FILE:
Case # 1475 (2023-2024)
DATE:
July 17, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.Z. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
May 16, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexandra Clark, Chair
Professor Faye Mishna, Faculty Panel Member
Jennifer Chen, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chew Chang, Representative for the Student, Chang Legal and Notary Public
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly having someone impersonate the Student at the final exam in MGAB03H3 (the “Course”) contrary to s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.ii.2 of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.ii.2 of the Code for obtaining unauthorized assistance in relation to the final exam in the Course. In the further alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) for 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 advantage in relation to the final exam in the Course.
The Student attended the hearing and was represented by counsel. The Student and Assistant Discipline Counsel tendered an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Book of Documents (“Joint Book”). According to the ASF, the Student has been enrolled at the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus since Fall 2019. In the Fall 2020 term, the Student was enrolled in the Course. The Course syllabus emphasized the importance of academic integrity. Students were informed that examinations would be online due to the COVID-19 pandemic and informed that receiving help or using answers from someone else was a violation of the Code.
While the exam was in progress, the Course Professor received an email from an individual identifying herself as Jennifer. Jennifer informed the Professor that she had been paid by a tutoring company to write the exam for the Student. Jennifer had the Student’s login credentials. Jennifer explained to the Professor through email correspondence that the tutoring company allowed students to pay for exam writing services. Jennifer had been engaged to write two final exams for the Student for two different courses but ultimately was only engaged to write the final exam for the Course in this case.
In June 2021 the Student met with the Dean’s Designate over Zoom to discuss the allegations of academic misconduct. The Student initially stated she had written the exam on her own but later in the meeting admitted to having paid someone to write it for her. The Student explained she was under pressure from her parents to succeed and was concerned about failing the Course. The Student said she had found the tutoring company through an online advertisement and did not have information about who had been selected to write her exam. The Student admitted to committing an academic offence by paying for someone to write the exam for her.
The Panel considered the evidence and found the Student guilty of knowingly having someone impersonate the Student at the final exam contrary to s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.ii.2 of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the sanction, the Panel considered previous cases involving paying for someone to impersonate a student. The Panel found that the University’s penalty submission was proportional to prior cases. The Student’s counsel pointed out that the Student was very remorseful and had admitted guilt early in the process. The Student’s counsel proposed that the Student should receive a four year rather than a five-year suspension due to the Student’s almost two-year wait for a hearing and the stress the wait caused. The Panel rejected the Student’s counsel’s request because the Student had been continuously enrolled in the University and had completed all of the courses required to complete her program. The Panel also found that while the wait was undoubtedly stressful for the Student, the gravity of the offence made the five-year suspension necessary to meet the goals of both specific and general deterrence.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the Course; a suspension from the University for a period of five years from the date of the Tribunal’s order; a corresponding notation on the Student’s transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.