DATE:
December 19, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
September 28, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dena Varah, Chair
Professor George Cree, Faculty Panel Member
Dylan Dingwell, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining and/or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment they submitted in a course, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. They were also charged with one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. Alternatively, they were charged with 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 assignment, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student did not attend the hearing. The University submitted evidence relating to the various attempts made to notify the Student of the hearing. The Panel noted that based on the extensive attempted correspondence with the Student at the email address and telephone number that the Student had provided in ROSI, it was satisfied that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing date pursuant to the Statutory Power and Procedures Act and the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charge under section B.i.1(b) of the Code, the Panel held that the evidence established without question that there were highly unusual similarities between the assignment submitted by the Student and the assignment submitted by another student. The course professor had provided evidence that most of the 300 lines of code submitted were highly and unusually similar and included matters that were not discussed in the course. According to the Panel, these two things in combination made it extremely unlikely that the similarities were due to chance and that it was far more likely that, in contravention of the Code, the students had shared their work and produced similar assignments. Regarding the charge under section B.i.1(d) of the Code, the Panel accepted the admission by another student that they had shared a screenshot of their work with others. It was, therefore, more likely than not that they had shared the work with the Student who had then used it, representing it as their own. According to the Panel, the evidence on this point was not perfect, nor was it tested. It noted that the question was merely whether on a preponderance of the evidence it was satisfied that this was the more likely flow of assistance. As a result of the Panel’s findings, the University withdrew the alternative charge under B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Panel commented that although Appendix C to the Code is not binding on the Panel, it provides the expectation for students and consistency in penalties sought. It stated that the nature of the offences and their impact on the University required a significant penalty. It also indicated that plagiarism and unauthorized assistance undermine the very foundation of academic integrity and result in a profound unfairness to students who work diligently and independently to earn their credits. If left unchecked, these offences can undermine the credibility of the institution and the degrees it confers. The Panel held that students cannot claim ignorance because the University delivered the message of its expectations and the seriousness of the offence repeatedly and clearly. Finally, the Panel added that given the notice provided by the Code, the Student could not expect a different penalty in the circumstances.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a notation for two years and eight months on the Student's transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.