DATE:
May 16, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.P. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 13, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Sana Halwani, Chair
Dr. Wendy Rotenberg, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rothstein Rosenberg 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(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that she knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid, or obtained unauthorized assistance in a connection with a test. In the alternative, the Student was 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 or work of another in a test. 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 test.
The Student nor a representative of the Student appeared at the hearing. Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The Panel received affidavit evidence that the Student was served with the Notice of Electronic Hearing to the Student’s email address contained in the University of Toronto Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The Panel also received affidavit evidence that the Student was contacted via their utoronto and gmail accounts, by telephone to the Student’s number listed in ROSI, and by courier to the Student’s mailing and permanent addresses contained in ROSI. The Panel noted that the evidence provided did not go so far as to confirm that the Student received the latest Notice of Hearing, but it was clear from the evidence that the Student was given reasonable notice under the Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). As set out in Rule 17 of the Rules, where a notice of hearing was given in accordance with this rule, and the person does not attend, the panel may proceed in the absence of the person. On this basis, the Panel proceeded with the hearing in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the course coordinator for the course in which the test in question was submitted, and the former Director, Faculty Governance in the Faculty of Arts and Science (“Faculty”) who oversaw the Academic Integrity team (“SAI”). The course coordinator’s affidavit outlined that she and the instructors of the course found that several questions and answers from the test were posted on Chegg.com. The course coordinator reported this to SAI. As part of SAI’s investigation, the Faculty obtained data from Chegg.com that showed that a subscriber with an email address that, as confirmed by the Student Web Services Activity Log (“Activity Log”), was the email address the Student had on record with the University until January 15, 2021 posted three questions to Chegg.com during the test window. The data from Chegg.com also showed that answers to the posted questions were uploaded on the day of the test but only one of the questions was answered during the test period. The Activity Log also showed that the IP address the Student used to log into the Web Services was the same as the IP address of the subscriber who posted the questions to Chegg.com. The course coordinator reached out to the Student to book a meeting via the Student’s gmail account, the same addressed used by the subscriber, and the Student responded from the same email address. The Panel noted that the burden is on the University to prove the charges on a balance of probabilities. Based on the evidence presented at the hearing, the Panel found that it was more likely than not that the Student posted questions and viewed answers on Chegg.com. The Student was found guilt on the first charge. The University withdrew the two alternative charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel was asked to consider the Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions, similar cases, and the factors and principles relevant to sanctions set out by the Tribunal in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that the Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions outlines that the Provost will request that the Tribunal suspend a student for two years for any offence involving academic dishonesty where the student has not committee a prior offence, as it was in the case. However, it also outlines that the Provost will request that the Tribunal recommend that a student be expelled where the student has submitted academic work that was purchased. Counsel argued that this case has a significant aggravating factor due to the use of a commercial service. The Panel noted that the similar cases presented by Counsel varied; however, penalties ranged from two to three years for student without prior offences, penalties where the commercial aspect was not proven tended to be on the lower two-year end, and where a student had prior offences, the penalty tended to be on the higher three-year end of the range. The Panel noted that the commercial aspect was proven, and this is an important consideration for penalty. Regarding the factors relevant to sanction, the Panel noted that the Student had not participated at any stage of the process, and therefore, had not shown any remorse, nor presented any character evidence and did not raised any mitigating or extenuating factors to warrant a more lenient sanction. There was some correspondence from the Student that she was experiencing family issues, mental health issues and hardships related to Covid-19. However, because the Panel did not have any details of the situation, and the University was not able to test those statements because the Student did not attend, the Panel afforded the mitigating factors identified in the email limited weight. However, the Panel did take into consideration the stress caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted that this offence is very serious because there is an element of deliberation and purposeful dishonesty in carrying it out. Regarding the need to deter others, the Panel echoed the sentiments of the Panel in University of T.J. (Case No. 1102, November 5, 2021) “cheating on exams must always be denounced and deterred in order to protect the academic integrity of the University. In today’s online world, it is all too easy for students to find new outlets for unauthorized assistance. Students must understand that this kind of misconduct will have serious repercussions, so that they will be dissuaded from the temptation to cheat when under pressure.” The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course, a three-year suspension, a four year notation on the transcript, and a report to the Provost for publication.