FILE:
Case # 1223 (2022-2023)
DATE:
October 18, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. P.F. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
July 20, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Simon Clements, Chair
Professor Gabriele D'Eleuterio, Faculty Panel Member
Dylan Dingwell, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Not in attendance:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with three counts of misconduct under section B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with two final exams and one assignment. Alternatively, they were charged with three counts of misconduct 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 the final exams and an assignment. In the further alternative, they were charged under section B.i.3(b) of the Code with three counts of 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 the exams and assignment.
The Student did not attend the hearing, nor were they represented. The University established that numerous attempts were made to provide the Student with notice. The Panel concluded that the Student was given reasonable notice of the hearing in compliance with the requirements of sections 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, as well as the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students. The Panel proceeded to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
The Panel found the Student guilty of committing both offences under section B.i.1(b) of the Code in relation to the exams and the offence under section B.i.1(d) of the Code regarding the assignment. Regarding the exams, the Panel considered evidence establishing that the Student had used Chegg.com and that several questions and answers had been posted on Chegg.com during the exam. The University requested that Chegg conduct an investigation, which revealed similarities between the Student’s answers and the Chegg.com answers. The Panel commented that inference could be drawn from the Chegg data that during one of the exams the Student had obtained unauthorized assistance from posts made on Chegg.com. The Panel was also persuaded that the Student had obtained unauthorized assistance from an answer on Chegg.com to complete the exam, given the Student’s admission to the Dean that they had posted the questions and viewed answers on Chegg.com. As for the assignment, the University established that a software program called Measure of Software Similarity (“Moss”) had detected substantial similarities between the Student's code and the code submitted by another student who had taken the course the previous year. According to the reviewing professor, it was highly unlikely that the similarities between the assignments were coincidental. The Student had also signed an admission form in which they admitted they were guilty of plagiarism. The Panel found the Student guilty of plagiarism based on this admission.
Regarding sanction, the Panel noted that there was a serious risk that the Student would offend again; that the Student had committed a prior academic offence; and that the Student’s conduct following the meeting with the Dean’s Designate after their first academic offence demonstrated an escalation of the dishonesty that the Student was prepared to engage in. Further, the Panel observed that two of the offences were committed in the early months of the pandemic, which was an extenuating circumstance, and that the Student had exploited unique circumstances brought about by the pandemic to gain an advantage. The Panel also noted that in today’s online world, it is easy for students to find new ways to access unauthorized assistance, and so any sanction must denounce cheating on tests and deter others in order to protect the academic integrity of the University. It also commented that Students must understand that this kind of misconduct will have serious repercussions so that they will be dissuaded from the temptation to consider cheating.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the courses; a four-year suspension; a notation on the Student's transcript until their graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.