FILE:
Case # 1457 (2023-2024)
DATE:
August 11, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.K.K (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
June 8, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
F. Paul Morrison, Chair
Professor Richard Day, Faculty Panel Member
Giselle Sami Dalili, 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 Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the final exam in AST101H1 (“Course”). In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in the final exam in the Course. In the further alternative, the Student with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic advantage in connection with the Course, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student was enrolled in the Course in Fall 2019. The Student obtained permission to defer their final exam and later wrote the exam in August 2020. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the exam was administered and submitted online. The Student was permitted to consult with the course materials but was required to complete the exam independently, which the course outline emphasized. The instructors, upon reviewing the Student’s submission, determined that the answers the Student had submitted to Question 4(b) and Question 6 were very similar to the answers submitted by another student who had also written the deferred final exam. The degree of similarity was found to be highly suspicious by the Course instructors as the Student and the other student both made the same errors and had similarly structured responses that the question did not request.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice. The Panel concluded that the Student had received actual notice and was aware of the date on which the hearing was to be held. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided.
The Panel considered all the evidence presented at the hearing and specifically noted that the other student involved produced a written formal admission to the offence and noted the close similarities between the answers by the other student and the Student in this case. Based on the evidence presented, the Panel found the Student guilty of unauthorized assistance under s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the University’s submission and relevant authorities. The Panel accepted that general deterrence had been established as an important factor in these cases. The Panel noted that the use of unauthorized sources is unfair to other students and undermines the integrity of the University evaluation process and the honesty that must underlie the teaching and learning relationship.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the courses; a suspension from the University for a period of two years; a notation of the sanction on the Student’s academic record for a period of three years, and a report to the Provost for publication.