DATE:
October 16, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.H.
HEARING DATE:
July 4, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Shaun Laubman, Chair Professor
Susanna Chow, Faculty Panel Member
Charles Buck, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly using and/or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with a midterm exam in a course, contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and/or B.ii.2 of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (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 sections B.i.1(d) and/or B.ii2 of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The University and the Student submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts ("ASF") that was relied on by the Panel. The ASF detailed that the Student was required to write two midterm exams, each worth 25% of the final grade in the Course. During the second midterm exam, the Professor and an exam invigilator suspected that the Student was cheating. When asked by the course instructor if they possessed a cell phone, the Student took their powered-on phone out of their pocket. The device was confiscated. The exam invigilator subsequently confiscated a broken earpiece that the Student had been trying to grab from the floor. After the exam had concluded, the Student admitted to the course instructor that they had taken a question paper from the exam room prior to the exam, sent pictures to two individuals hired to supply them with answers, deleted the pictures, and flushed the question paper down the toilet. The Student further admitted that the earpiece belonged to them and signed a form in which they admitted to possessing an authorized aid during the midterm exam. The Student subsequently admitted at a Dean's Designate Meeting that they had paid a third party to provide exam answers, but that the third party did not give the Student any answers. The Student admitted in the ASF that they falsely claimed that they did not obtain answers from tutors during the midterm exam, and had, in fact, erased some of the answers in an attempt to cover up and minimize their misconduct.
The ASF additionally contained the Student's admission to all of the charges. Based on the admissions in the ASF, the Tribunal found the Student guilty of one count of possessing an unauthorized aid, contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and/or B.ii.2 of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered a Joint Submission on Penalty prepared by the Student and the University. In addition to the JSP, the parties submitted an apology letter written and signed by the Student, as well as an undertaking that the Student would complete at least six hours of academic success workshops offered by the University. The Panel noted that the introduction of undertakings into the discipline process should be approached with caution, especially given that the terms of the undertaking can not be imposed by the Tribunal. The Panel suggested that, although not necessary in this case, the Tribunal may find it necessary to carefully scrutinize the reasonableness of the undertaking if proffered as part of the sentencing process and consider whether or not a JSP can be adopted if the underlying undertaking is unreasonable.
The Panel additionally considered the sentencing factors enumerated in The University of Toronto v. Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3; Nov. 5, 1976). The Panel observed that the Student had no prior offences, had cooperated with the discipline process, and admitted guilt. On the other hand, the Student had committed a serious offence deserving of a significant sanction capable of sending a strong message of deterrence to the student population. Based on the relevant Mr. C factors, along with analogous cases that the Panel was directed to by the University, the Panel accepted the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a seven-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript, or until graduation; and a report to the Provost.