DATE:
August 28, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.G. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 25, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Andrew Bernstein, Chair
Professor Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member
Konrad Samsel, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chloe Hendrie, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly having another person personate them in connection with a final examination in a course (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(c) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with one count under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaged 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 the final examination in the Course.
The Student was enrolled in the Course and was required to write a final examination. The Student admitted that they hired and paid another individual to write the exam on their behalf. An individual attended the exam, purported to be the Student, and wrote the exam on his behalf and was caught by an invigilator when they appeared to use a cellphone during the exam. The Student accepted liability for the charge, and as a result, the Provost withdrew the alternative charges. The Panel accepted the Student’s admission and concluded that the Student had violated s. B.i.1(c) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a joint submission on penalty made by the Student and the University. The Panel noted that a joint submission should be rejected only where truly unreasonable and unconscionable. The Panel decided, in light of the Student’s prior history of serious academic misconduct and the seriousness of the current offence, that the proposed sanction was neither unreasonable nor unconscionable.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension; a permanent notation of the offence on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.