DATE:
November 3, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.Y. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
April 28, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dean F. Embry, Chair
Professor Ian Crandall, Faculty Panel Member
Brinda Batra, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Mr. William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbe, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with respect to academic misconduct on a final assessment in a course. The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) for knowingly representing as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with a final assessment. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s.B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly obtaining and or providing unauthorized assistance in connection with a final assessment.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The Panel heard evidence that the University made concerted efforts to serve the Student with notice of the hearing to the Student’s email address, as listed in ROSI. The Panel found that the Student was provided with reasonable notice and proper service as contemplated by rules 17 and 21 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). As such, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the students. The Panel further granted the University’s motion to hear the merits of the proceedings against the Student alongside those of another student, enrolled in the same course, charged with the same academic misconduct, contrary to ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code.
The University provided the Panel with evidence that the Student’s answers shared several similarities to answers posted to Chegg.com, including non-standard notation and identical mistakes. The Panel found that this evidence demonstrated, on a balance of probabilities, that the Student copied the answers found on Chegg.com, though it did not find that either student had posted the questions on Chegg. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of using authorized assistance, contrary to B.i.1(b) of the Code in relation to the final assessment.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered several relevant sanctioning factors. First, the Panel considered the nature of the offence, and concluded that the use of unauthorized aids during test and assessments is a serious offence that strikes at the core of the academic process. The Panel also considered, as a minor aggravating factor, that the offence had a commercial aspect insofar as the Student had relied upon answers posted to Chegg.com – a subscription-based website. The Student’s absence from the hearing left the Panel with no evidence or mitigating factors to consider. Finally, the Panel considered the Student’s prior history of academic misconduct and noted that the Student had not previously been charged with an academic offence. Given these factors, the Panel concluded that the sanctions proposed by the University were appropriate.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension from the University for a period of three years; a notation of the sanction on the Student’s academic record for a period of four years, and; a report to the Provost for publication.