DATE:
February 26, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.Y. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
July 18, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cheryl Woodin, Chair
Dr. Pascal van Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Karim Wanes, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Joseph Berger, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
not IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under section B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) for knowingly representing as their own the idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in connection with an essay. In the alternative to the charge, the Student was charged with one count under section 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. The Student was also charged with two counts under section B.i.1(b) of the Code for knowingly possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment and final examination in another course. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under section 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.
The Student was neither present nor represented at the hearing. The University requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. While there was no evidence of actual notice, the Panel found that the University had made considerable efforts to contact the Student by phone, email, and by via courier to deliver notice of the charges and the hearing. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure, and decided to hear the case in the absence of the Student.
The Panel reviewed the affidavit evidence of the Professors in both courses. With respect to the first course, the Student was required to submit a final essay. The Student’s paper was flagged by a Teaching Assistant in the course and was subsequently reviewed by the Professor who noted that it included passages that appeared verbatim or virtually verbatim on three online sources which were not cited. With respect to the second course, the Student was required to complete, among other things, four written assignments and a final exam. The Student’s first written assignment was flagged by a Teaching Assistant in the course due to its similarity to answers submitted by four other students in the course. The Professor subsequently determined that the degree of similarities between the Students’ answers made it unlikely the similarities were merely coincidental. In subsequently grading the Student’s final exam, the Professor noticed similarities between some of the answers submitted by the Student and another student in the course.
Based on the evidence provided by the University, the Panel concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Student committed plagiarism and possessed an unauthorized aid or obtained unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code.
The Panel was not satisfied that there was clear and convincing evidence in respect of the allegations of obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the assignment in the second course. The Panel concluded that while collaboration was expressly prohibited, the course outline expressly permitted discussion of assignment problems with other students, though students were required to write up their solutions independently. In this case, the Panel found that the Student’s answers were not identical to those of the other students, and concluded that it was equally possible that the students collaborated and then produced similar, though not identical, solutions. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel noted that while the Student did not have a prior offence, they committed two separate offences, which could have been prosecuted separately. Accordingly, the Panel concluded that it was appropriate to consider the case as though the Student had a prior offence. The Panel further considered the sanctioning factors in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3) and their application to a factually similar scenario in University of Toronto and T.W. (Case No. 721). The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero both courses; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.