DATE:
October 30th, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.M.
HEARING DATES:
May 24, 2024 and July 25, 2024 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Sabrina A Bandali, Chair
Professor Irina D. Mihalache, Faculty Panel Member
Matthaeus Ware, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count of knowingly using and/or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a final exam in MAT137 (the “Course”), contrary to sections B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged with one count of knowingly auding and assisting other students, contrary to section B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1(a)(ii) of the Code. The Student was further 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. In the 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 hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (the “ASF”) and Book of Documents submitted jointly by the Student and the University. In the course of the Student’s testimony, the Student appeared to contradict the ASF in certain respects and stated that they had not carefully reviewed it and believed it contained errors. The hearing was adjourned, and the Panel reconvened on a second day. The University and the Student submitted a Supplementary Agreed Statement of Facts. The ASF and Supplementary ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course and was required to write an in-person final exam worth 30% of their final grade. During the exam, the Course instructor received an email from a student (the “Informant”) who stated that several students were cheating on the final exam. The Informant detailed that several students were discussing using a tutor to obtain assistance with the final exam through WeChat and included screenshots of the chat conversation which included screenshots of the final exam. The Informant told the Course instructor that the Student planned to cheat on the final exam, and that the Student was wearing a smart watch. The Course instructor approached the Student during the exam, noticed that the Student was wearing a smart watch, and confiscated the device. Near the end of the final exam, the Course instructor saw the Student on their smart phone. Upon further investigation, the Course instructor discovered that the Student’s exam answers were virtually identical to those submitted by another student in the course. The Student admitted, during a dean’s designate meeting, that she had used a smart watch and cell phone during the final exam, had sent messages to several individuals through WeChat, and had received answers to the final exam from a WeChat group chat. In the Supplementary ASF, the Student admitted to paying a third party, and had received answers from such third party during the final exam. The Student plead guilty to plagiarism, using or possessing unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code, respectively, and knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
On the basis of the ASF as modified by the Supplementary ASF, the submissions of counsel, and the Student’s admissions, the Panel was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the University has proven that the Student knowingly used and/or possessed an unauthorized aid. Accordingly, the Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to that charge and found them guilty of obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.I.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered various decisions of the Tribunal put before it by the University, as well as the sentencing factors laid out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel observed that while the Student admitted to the offence, they only expressed remorse on the second hearing day, after the University made submissions on sanction. The Panel found that the Student’s objections to the ASF at the outset of the hearing, and their subsequent acknowledgement that they had not carefully reviewed it, demonstrated the Student’s disregard or the academic discipline process that was not consistent with an appreciation of the gravity of the offence or remorse about what had occurred. With respect to the nature of the offence, the Panel noted that the offence at issue required deliberate planning and subterfuge and had a commercial element. With respect to the detriment to the University and the need for deterrence, the Panel noted that obtaining unauthorized assistance on an assessment is an extremely serious offence that harms the academic process and can be seen as an attempt to defraud the University. The Panel further observed, based on its review of prior decisions of the Tribunal, that a recommendation of expulsion and an immediate order of suspension is reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances in view of the Student’s premeditation.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student be expelled from the University; a final grade of zero in the Course; a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.