the evidence submitted by the University, the Panel found the Student guilty of the charges of obtaining and providing unauthorized assistance on two tests.. In light of the Panel’s findings on the two counts under sections B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1 of the Code, the University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered evidence adduced by the University which detailed the Student’s two prior academic offences. The Panel further considered the sanctioning factors set out in the decision of University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case NO. 1976/77-3), namely, the character of the Student, the likelihood of repetition, the nature of the offence, detriment to the University and the need for deterrence. The Panel found the Student’s absence from the hearing, and prior academic offences reflected poorly on the Student’s character, and concluded that there was a real risk of a repeated offence absent a significant sanction. The Panel further noted that providing or obtaining unauthorized assistance is a very serious offence that strikes at the heart of the University’s evaluation process and the University’s core values of honesty and integrity, requiring the imposition of a serious sanction to achieve general deterrence. Finally, the Panel noted that there was no evidence of any extenuating circumstances in this case, particularly given that the Student failed to cooperate fully with the discipline process and to accept responsibility. After considering these sanctioning factors, and similar cases provided by the University, the Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a four-year suspension; and a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and; a report to the Provost for publication.