DATE:
April 5, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.W. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 24, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Harriet Lewis, Chair
Professor Margaret MacNeill, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. David Allens, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, 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:
Mr. Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that he knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code on the basis that he knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that 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 final exam.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 1:45 p.m., the Panel waited fifteen minutes allow for the Student to attend. The Student nor a representative of the Student appeared at the hearing. Assistant Discipline Counsel requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel noted that pursuant to ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and Rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”), if reasonable notice of a hearing has been given to a party and the party does not attend the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party. The University submitted affidavit evidence outlining the numerous attempts made to contact the Student to arrange a hearing date. The affidavit evidence also outlined that the Student agreed to a number of dates but in each case requested adjournments for various reasons. The most recent adjournment request was granted and the next hearing date was marked peremptory on the Student. The University provided further affidavit evidence that outlined that the Student was served with the Notice of Electronic Hearing and notified about the peremptory nature of the next hearing date. The Panel received an affidavit of an Incident Report Architect with the Information Technology Services at the University of Toronto. The Panel noted that his affidavit outlined that the last time someone accessed the email account of the Student was after the Notice of Electronic Hearing was sent to the Student via email. Based on the evidence filed, the Panel determined that the Student was given reasonable notice of the hearing in compliance with the notice requirements of the SPPA and the Rules. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Professor who taught the course for which the final exam in question was submitted. The Professor’s affidavit outlined that following the exam, the instructors and the teaching assistants in the course found a number of questions and answers from the final exam were posted on Chegg.com during the exam period. The Panel noted that the Professor’s affidavit outlined that seven questions and answers from the Student’s exam appeared on Chegg.com, and that there were similarities between the Student’s answers and those posted on Chegg.com. The Professor’s affidavit also noted that given the number and degree of the similarities, it was unlikely that it was coincidental. The Panel also received affidavit evidence of the former Director of Faculty Governance in the Faculty of Arts and Science (“Director”) which outlined that a request to Chegg.com for an investigation was submitted with respect to the exam. In response, Chegg.com provided the details of the “askers” and “viewers.” The Panel noted that attached to the Director’s affidavit was a chart that exhibited that a user from the University of Toronto with the Student’s last name accessed the solutions to the seven questions and answers that appeared on the Student’s exam. Based on all the evidence, the Panel determined that the Student had accessed Chegg.com for the answers during the exam period and used those answers in place of his own. Therefore, the Panel found that the Student was guilty of knowingly representing as his own an idea or work of another contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the charges made in the alternative.
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) as well as recent Tribunal decisions. In considering the current offence, the Panel noted that the Student pled guilty to the same offence on two previous occasions which indicated that he had not learned from those previous experiences. The Panel further noted that the Student chose not to plead guilty in this case, and provided unbelievable explanations for both delaying the hearing and explaining the exam results which the Panel found to be dishonest. Furthermore, the Student did not appear at the hearing despite evidence that he was aware of it taking place. The Panel noted that in the Student’s absence and on the facts before it, it had no basis on which to consider a lesser penalty than that requested by the University. The Panel agreed that because of the Student’s previous offences and the use of a paid services to commit the misconduct, there was a basis for a greater penalty. 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 grades of honest students and devalues the University of Toronto’s degrees. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: final grade of zero in the course; four-year suspension; a notation on transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.