FILE:
Case # 1249 (2022-2023)
DATE:
September 14, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. D.L. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
April 1, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Johanna Braden, Chair
Professor Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member
David Tieu, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one offence under section B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in a midterm test. They were also charged with one offence under section B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in a midterm test. Alternatively, 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 of any kind in connection with the midterm, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
At the hearing, the Student admitted to the charge under section B.i.1(b) of the Code and also agreed that they understood the charge and the nature and effect of their plea. According to the Panel, the evidence contained in the affidavits submitted by the University clearly and thoroughly proved that the Student had collaborated with other students when writing their midterm test, which was expressly prohibited. The evidence revealed that solutions provided by the Student were similar to answers submitted by three other students. By the time of the hearing, the other students involved had admitted to collaborating during the test. The Panel found the Student guilty of contravening section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the second charge (being largely duplicative) and the third charge (being in the alternative).
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the parties’ evidence that the Student had committed two prior academic misconduct offences and their joint submission on penalty. The Panel recognized that the Student had shown some insight and remorse, but it also found it troubling that this was the Student’s third offence. It observed that collaboration on on-line tests can be very hard to detect, and that the Student was only caught because of idiosyncratic errors made by the Student and their friends. By cheating on their test, the Panel noted, the Student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning. It also stated that it is all too easy for students to find new outlets for unauthorized assistance in today’s online world. Students must understand that this kind of misconduct will have serious repercussions, so that they will be dissuaded from the temptation to cheat when they are under pressure and when cheating seems to be the easy way out. According to the Panel, the joint submission was squarely within the range of sanctions imposed in similar cases; it did not bring the administration of justice into disrepute; it was not otherwise contrary to the public interest; it struck a fair balance between the mitigating and aggravating factors; and it was a meaningful but fair sanction.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a notation on the Student's transcript until their graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.