DATE:
April 12, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Q.Z. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
January 7, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. F. Paul Morrison, Chair
Professor Richard DiFrancesco, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Serena Ju, 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. Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, 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 she knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an assignment. In the alternative, 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 hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”). The ASF outlined that the Professor who taught the course for which the assignment in question was submitted discovered that there were significant similarities between the Student’s assignment and the assignment that another student in the course. The Professor expected some overlap between assignments, however, given the number and the degree of similarities between the assignments, it was highly unlikely that the similarities were coincidental. The Professor met with the Student at which time she admitted that a third party wrote the assignment. The ASF further outlined that the Student admitted to the Dean’s Designate that she paid a third party agency, EZ4, to complete her assignment. Furthermore, she admitted that a tutor from EZ4 completed the assignment during a videoconference via screen share, and that she copied the tutor’s answer. The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Student admitted to purchasing the assignment from EZ4 and did not complete any meaningful academic work on the assignment. In consideration of the ASF, the supporting documents, and the Student’s admissions, the Panel accepted the guilty plea with respect to the first charge and entered a conviction thereon. The University withdrew the second charge.
The Panel received a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel noted that the authorities establish that a joint submission may be rejected by a panel only in circumstances where to give effect to it would be contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. In a University setting, this means that the joint submission must be measured against the understood and entrenched set of values and behaviours, which members of the University community are expected to uphold. Only if a joint submission is fundamentally offensive to these values may it be rejected. The Panel considered the factors and principles relevant to sanction and in doing so, the Panel found that the JSP was reasonable and appropriate. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course, suspension for just over 55 months; a six-year notation on the transcript, and a report to the Provost for publication.