Case 860


November 30, 2016


University of Toronto v. Q.Y. (“the Student”)

Hearing Date(s):

August 23, 2016

Panel Members:

Mr. Andrew Pinto, Barrister and Solicitor, Chair Professor Ato Quayson, Professor of English and Director of the Centre for Diaspora and Transnational Studies, University of Toronto, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Sean McGowan, Student Panel Member


Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Barristers
Ms. Emily Home, Student-at-Law, Paliare Roland Barristers
Mr. Daniel Walker, Counsel for the Student, Bobila Walker Law LLP

In Attendance:

Ms. Q.Y., “the Student”
Professor John Carter, Dean’s Designate for Academic Integrity
Mr. Christopher Lang, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Mr. Sean Lourim, Technology Assistant, Office of the Governing Council
The Student was charged with one offence of use of an unauthorized aid found in s. B.i.1(b) of the Code, or alternatively, academic dishonesty under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charge related to the Student attending and writing a midterm test with a smartphone in her possession during the test contrary to the rules. The Student pled guilty and was found to be guilty of the unauthorized aid charge. The University withdrew the alternative charge of academic dishonesty.
An Agreed Statement of Fact and Joint Submission of Penalty was submitted by the Student and the University agreeing to a final grade of zero in the course, a three and a half-year suspension, a four and a half-year notation on her transcript and a report to the Provost regarding this case. The Student had committed three prior offences. Two had been committed just one month apart, and the third was committed after her meeting with professors with respect to the second charge. Discipline Counsel raised the mitigating circumstance that the Student had been in an abusive relationship with her spouse at the time of the offences. The Panel found that the Joint Submission on Penalty was reasonable in light of other decisions (specifically, University of Toronto v. L.W., Case No. 625, February 13, 2013) and there was no principled reason to reject it.