DATE:
March 7, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.C. and L.F. ("the Students")
HEARING DATE:
December 16, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Simon Clements, Chair
Professor Alexander Koo, Faculty Panel Member
Charles Buck, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Quasi-Judicial Administrative Assistant, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Both Students were charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a midterm exam, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the alternative, they were charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the midterm exam, contrary to section B.i.1(d) 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 midterm exam, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Panel granted the University’s motion for these two matters to be heard together because the matters shared questions of fact, law and/or mixed fact and law in common, involved the same parties, and arose out of the same transaction or occurrence. The Students did not attend the hearing. The University informed the Panel that neither of the Students nor a representative of the Students had responded to the Notice of Electronic Hearing. The University submitted affidavit evidence outlining the various attempts to contact both Students. The Panel discussed the notice requirements under the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (“SPPA”) and the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). Relying on the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students, the SPPA, and the Rules, the Panel found that the University had provided reasonable notice to the Students. The Panel proceeded with the hearing in their absence.
The Panel heard evidence that the Students, who were enrolled in the same course, had provided answers that were virtually identical. Additionally, the Students had both referred to a question number in their midterm when there was no such question on the midterm. According to the Panel, this suggested that the Students had collaborated on their answers. The Panel found the Students guilty of obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining the sanction, the Panel discussed Appendix “C” to the Code, which provides the Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions. Having heard submissions from the University, the Panel indicated that since the Students had not attended before the Panel and had submitted no evidence, there was no evidence of exceptional circumstances that would cause the Panel to depart from the Provost’s guidance. It also noted, among other things, that general deterrence is even more important in cases that arose during the pandemic. The Panel stressed the importance of prosecuting cases of academic dishonesty. It indicated that the University must deter this conduct and not incentivize students to sit out the discipline process, hoping that the University will eventually drop the case. Without prosecuting the case and obtaining a finding of guilt where warranted, there will be no notation on a student’s transcript indicating they have engaged in academic misconduct. That would enable students to further mislead anyone to whom their transcript might be shown in the future.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions on both Students: a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on their transcripts; and a report to the Provost for publication.