FILE:
Case # 1093 (2022-2023)
DATE:
November 30, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.Y. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
August 16, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dean Embry, Chair
Professor Georges Farhat, Faculty Panel Member
Serena Ju, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. They were also charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the assignment, contrary to section B.i.1 (b) of the Code. In the alternative, they were charged with one count of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in connection with the assignment that they submitted in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in a course, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Panel received the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”), containing agreed-upon facts regarding procedural issues, the Student’s academic history, and details regarding a related matter. The Student submitted their assignment, and Turnitin flagged another student’s assignment as 39% similar to the Student’s assignment. When invited to do so, the Student did not attend a scheduled meeting with the professor to discuss the professor’s concerns. The Student eventually admitted that they had knowingly purchased unauthorized assistance for the entirety of their assignment from an individual who provided an essay writing service. They also admitted that in paying a third party to write their assignment, they had knowingly committed the offences set out in sections B.i.1(d), B.i.1(b) and B.i.3(b) of the Code. As a result, the Panel found that there were grounds to make a finding of guilt in relation to all three counts, but pursuant to the parties’ joint submission, it only found the Student guilty of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the parties’ Executed Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) and the cases presented by the University. At the hearing, during their submissions on penalty, the Student outlined their personal circumstances and initially made a plea for further leniency from the Panel. They were reminded that although they were free to resile from the joint position on penalty, doing so would entitle the Provost to revisit their position on penalty, which could result in a request for and possible imposition of a higher penalty. The Student then clarified that they wished to maintain the joint position on penalty. The Panel found that the Student’s request for a more lenient penalty was simply the expression of a student in a difficult situation and not a genuine attempt to resile from the joint submissions. The Panel noted that while the offence in question was serious, the Student’s participation in the process, including entering into an ASF and JSP, was a mitigating factor. The fact that this was the Student’s first offence was a further factor that mitigated penalty. Given the circumstances, the Panel found that the JSP was appropriate and adopted it.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a four-year suspension; a five-year notation on the Student's transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld.