FILE:
Case # 1277 (2021-2022)
DATE:
June 9, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
March 8, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Mr. Andrew Bernstein, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Madison Kerr, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (“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 assignment and a final exam. In the alternative, the Student was charged with two counts 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 in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with an assignment and a final exam.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student appeared at the hearing. The University requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student pursuant to rule 17 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) and s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”). The Panel noted that rule 17 and s. 7 require that the University provide the Student with adequate notice of the hearing before the Panel can proceed in the Student’s absence. These provisions require that the University establish that it took reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing. The University provided evidence that the Student was served with the notice of hearing at their email address listed in the University’s Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University provided further affidavit evidence outlining that the last time the Student’s email account was accessed was in October of 2021. The Panel noted that the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students requires students enrolled at the University to maintain a current and valid postal address and an address for a University-issued email account in their ROSI records, to update their records when this information changes, and to monitor and retrieve their mail and email on a frequent and consistent basis. The University provided evidence that it attempted to contact the Student via telephone to the number listed in ROSI, and sent a courier package inclusive of a copy of the notice of hearing to the Student’s ROSI-listed address. The Student had not responded to any of the efforts to contact them. The Panel found that the notice was properly provided in accordance with the Rules and therefore, ordered the hearing to proceed in the Student’s absence.
Regarding the two charges under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code, the Panel noted that the affidavit of Professor Bunce included a comparison between the Student’s assignment and other sources. The Panel noted that it was clear from this comparison that the Student copied many of the sentences, and paraphrased others without citation. Regarding the Student’s final exam, the Panel noted that the exam was open book, but the students were not allowed to directly copy sources, instead they were paraphrase. Upon review of the final exam, the Panel noted that the Student’s answer to question 2 on the final exam contained passages that were extensively copied from an article without citation. Upon review of the assignment, the final exam, and the articles, the Panel concluded that on a balance of probabilities, the Student knowingly represented their own idea or expression of an idea of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors set out in the decision University of Toronto and Mr. C. factors (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) and similar decisions of the Tribunal. The Panel ordered the penalty requested by the University; however, the Panel adjusted the penalty to begin on January 1, 2022. The Panel noted that the reason for the adjustment to the start date of the penalty was because there appeared to be a substantial delay between the incident itself and the scheduling of the hearing, and to ensure consistency with the effective lengths of the suspensions. The Panel further noted that the University has a lot of control over when academic discipline matters come to a hearing and there is nothing wrong with that, or with counsel setting a date that is convenient to them. However, counsel’s convenience should not be permitted to have an adverse impact on when the student may re-enroll after a suspension. The Panel relied on the following Tribunal decisions: University of Toronto and X.Y. (Case No. 1147), University of Toronto and G.L. (Case No. 1262), and University of Toronto and S.K. (Case No. 1063) in adjusting the start date of the penalty. 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.