DATE:
February 27, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.L.
HEARING DATE:
January 14, 2025 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexandra Clark, Chair Professor
Mary Pugh, Faculty Panel Member
Ozanay Bozkaya, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Chloe Hendrie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with an essay (the "Term Essay") submitted in ECO344 (the "Course"), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (the "ASF") submitted jointly by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was enrolled in the Course in Winter 2023 and was required to write the Term Essay, which represented 25% of their final grade in the course. The Term Essay involved a literature review of selected sources, data analysis, and a synthesis section. During the grading process, the grader marking the Student's Term Essay observed that the Student's paper was far more sophisticated than the essays submitted by other students in the Course. The grader also observed that the Student had not performed well on the Course's midterm test and raised academic integrity concerns about the Student's Term Essay with the course instructor. Upon further review, the course instructor found that the Student's Term Essay did not meet the Term Essay requirements and suspected that the Student's Term Essay had been written by someone who was unfamiliar with the Course. The Student later admitted, in a meeting with the Dean's Designate, that they had paid $200 for the paper, and apologized for her conduct. The Student further admitted in the ASF that they had done no meaningful academic work on the Term Essay and plead guilty to all of the charges. Based on the facts and the Student's admissions, the Panel concluded that the Student had knowingly represented 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 determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered an Agreed Statement of Facts Regarding Penalty (the "ASFP") entered into by the Student and the University. The ASFP detailed that the Student had committed a prior offence, namely obtaining unauthorized assistance on a term test in a different course. The Panel also considered a Joint Submission Regarding Penalty (the "JSP"), signed by the Parties, prior relevant decisions of the Tribunal, and the sanctioning factors set out in the decision of University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976.77-3, November 5, 1976). The Panel noted that while it was concerned about the commercial nature of the offence, and the Student's prior offence, it observed that the Student had cooperated with the discipline process and had accepted responsibility for the misconduct. The Panel concluded that the JSP was acceptable, and responsive to the facts of the case and the seriousness of the offence. Given that the Student had obtained the 20 credits required to graduate and given that the Student had cooperated with the disciplinary process, the Panel concluded that there was a principled reason to backdate the Student's suspension.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension from the University; and a six-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript.