DATE:
September 3, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. H.G. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
June 20, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor Marvin Zuker, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chew Chang, Representative for the Student, Chang Legal & Notary Public
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under section B.i.1(c) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the "Code") for knowingly having someone personate them during an online assessment in connection with a course. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids or obtained unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with one count of the Student 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 other academic advantage, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts ("ASF") submitted by the University and the Student. At the hearing, the Student pleaded guilty to the charges. The charges arose from the Student's participation in a course, in which the student was required to complete a three-phase coding project for a social media website. Students enrolled in the course were permitted to work in groups and each phase was to be graded by a Teaching Assistant upon interviewing the students as to their role and the portions of the code that they had implemented. The Student worked in a group of three. A Teaching Assistant (the "TA") in the course noticed that the code that the Group had produced had been modified by four individuals. During the phase 3 interview on Zoom, the TA asked an individual purporting to be the Student to provide an explanation as to why four individuals had modified the code and to provide proof of identification. The individual refused to turn on their camera and exited the Zoom call. The TA subsequently reported this conduct.
The Student acknowledged to the Dean's Designate for Academic Integrity that he had asked his friend to present phase 3 for him and that it was his friend who had attended the interview as the Student. The Student explained that he was suffering from depression at the time, but did not notify the Course instructor or the TA. The Student pleaded guilty to personation and, in the alternative, to receiving unauthorized assistance.
After considering the evidence presented in the ASF and the fact that the Student pleaded guilty, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowing personation. As a result, the University withdrew the alternative charges.
During the sanction phase of the hearing, no additional evidence was led, and the Panel relied solely on the evidence in the ASF, relevant past jurisprudence of the Tribunal and the submissions of each party. The Student and University agreed that the Student should receive a zero in the Course and a notation of the sanction on their transcript. The Student however argued that the suspension should be four years, as opposed to the five-year suspension sought by the University. In making its decision, the Panel considered the factors set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3). With respect to the character of the Student and the likelihood of a repetition of the offence, the Panel noted that the Student had no prior offences, was remorseful for their conduct, and that there was no evidence that the Student would engage in an academic offence again if given the opportunity. With respect to the nature of the offence committed and the need for deterrence, the Panel confirmed that knowing personation was one of the most serious academic offences, as it involved significant planning and a high degree of dishonesty, and therefore deserving of significant repercussions. The Panel noted that the only extenuating circumstance was the Student's immediate acknowledgement of their academic misconduct to the Dean's Designate, and their creation of the ASF. Finally, with respect to the need for general deterrence and the detriment to the University occasioned by the offence, the Panel reiterated that personation strikes at the heart of academic integrity and warranted a serious sanction to send a strong message to students.
The Panel concluded, on its review of the Tribunal's past decisions and the Mr. C factors, that there was no basis, aside from the Student’s early participation and plea, to deviate from the usual outcome in similar cases, which is most often a recommendation for expulsion. Accordingly, the Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a notation on the Student's academic record and transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.