DATE:
February 22, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. G.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
January 11, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Alexandra Clark, Chair
Professor Richard Day, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Alena Zelinka, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that she knowingly used or possessed an authorized aid or obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment. The Student was also charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code on the basis that she knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in assignment. In the alternative of each of the forgoing charges, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that she knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with an assignment.
The Panel waited 30 minutes to allow the Student to appear for the hearing. Neither the Student nor a legal representative of the Student appeared. Assistant Discipline Counsel requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel received evidence that this matter had come before a different Panel at an earlier date (“Initial Hearing”). The Panel of the Initial Hearing found that the Student had been properly served with the notice of the Initial Hearing but decided to grant a short adjournment to give the Student one final opportunity to address the allegations. The University provided evidence that subsequent to the Initial Hearing, Assistant Discipline Counsel was in contact with the Student via email who agreed to a Zoom meeting with Assistant Discipline Counsel which she failed to attend. The Student failed to respond to any further communication. The Panel noted that the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students require students to maintain a current and valid postal address and an address for a University-issued email account. Furthermore, students are required to update their records when this information changed, and to monitor and retrieve their mail and email on a frequent and consistent basis. The Panel noted the Student responded to emails that contained the required information concerning the revised hearing date and time. Based on the foregoing, the Panel found that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges in accordance with rules 9, 13, and 14 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and s. 6 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (“SPPA”). The Panel ordered that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student in accordance with rule 17 of the Rules and s. 7 of the SPPA.
Regarding the charges under ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.1(d) of the Code, the Panel admitted affidavit evidence in accordance with rule 61 of the Rules. The Panel noted that the affidavit of one of the Professors that taught the course for which the assignment in question was submitted attached copies of the Student’s assignment and the assignment of another student in the course (the “Other Student”). The Professor’s affidavit outlined that both students used the same words and mathematical expressions in their answer. Furthermore, the Professor outlined that it would be extremely unlikely that the presentation of two solutions would be almost identical and given the number and degree of similarities, it was highly unlikely that the similarities were coincidental. The Panel also considered the affidavit of an Academic Integrity Specialist with the Office of Student Academic Integrity in the Faculty of Arts and Science (“AIS”). The Panel noted that the AIS’ affidavit outlined that she had been assigned to investigate allegations that a number of students has committed academic offences with respect to this assignment, including the Student and the Other Student. The AIS attended a Dean’s meeting for the Other Student where he admitted that he had viewed the answer given on the assignment on Chegg.com. He further admitted that he collaborated with another student in the course in preparing his answers but claimed to not remember the identity of that student. Based on the foregoing evidence, the Panel concluded that the Student had either copied her answer on the assignment from Chegg.com, or she obtained and copied her answer from the Other Student. The Panel found that the University established on a balance of probabilities that the Student obtained unauthorized assistance with the assignment, and also knowingly represented the work of another as her own. The Panel entered a conviction on the first and second charge. The University withdrew the charge made in the alternative.
In determining sanction, the Panel received various authorities dealing with similar offences involving unauthorized assistance and plagiarism. The Panel considered the factors set out in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that there was no evidence of the Student’s character, any possible explanation for the offences or any mitigating circumstances; there was also no evidence of any prior record of academic offence, so the Panel proceeded on the assumption that these were the Student’s first offences. The Panel noted that the authorities outline that a suspension of two to three years, a notation for three to four years, and a mark of zero in the course are generally imposed in similar cases. Based on the foregoing, the Panel was satisfied that the sanctions proposed by the University were proportional to those that have been awarded in similar cases and based its decision on sanction purely on the Tribunal precedents. The Panel reduced the duration of the suspension because a full two-year suspension would prohibit the Student from enrolling in courses in the 2023-2024 academic year and this would have imposed a harsher penalty than the Panel intended. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the course; a 23-month suspension; a three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.