DATE:
March 7, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.W. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
December 16, 2021, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Harriet Lewis, Chair
Dr. Pascal van Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Amal Shah, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline 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 ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.3(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that he knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or aids, or obtained unauthorized assistance in a test and, he 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 a test.
Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) advised the Panel that the Student, nor a legal representative for the Student had responded to the Notice of Electronic Hearing. Counsel requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that the charges were served via email to the Student at his University of Toronto email address as outlined in the University of Toronto Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). Counsel provided evidence that the Notice of Electronic Hearing was served at the Student’s email address as outlined in ROSI and that her assistant attempted to contact the Student via the telephone numbers the Student provided on two occasions. On the first occasion, the operator outlined that the number was “not assigned.” On the second occasion, the assistant attempted to call a second phone number provided by the Student at which time she received a voicemail box which contained information which identified the Student; the assistant left a detailed message advising of the upcoming hearing date and asked the Student to check his University of Toronto email address. Both the notice and the calls went unanswered. The Student nor a legal representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The Panel noted that pursuant to rule 17 of the University’s Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, if a notice of hearing has been given in accordance with the Rules, and that party does not attend or participate in the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of that party. Furthermore, pursuant to rule 9, a notice of hearing may be served on a student by various means, including sending a copy of the document via email to the Student’s email address in ROSI. The University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students provides that students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and email account in ROSI. Students are expected to monitor and retrieve all mail, including emails, on a frequent and consistent basis. Based on the totality of the evidence on notice, the Panel concluded that the Student was given reasonable notice of the hearing in accordance with the notice requirements. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student, and the hearing proceeded on the basis that the Student denied the charges made against him.
Regarding the charges under ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.3(b) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Dean’s Designate for Academic Integrity in the Faculty of Arts and Science. In additional to her affidavit, the Dean’s Designate referred to an affidavit of the Professor who taught the course for which the test in question was submitted. The Panel noted that the Professor’s affidavit outlined that there were two versions of the test and the Student’s answers to three questions corresponded with the answers of the alternate version of the test and not the version he received. The Dean’s Designate testified that at her meeting the Student, he attempted to offer explanations for each of the answers. The Dean’s Designate did not find the explanations convincing or satisfactory in light of the evidence provided by the Professor. Upon review of the evidence, the Panel determined that the University had established that it was more likely than not that the Student received unauthorized assistance during the test from an individual or individuals who were writing the alternate version of the test. Therefore, the Panel found the Student guilty of using an unauthorized aid or aids during the test and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance to complete the test, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the second charge under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors for determining an appropriate sanction as outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In considering the current offence, the Panel noted that the Student’s previous admission of guilt to the same offence was an indication that he had not learned from the previous offence. The Panel further noted that the Student chose not to plead guilty in this case, and provided unbelievable explanations for his behaviour which the Panel found to be dishonest. Furthermore, the Student did not appear at the hearing despite being notified of the hearing date. The Panel noted that in the Student’s absence and on the facts before it, there was no basis on which to consider a lesser penalty than that requested by Counsel and previously imposed in similar circumstances. The Panel outlined that using unauthorized aids is cheating and allowing cheating to go unsanctioned is unfair to students who abide by and follow the rules and regulations. Furthermore, if not sanctioned, cheating undermines the value of the University of Toronto’s degrees. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the course; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.