DATE:
September 24, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.D.
HEARING DATE:
August 22, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christopher Wirth, Chair Professor
Susanna Chow, Faculty Panel Member
Ryan Cortez, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged in connection with academic work submitted in two different courses (the "Courses"). The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”), in connection with a term paper submitted in SMC196 (the "First Course"). The Student was also charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtained and/or provided unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student was also charged with two counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance or using or possessing an unauthorized aid in connection with the final exam in POL101 (the "Second Course"), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the further alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student attended the hearing and entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) with the University. The ASF detailed how, as part of the First Course, the Student was required to complete a term paper worth 45% of their final grade, which was to be completed in two stages: a proposal and outline, worth 15%, and a final term paper, worth 30% of the final grade. The Student did not submit a proposal and outline, but instead submitted a single document for both stages of the assignment. Upon grading the Student's paper, the course instructor became suspicious that the Student had not completed the paper independently, and subsequently discovered that the language, content and structure of the Student's paper was very similar to an unattributed online source. The Student admitted in the ASF that they had purchased a paper from an online source, that they had committed plagiarism, and that they did no meaningful academic work on the paper.
With respect to the Second Course, the Student was required to write a final exam worth 40% of the final grade in the course. The Student wrote a deferred exam, instead of the regularly scheduled final exam (the "Regular Exam"). The Student asked to go to the washroom again and was escorted by the Chief Presiding Officer ("CPO"). The CPO became suspicious that the Student was using their phone and asked the Student if they had anything in their pocket. The Student pulled a phone from their pocket and signed a declaration form acknowledging that they had possessed the phone during the exam. In addition, upon grading the Student's final exam, the course instructor noticed that one of the Student's exam answers was responsive to a question that appeared on the Regular Exam rather than the deferred exam. The course instructor suspected that the Student had obtained access to the questions from the Regular Exam and pre-written an answer that was used on the deferred exam. The Student admitted in the ASF that they possessed a cell phone during the final exam and had communicated with others about the Regular Exam prior to the deferred exam.
Based on the evidence and submissions by counsel for the University and by the Student, the Student was found guilty of one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code, and two counts of using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining or providing unauthorized assistance contrary to section B.i.1(b). The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a Joint Submission on Penalty ("JSP") prepared by the University and the Student. The Panel also considered similar prior decisions of the Tribunal presented by the University. The Panel was satisfied that it was appropriate to accept the JSP and found that the proposed penalty was within the reasonable range established by prior decisions of the Tribunal.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.