DATE:
May 22, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. L.H. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
February 20, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Seumas M. Woods, Chair
Professor Marvin Zuker, Faculty Panel Member
Konrad Samsel, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly having another person personate the Student at a final exam, contrary to section B.i.1(c) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with one knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with one count 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 a final exam, contrary to section B.1.3(b) of the Code. Prior to the hearing, the Charges were amended to correct an inconsistency in the dates that the offence occurred. The Student indicated that they were aware of the amendments and the Tribunal concluded that the hearing could proceed on the basis of the amended charges.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and joint book of documents submitted by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed how the Student was enrolled in a full-year course that, among other things, required the student to write a final exam worth 30% of their final grade. During the exam, one of the exam invigilators requested to see the person who was writing the Student’s exam’s TCard, and upon inspection by the Chief Presiding Officer (“CPO”), the CPO concluded that the individual writing the exam did not resemble the individual photographed on the TCard. Another back-up CPO arrived at the same conclusion and asked the individual to exit the exam room. The CPO contacted the Officer of the Registrar at the University for instructions on how to proceed, and two reports documenting the observations of the CPO and back-up CPO were filed. The Student subsequently attended a meeting with the Dean’s Designate to discuss the allegation of personation, and during the meeting, admitted to committing the alleged academic offence by having another individual write the exam in their place. In the ASF, the Student admitted to all of the charges. Based on the facts set out in the ASF, the Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to the personation charge under s. B.i.1(c) of the Code. The University withdrew the other two charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered an Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty (“ASFP”) which included text correspondence between the Student and their parents and a doctor’s letter from a psychological clinic (the “Contested Documents”). The text messages between the Student and their father detailed how the Father had arranged for an individual to the Student’s door to pick up their TCard. The University did not agree to the authenticity or truth of the contents of the Contested Documents and stated that for the Panel to give the Contested Documents any weight, the Student had to testify about them and be cross-examined on that evidence. The Student subsequently testified that their father was unhappy with the Student’s grades, and that the father decided to find someone else to write the final exam. The Panel accepted that the text messages were genuine, and accepted the Student’s evidence that their father pressured them into having someone write the final exam instead of them.
The Panel considered the sanctioning factors set out in the case of University of Toronto v Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/1977-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel acknowledged that the Student had succumbed to pressure placed upon them by their father to allow someone to impersonate them, as well as the fact that the Student had no prior academic offences and concluded that the Student’s character was not a negative factor in this case. The Panel similarly concluded that, based on the evidence, the Student was not likely to re-offend in the future. The Panel found the fact that the Student’s father had devised the impersonation scheme, and that the Student was under a high degree of stress at the time of the offence to be extenuating circumstances. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted that impersonation is a serious offence meriting a severe sanction. The Panel noted that in prior impersonation cases, it could not find any decision where the student received a suspension of less than five years. The Panel further noted that the detriment to the University occasioned by impersonation offences and corresponding need for general deterrence, merited a serious sanction, consistent with those imposed by past Tribunals. Taking each of the Mr. C factors into consideration, the Panel found that the penalty requested by the University was the appropriate sanction in this case.
Accordingly, the Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course, a suspension from the University for a period of four years and eight months; a notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript for a period of five years and eight months; and a report to the Provost.