FILE:
Case # 1285 (2022-2023)
DATE:
December 5, 2022 via Zoom
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.X. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
July 12, 2022, and August 24, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Seumas Ross, Faculty Panel Member
Giselle Dalili, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
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 or work of another in a problem set, which they submitted in a math course, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative, they were also charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with that problem set, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, they were also 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 order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with the problem set, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student was neither present nor represented at the hearing. Given the University’s evidence, the Panel found that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”), rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”), and the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students. The hearing commenced in the Student’s absence. On the first hearing date, the Panel adjourned the hearing and issued an interim order to allow the University the opportunity to provide additional evidence regarding the allegations against the Student. The matter reconvened on a second date in the Student’s absence
In reviewing the Student’s answer to a question of the problem set, the course instructors determined that the Student’s answer was similar to the answer that the instructors had already found on Chegg.com. The evidence before the Panel included a side-by-side comparison of the Student’s answer and the answer posted on Chegg.com. Errors in the Student’s answer were similar to errors in the Chegg answers. The University argued that those errors were unusual and unlikely to be coincidental. The Panel heard evidence that most students who had submitted “additional Chegg answers” had admitted to receiving unauthorized assistance. The Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. It stated that it is not for the Panel to imagine if some other possible explanation exists and that it must determine if it is more likely than not that the similarities arose because of unauthorized assistance. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
With respect to sanction, the Panel considered submissions by the University. For example, the University submitted that the Student had not provided evidence regarding extenuating circumstances. It also argued that plagiarism is a serious offence that strikes at the heart of academic integrity, and that the Panel ought to consider the commercial nature of Chegg.com as an aggravating factor in penalty. The Panel observed that since the Student did not participate in the hearing, they had therefore chosen to forgo their opportunity to provide evidence on mitigation for penalty. The Panel noted that the Student had attempted to withdraw from their courses and observed that the outcome might have been different if the Student had participated and provided an explanation. The Panel observed that the penalty sought by the University was not at the high end of the range, and, in light of the surrounding circumstances, appropriately so.
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 with the Student’s name withheld.