Case #644

DATE: July 11, 2012
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Y.T.


Hearing Date(s): June 19, 2012

Panel Members:
Ms. Lisa Brownstone, Chair
Prof. Markus Bussmann, Faculty Member
Ms. Alice Kim, Student Member


Appearances:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Ms. Mary Phan, DLS for the Student

Dr. Jingsong Ma, Course Instructor

Ms. Trelani (Milburn) Chapman, Invigilator

In Attendance:
Mr. Y.T., the Student
Prof. Eleanor Irwin, Dean's Designate

Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aids – possessed unauthorized notes during the exam – whether the invigilator identified the correct student – University must prove on a balance of probabilities – invigilator walked away from the student and “returned” later to write down his name – Student did not engage and had his head down – discrepancy between the testimony of the invigilator and that of the instructor – neither the invigilator or the instructor could identify the Student with certainty – University failed to meet the burden – Student found not guilty

Student charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student possessed unauthorized notes during his exam. The Student pleaded not guilty. The point of dispute was whether the invigilator identified the right student. The University had to prove on a balance of probabilities that the Student was in fact the person who was found to possess the unauthorized aids. When the invigilator found that one of the students in the exam room possessed unauthorized notes, she confiscated the notes but did not write down the student’s name. Instead, she went to the professor to ask for the next course of action and then “returned” to the person, the Student, who she thought was found to possess the notes. When the invigilator was writing down his name, the Student did not engage by speaking to her or asking questions; he claimed that he was focused only on writing his exam. The Panel stated that because the invigilator did not check the student’s identification at the time she took the aid, she had to be certain that she was going back to the same student when she walked away from him. There was a discrepancy between the testimony of the course instructor and the testimony of the invigilator. Also, neither the instructor nor the invigilator could identify the Student with certainty. Finally, the Panel stated that after the invigilator’s testimony that the Student had his head down with eyes downcast, it could not conclude with certainty that it was more likely than not that the Student was the correct student. The Panel held that the University had not met the burden of proving that it was more likely than not he was the correct student. The Panel found the Student not guilty of the charges.