FILE:
Case # 1313 (2022-2023)
DATE:
October 31, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.P. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
August 12, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Michelle Henry, Chair
Professor George Cree, Faculty Panel Member
Karim Wanes, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under section B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an assignment. Alternatively, they were also charged with one count under section B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment. In the further alternative, they were charged for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage in connection with an assignment, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student did not appear at the hearing. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the Student’s absence because it concluded that the Student was given reasonable notice of the hearing in accordance with the notice requirements set out in the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Furthermore, under the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students, students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and a University-issued email account in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). They are expected to monitor and retrieve their mail, including electronic messaging accounts issued to them by the University, frequently and consistently. Affidavits filed by the University revealed that the Student was served with various documents, including the notice of hearing.
The Panel entered a finding of guilt with respect to the charge under section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The affidavit evidence from a professor revealed that the Student had submitted an assignment that was virtually identical to another student’s assignment. The students were required to complete their assignments independently. In the professor’s experience, the degree of similarity between the assignments submitted by both students was highly suspicious, as the chances of two students independently developing such similar solutions were virtually zero. Given the Panel’s finding of guilt, the University withdrew the second and third charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel noted that the student did not have a prior record of academic offences. It considered the serious and deliberate nature of the offence and the detriment to the University. It also highlighted that plagiarism and the use of third-party sources are considered serious offences that strike at the heart of academic integrity. Given the Student had not participated in the hearing, there was no evidence of mitigating or extenuating circumstances. The Panel commented that the University and the Tribunal must send a strong message to other students that such misconduct is considered a serious offence. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student's transcript, and a report to the Provost for publication.