DATE:
November 24, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Q.C. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
September 12, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Dr. Vivienne Luk, Faculty Panel Member
Matthaeus Ware, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Marcy Segal, Counsel for the Student, Segal Law Professional Corporation
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The charges against the Student arose out of academic misconduct during two midterm tests. The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining and /or providing authorized assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (“Code”). The Student was also charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code, and an additional two counts for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code.
The Student attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The Student was required to write four-in person term tests for the course in which they were enrolled in Fall 2022. After grading the Student’s first and second term tests, the Professor noticed an unusual improvement in the Student’s grade and answer patterns and suspected that the Student may have used an authorized aid or received unauthorized assistance during the second term test. During the third term test, the Student was found to be wearing concealed earpieces and had their cell phone powered on in their backpack. The earpieces were confiscated by the Professor and photographed. An academic integrity report was subsequently prepared alleging that the Student committed academic offences on the second and third term tests. Subsequently, the Professor met with the Student to discuss the allegations in the academic integrity report. In a second meeting, the Professor and Dean’s Designate met with the Student to further discuss the allegations. During this meeting the Student admitted to using an earpiece to obtain help from another individual on the second and third term test, and that they used a miniature camera to livestream video footage to a tutor who transmitted the answers back to the Student through the earpiece. The Student pled guilty to all of the charges laid by the University. The Student acknowledged that they had signed the ASF freely and voluntarily, and with the advice of counsel.
After deliberation and based on the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to the two charges pertaining to the use of unauthorized aid or assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. Upon this finding of guilt, the University withdrew the remaining four charges under ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The University and the Student submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanction set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that, with respect to the Student’s character, the Student had demonstrated insight into her actions and concluded that there was little to no likelihood of a repetition of the offence. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted that the scheme undertaken by the Student was the product of deliberate planning and subterfuge, and had a commercial element. The Panel further noted that the scheme could be viewed as a attempt to defraud the University and deserving of a harsh sanction to serve as a general deterrent against such surreptitious behaviour. In view of the novelty of the particular scheme employed by the Student, involving a real-time camera and earpieces during a test or exam, the Panel considered the sanctions adopted by other panels in previous cases involving personation. The Panel found that the Student’s lack of prior offences, their early admission of guilt and expressions of remorse, and their decision to obtain legal advice were mitigating factors that, it concluded, made a lesser penalty than expulsion appropriate in the circumstances.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript, and a report to the Provost for publication.