DATE:
April 18, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. L.S. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
January 13, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Karen Symes, Chair
Professor Margaret MacNeill, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. David Allens, 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:
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 she knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an essay. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code on the basis that she knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with an essay. In the alternative to the previous two 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 essay.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Student signed and submitted a request that the Tribunal proceed in her absence and waived her right to any further notice of the proceedings. Furthermore, the Student agreed that she was aware that the Tribunal may find her guilty of academic misconduct and may impose a penalty greater than that set out in the JSP. The Panel noted that pursuant to ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (the “SPPA”), and rule 17 of the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure, where reasonable notice of an oral hearing was given to a party in accordance with the SPPA and the party does not attend at the hearing, the Tribunal may proceed in the absence of the party, and the party is not entitled to any further notice of the proceeding. In light of the joint request of the University and the Student, the Panel exercised its discretion to proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
The ASF outlined that the Professor who taught the course for which the essay in question was submitted noted that the essay contained writing and ideas that were significantly stronger than those typically produced by a second-year undergraduate student. The Student met with the Dean’s Designate and at the meeting she was unable to explain significant portions of her essay. The ASF further outlined that the Student advised the Dean’s Designate that she used a paid essay writing service to rewrite her essay. The Panel noted that the Student admitted in the ASF that she paid an essay writing service to write her essay and that she did no meaningful academic work on the essay and by doing so, she knew or ought to have known she was committing plagiarism and engaging in a form of cheating and academic misconduct. Based on the admissions made by the Student, the ASF and the supporting materials, the Panel concluded that the first charge had been proven with clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probabilities and accepted the guilty plea of the Student. The University withdrew the second and third charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the JSP. The Panel noted that as set out by the Discipline Appeals Board in the University of Toronto and M.A. (Case No. 837, December 22, 2016) at para. 25, a JSP 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. The Panel further noted that, as set out in the Discipline Appeals Board decision in the University of Toronto and S.C., N.R.H. and M.K.K. (Case Nos. 596, 597 and 598, November 23, 2011) at para. 136, “purchased essay offences are about as serious as can be committed in a University setting.” Furthermore, for this type of offence, the Tribunal should approach sentencing with the assumption that “expulsion is the sanction that is best commensurate with the gravity of the offence” (para. 136). However, the Panel noted that whether or not expulsion is appropriate will depend on a number of factors and the particular facts of this case. The Panel considered the factors on determining sanction outlined in the University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that while this was a serious offence, there were also important mitigating factors, such as the Student’s remorse, the admission of guilt, entering into the ASF and JSP, and that this was the Student’s first offence. In light of all the circumstances, the Panel found that the joint submission in this case was neither contrary to the public interest, nor would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute and therefore, accepted the JSP. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course, a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the transcript, and a report to the Provost for publication.