DATE:
August 16, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.L. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE:
May 17, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Indira Stewart, Chair
Professor Glen Jones, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Amal Shah, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline 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 with knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in a quiz, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own, an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a quiz, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly 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 other academic advantage, contrary to s. B. i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 1:45PM and the Panel waited until 2:00PM before commencing the hearing to allow the Student some additional time, but the Student did not appear. The Panel received submissions from Assistant Discipline Counsel (“Counsel”) on proceeding in the absence of the Student. Counsel submitted evidence with respect to service of the charges, the Notice of Electronic Hearing, disclosure, and various other communications sent to the Student. The Panel noted that s. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and Rule 17 of the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) outline that a tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party provided that reasonable notice of an oral hearing has been given to the party in accordance with the SPPA, and where a party does not attend the hearing and reasonable notice has been given, a party is not entitled to further notice. The Panel further noted that pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules, a Notice of Hearing may be served on a Student by various means including emailing a copy of the document to the Student’s email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students expressly states that students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and email account in ROSI, and they are expected to monitor and retrieve all mail, including emails, on a frequent and consistent basis. The Panel outlined that the onus of proof is on the University to demonstrate that it provided the Student with reasonable notice of the hearing. The Panel was satisfied that multiple attempts were made to provide notice to the Student, including at the mailing and permanent addresses provided by the Student in ROSI, via the Student’s email address in ROSI, and via telephone. Therefore, the Panel concluded that the Student was given reasonable notice of the hearing in compliance with the notice requirements of the SPPA and the Rules. As such, the Panel proceeded to heat the matter on its merits in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charges under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Professor who taught the course in which the quiz in question was submitted. The Professor’s affidavit was supplemented by oral evidence. The Panel noted that the Professor explained that the Student submitted a quiz worth 10% of their grade. Upon review of all of the quizzes in the course, the Professor noted that a group of fifteen students in the class submitted answers to a particular question that shared suspiciously similar characteristics; the Student was one of those fifteen. The Panel also received affidavit evidence of the former Dean’s Designate which was also supplemented by oral evidence. The Dean’s Designate met with the Student to discuss the allegations of academic dishonesty related to the quiz. In the course of that meeting, the Student denied communication with anyone else during the quiz and stated that the concepts contained within their answer were either taught by the instructor or they found the information on Google while studying for the quiz. Subsequent to the meeting, the then Dean’s Designate listed to the recording of the Professor’s lecture in relation to the question and noted that the shared concepts in the students’ answers were not included in those materials. The Panel outlined that the onus is on the University to establish, on a balance of probabilities, using clear and convincing evidence, that the academic offence charges has been committed by the Student. The Panel reviewed the chart created by the Professor and noted that the similarities were striking. The Panel agreed with the submission of Counsel that it was very unlikely to be a coincidence that multiple students independently came up with answers that included these unique features, none of which were referenced in the course materials. Based on the evidence before it, the Panel found that the University discharged their onus. The Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the charges made in the alternative and in the further alternative.
In determining sanction, the Panel received evidence of a prior conviction against the Student for unauthorized assistance. The Panel considered the factors and principles related to sanction outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel received a chart setting out the range of penalties imposed in previous Tribunal decisions involving similar charges, namely, unauthorized assistance and plagiarism. The Panel felt confident, upon review of the chart, that the penalty proposed by the University was in the appropriate range, given the factors related to sanction as outlined by Counsel, and in particular, given the Student’s prior and related offence. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a 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.