FILE:
Case # 1388 (2022-2023)
DATE:
March 6, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.M. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
December 7, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Blake Poland, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative, they were also charged with knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was 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 was neither present nor represented at the hearing. The University filed evidence regarding service and attempts to contact the Student. The Panel noted that the University is not required to provide actual notice. Based on the evidence, it 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 and rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. The hearing proceeded in the Student’s absence.
The Panel received evidence that the Student had collaborated with at least one of three other students, two of whom had admitted to academic misconduct concerning the assignment. It considered side-by-side comparisons of the Student’s and the other students’ assignments. Based on the evidence, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel observed that the outcome may have been different had the Student participated and provided an explanation. It also held that several factors weighed in favour of a severe penalty, including the seriousness of the offence, the detriment caused to the University by the offence, and the need to deter others from committing similar offences.
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.