DATE:
July 11, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
March 22, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Cheryl Woodin, Chair
Professor Alexander Koo, 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 the Student knowingly represented as their 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.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code 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 was unrepresented and did not attend the hearing. Prior to the hearing, the Student accepted and requested that the hearing proceed in their absence and executed a Request to Proceed in the Absence of the Student.
The ASF outlined that the professor who taught the course for which the essay in question was submitted was suspicious that the Student had not written the essay themselves. The professor noticed that the vocabulary and language used in the essay was more sophisticated than any other written work the Student has submitted in the course. The ASF further outlined that the Student met with the Dean’s Designate for academic integrity on two occasions. During the first meeting, the Dean’s Designate asked the Student to define and explain several terms from their essay. The Student was unable to do so. The first meeting was adjourned due to technical issues. The Dean’s Designate and the Student met for a second time where the Student could not define certain terms in their essay and the Student stated that they had not carefully read or referenced several sources in the essay. The Student also admitted to purchasing the essay.
The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Student admitted to (1) purchasing the essay for $150.00; (2) doing no meaningful academic work on the essay; (3) knowing that they were representing the ideas of another author, the expression of the ideas of the author, and the work of another author as their own; and (4) engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or academic advantage in connection with the essay. The Panel noted that the Student acknowledged that they signed the ASF freely and voluntarily, knowing of the potential consequences, and did so with the advice of counsel or having waived the right to obtain counsel. On the basis of both the Student’s admissions and the evidence submitted by the University, the Panel was satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Student committed an academic offence as set out in the first charge.
In determining sanction, the Panel reviewed and considered the JSP. The Panel noted that a joint submission should only be disregarded if it would be contrary to public policy or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel considered the seriousness of the offence committed by the Student. The Panel outlined that the seriousness of the offence must be reflected in the penalty and that purchasing academic content should be deterred in the strongest possible terms. The Panel noted that the Student did not have a prior record of offences and ultimately admitted the commission of the offence, and that these mitigating should also be reflected in the penalty. The Panel was satisfied that the University pursued and proposed a penalty which appropriately reflects the University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) factors relevant to sentencing. The Panel found that the proposed penalty was not contrary to public policy, would not bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and appropriately reflected the mitigating factors. The Panel accepted the JSP. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a 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.