FILE:
Case #1489 (2023-2024)
DATE:
October 13, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v Y.C. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
July 11, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor George Cree, Faculty Panel Member
Farhana Islam, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Afsheen Chowdhury, Summer Student, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Not in Attendance:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). 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 credit or other academic advantage, contrary to s. B. i.3(b) of the Code. The Panel was informed at the outset of the hearing that the University would withdraw the charge made in the alternative if a finding of guilt was made on the main allegation.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 5:15 p.m. The Panel waited until 5:30 p.m. to afford the Student an opportunity to appear. Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The University requested that the Panel proceed in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that pursuant to ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act (“SPPA”) and rules 17 and 21 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), a Tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party provided that reasonable notice of a hearing has been given to the party in accordance with the SPPA and the Rules. The Panel further noted that pursuant to rule 13, a notice of hearing may be served by various means, including by sending a copy by email to the student’s email address contained in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University filed affidavit evidence outlining numerous attempts by the University to contact the Student. The Panel noted that the affidavit evidence outlined that the University had attempted to call the Student on their telephone numbers, sent emails to the Student’s email address as recorded in ROSI, and couriered a package to the Student’s mailing address in ROSI. The Panel noted that it was important to outline that the Student signed a form acknowledging possession of an unauthorized aid and, shortly thereafter, the Student ordered an e-transcript from the University. The Panel noted that the execution of the form and prompt ordering of the e-transcript suggested that the Student was aware of the potential that there would be some review of their conduct. Based on the evidence, the Panel was satisfied that the Student received the Notice of Hearing, and that reasonable notice has been provided in accordance with the Rules and the SPPA. Therefore, in accordance with s. 7(3) of the SPPA, the Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
The Panel received evidence from the Chief Presiding Officer (“CPO”) that was invigilating the final exam in question. The CPO outlined in their affidavit that the students writing this exam were required to turn off and leave all cell phones, electronic devices, and unauthorized study materials in a bag under their desk. While invigilating this exam, the CPO noticed that the Student was hunched over with his arm covering pages of the exam. The CPO attended the Student’s desk and asked them to remove some items from their desk and as the Student was moving their belongings, the CPO noted that the Student had an iPhone and it was open to an application that looked like a scientific calculator. The CPO confiscated the iPhone and advised the Student to pick up the iPhone at the completion of the exam. In order to have the iPhone returned, the Student had to sign a form acknowledging possession of an unauthorized aid. The Panel did not place any weight on the Student’s executed form because there may have been reasons why they signed the form even if they did not agree with its contents. The Panel accepted the evidence of the CPO that they observed the Student using an iPhone during the exam and found that the Student knowingly possessed an unauthorized aid, contrary to s. B.i.1(b). The University withdrew the charge made in the alternative.
In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Panel received evidence that the Student had committed two prior academic offences, both related to the use of an unauthorized aids (cell phone) during an exam. The Panel considered the factors set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel noted that the only evidence related to the Student’s character was the evidence related to this offence and their previous offences. The Panel also considered the likelihood of a repetition of the offence and was very concerned that this was not an isolated incident as the Student had committed the very same type of misconduct on two separate occasions despite written warnings and meetings. The Panel noted the nature of the offence specifically highlighting that the Student’s actions were consistent with a plan to hide the use of the cell phone. Furthermore, the use of unauthorized aids undermines the integrity that the broader community puts in the University. The Panel also considered the need to deter others from committing a similar offence and noted that it is appropriate to send a strong message to students that this type of misconduct will be treated seriously. The Panel noted that the determination of an appropriate penalty depends on the assessment of these principles and factors in light of the individual circumstances. Furthermore, there should be general consistency in the approach by a Panel to sanction, so students are treated fairly and equitably. In reviewing this case, the Panel noted that expulsion would typically be available. The Panel was troubled by the fact that the Student had engaged in the exact same form of academic misconduct on three occasions, therefore a clear warning needed to be sent that this type of misconduct will not be tolerated. However, the Panel noted that there was not the same level of deceit as apparent in the authorities put before it by the University. Furthermore, the Student’s last suspension was only for four months, which, in the Panel’s view, demonstrated leniency by the University for which expulsion would be a departure. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that a suspension from the University for five years would be appropriate. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a notation on the Student’s transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.