DATE:
June 17, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. C.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 10, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Karen Symes, Chair
Dr. Blake Poland, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Julie Farmer, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
On seven occasions, 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 various reading responses and two essays. 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 various reading responses and two essays.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The ASF outlined that the Professor who taught the course for which the essays and reading responses in question were submitted noted that the Student’s performance was significantly better on a short essay than on her first reading response. Upon review of the student’s reading responses, the Professor found that they did not conform to the assignment requirements and were unrelated to the course readings. The ASF further outlined that the Professor reviewed the document properties for the student’s reading responses and found that the author of the document was not the Student. The Professor searched the named author and discovered that a user by that name had posted about essay writing services on Quora.com. The Professor met with the Student to discuss the alleged misconduct and the Student admitted to purchasing all of the reading responses and essays from an essay writing service. The Student subsequently met with the Dean’s Designate where she admitted she purchased the reading responses and essays for $400.00. The ASF outlined that the Student admitted to purchasing the academic work and that she did not do any meaningful work on any of the reading responses or the essays. Furthermore, the Student admitted that she knew or ought to have known that she was representing the ideas, an expression of ideas, and the work of another author. The Student also admitted that she knew or ought to have known that she was committing plagiarism contrary to s.B.i.1(d) of the Code, and knew or ought to have known she engaged in a form of cheating or academic dishonesty contrary to s.B.i.3(b) of the Code. Based on the admissions made by the Student, the ASF, and the supporting materials, the Panel concluded that all seven charges had been proven with clear and convincing evidence on a balance of probability and accepted the guilty plea of the Student in respect of those charges. The University withdrew the charge made in the alternative.
The Student provided an oral statement to the Panel during the hearing. The Student told the Panel that she felt deep regret for her actions and the loss of her integrity flowing from those actions. The Student outlined that she experienced disruptions to her sleep and appetite after the misconduct and that she feels as though she’s squandered the opportunities given to her as a result of her parents’ sacrifices. The Student assured the Panel that if she were spared from expulsion, she intends to return to the University to “properly earn the prestigiousness that is a University of Toronto degree.” The Panel noted that this statement showed insight into her actions, and it had no doubt as to the sincerity of her remorse and the regret she feels for her actions.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the JSP. The Panel noted that as set out in the Discipline Appeals Board 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, the Tribunal should approach sentencing with the “working assumption that expulsion from the institution is the sanction that is best commensurate with the gravity of the offence” (para.136). However, the Panel noted whether or not expulsion is appropriate will depend on a number of factors and the particular facts of the case. When considering the JSP, the Panel noted that 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 (University of Toronto and M. A. (Case No. 837, December 22, 2016), para. 25). 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 profound regret and remorse, the admission of guilt, entering into the ASF and JSP, and that this was the Student’s first offence. The Student also demonstrated that she understood the gravity of her actions and the damage that such conduct does to the integrity of the education system. The Panel noted that the offences were committed shortly after the COVID-19 pandemic when students and faculty had to pivot to online learning. The Panel found that the COVID-19 pandemic created exceptional circumstances and challenges for students and that the conduct of the Student cannot be examined without placing it in the context of the impact of COVID-19. 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.