FILE:
Case #1471 (2023-2024)
DATE:
October 4, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v A.L. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
June 16, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Alex Koo, Faculty Panel Member
Garrick Burron, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sanghyun Park, Summer Student, 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 three counts of knowingly using or possessing unauthorized aid(s) or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam in two courses, and an assignment in another course, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (“Code”). In the alternative, the Student was also charged with three counts of knowingly representing as their own, an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a final exam in two course, and an assignment in another course, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with three 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 in connection with two exams and an assignment, contrary to s. B. i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The University filed evidence outlining their attempts to serve and contact the Student. Various documents, including the Notice of Electronic Hearing, were sent to the Student via their utoronto email address. The University attempted to reach the Student via telephone at the two telephone numbers listed in ROSI but the person that answered both numbers indicated that they were not the Student and did not know anyone by the Student’s name. The Panel also received evidence that the last time someone accessed the Student’s email address was in December of 2022. The Panel noted that s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and rule 21 of the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) outline that the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a student where reasonable notice was given. Furthermore, when proceeding in the absence of a student, the University must demonstrate it took reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing. The Panel further noted that pursuant to rule 13 of the Rules, a Notice of Hearing may be served on a Student by various means including emailing a copy of the document to the Student’s email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The Panel found that the University complied with the SPPA and the Rules and demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing. The Panel determined it would proceed to hear the matter on its merits in the absence of the Student.
At the outset of the hearing, the University advised the Panel that they were withdrawing one count of each of the charges in relation to the final exam in one of the courses. The Panel did not hear any evidence with respect to those charges. Regarding the charges stemming from a final exam in the other course, the Professor found that the answer to a similar question was posted on a website called “Slader.com,” a website that “verify solutions and answer when students have questions.” The Panel received evidence that the answer on Slader.com contained striking and unusual similarities to the Student’s answer to one of the questions on their exam. The Panel also received evidence from the department’s representative for academic integrity who outlined that he met with the Student online in 2021 and the Student admitted to having a second monitor during the final exam and was part of a group chat where they received screen shots of answers from the final exam. Regarding the charges related to the assignment in the third course, the Panel received evidence that the Student submitted an assignment which contained the answer to a question that was from an assignment in a different section of the same course. The Panel considered the Professor’s evidence that the Student’s answers to the assignment were similar answers to those of another student in a different section of the same course. Furthermore, their answers used the same words in the same order, the same punctuation, the same structure, and tables. Based on the evidence before it, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code and one count of knowingly representing as their own, an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an assignment, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges made in the alternative.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors and principles related to sanction outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Student did not participate in the hearing, and therefore chose to forgo their opportunity to provide evidence on mitigation. Furthermore, the Panel had no evidence before it to explain their actions, nor did the Panel have any information regarding what, if any, sanctions the other individuals in the group chat received or the other student whose assignment was similar. The Panel noted that there were several factors that weighed in favour of a severe penalty, including the seriousness of the offence, the fact that the Student engaged in misconduct while they were already under investigation for a separate allegation of misconduct, the detriment to the University, and the need to deter others from committing similar offences. The Panel was concerned about the length of time it took to prosecute this case. The University argued that even with the delay, the time sought for suspension and transcript notation was appropriate since in exceptional circumstances a penalty can be back dated but as outlined in The University of Toronto and D.S. (Case No. 451, August 24, 2007), a “principled reasons must be given for doing so; to do otherwise would result in a wide disparity amount sanctions.” The Panel found that since the Student did not participate in the hearing, it had no evidence on which it could find a principled reason to depart from the general rule. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the two courses; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.