DATE:
December 12, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.N.
HEARING DATE:
February 22, 2024 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Joelle Ruskin, Chair
Professor Michael Evans, Faculty Panel Member
Laiba Butt, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or aids and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a term test (the “Term Test”) in MGT220H5S (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with the Term Test, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
Neither the Student nor a representative for the Student attended the hearing. The University made submissions on the issue of notice and requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the Student. The University tendered affidavit evidence which detailed that the University had attempted to deliver notice of the charges and the hearing to the Student by email, by phone, and by courier. The Panel also noted that the Student was made aware that the matter was being referred to the Tribunal at a Dean’s Designate meeting that the Student attended with a legal representative. The Panel was satisfied that the University had discharged its obligation to provide reasonable notice to the Student regarding the charges and the hearing. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University introduced affidavit evidence with respect to the charges. The University’s evidence established that the Student was enrolled in the Course and was required to write an in-person term test. During the Term Test, the course instructor heard a voice coming from near the Student and, upon closer inspection, discovered that the Student was wearing an earpiece with a wire protruding from under the Student’s shirt. The course instructor asked the Student to leave the room and accompanied them. The Student denied that they had anything in their shirt and indicated that they were not feeling well. The Student proceeded to walk to the Health Counselling Centre and was met by a Special Constable with Campus Safety (the “Special Constable”). The Special Constable, on meeting the Student, noticed that the Student was wearing a wired earphone device taped under the collar of the Student’s shirt. The Student admitted that the device was to communicate with a person whom they had paid to assist them on the Term Test. During a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student repeated the admissions but declined to identify the third party that they hired to provide the unauthorized assistance. Based on the unchallenged evidence presented by the University, and the admissions of the Student at the Dean’s Designate meeting, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid and/or obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the University in support of a proposed penalty and considered the sanctioning factors enumerated in University v Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) (the “Mr C factors”). The Panel found that there was no positive character evidence for the Panel to consider in the Student’s absence but viewed the Student’s withholding of information about the third-party assistance as deliberate, non-cooperative and obstructionist. The Panel considered all of the relevant Mr. C factors and considered the goal of general deterrence to be paramount in this case. It further noted that the commercial element of the offence was an aggravating factor. The Panel noted that in prior decisions of the Tribunal in which expulsion was not recommended, the student charged had, at a minimum, cooperated with the University at the hearing stage or otherwise shown mitigating factors. The Panel found that, given the Student’s absence, there was no evidence of any mitigating or extenuating factors that might otherwise militate against a recommendation for expulsion.
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 five-year suspension and a corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a final grade of zero in the Course.