FILE:
Case # 1363 (2023-2024)
DATE:
September 8, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. V.M. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
June 7, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Douglas F. Harrison, Chair
Dr. Blake Poland, Faculty Panel Member
Jessica Johnson, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joe Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under section B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a term test. They were also charged in the alternative for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code.
The Student did not attend the hearing. Relying on section 6 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. S.22 (“SPPA”), rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and the University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students, the Panel found that the University had complied with its obligations to provide reasonable notice of the charges and the hearing to the Student by delivering all its letters and notices to the Student via the Student’s email address in ROSI. The Panel also found that the University went beyond what was required by trying to telephone the Student and leaving voicemail messages. The Panel ordered that the hearing proceed in the Student’s absence, as permitted by section 7(3) of the SPPA and rule 21 of the Rules.
The Panel received evidence establishing that the Student’s professor had prepared multiple versions of the term test at issue to prevent students from collaborating with each other. These versions were assigned randomly to students. The evidence showed that the Student had received version 4 of question 2, but their answer corresponded with version 5. The Panel found that, on a balance of probabilities, the Student had violated the Code by collaborating with someone who had received version 5, or by somehow improperly accessing answers to version 5. It found the Student guilty of obtaining unauthorized assistance. The University withdrew the alternative charge.
In imposing the sanction, the Panel indicated that the onus was on the Student to put forward mitigating evidence, and none was presented. It noted there was no evidence of a pattern of misconduct and nothing to show that the Student had learned from their mistake or that they appreciated its gravity. The Panel also noted the lack of evidence of remorse or insight on the Student’s part. It indicated that obtaining unauthorized assistance is an extremely serious offence that harms the institution and the academic process. Additionally, it held that this offence is a serious breach of academic integrity and can be seen as an attempt to defraud the University. According to the Panel, the Student gave in to the temptation to seek assistance during an online test to try to obtain a better result than they felt they could otherwise achieve. It also noted that the associated penalty must act as a general deterrent.
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.