Case Details
DATE:
November 25, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.J.
HEARING DATE:
September 22, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexandra Clark, Chair
Professor Irina D. Mihalache, Faculty Panel Member
Iva Zivaljevic, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with possessing an unauthorized aid in a final exam, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.
The Student signed a consent form in which they attested that they had signed an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”), and that they did not wish to attend or participate further in the proceeding. On that basis, the Tribunal proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The ASF detailed that the Student wore a button camera to a final exam for the purpose of taking pictures of the exam for a cheating service. The Student further admitted that they were paid to take and send these photographs to the third party cheating service. On the basis of the ASF and the admissions contained within, the Panel found that the University met its burden of proof for the allegation of unauthorized aid under s. B.I.1(b).
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the JSP, submissions of Discipline Counsel, and relevant case law that established the range of sanctions for spyware cases. The Panel noted that camera and spyware cases are amongst the most severe forms of misconduct before the Tribunal and that the use of this technology is a form of premeditated cheating that undermines the integrity of the university and must be deterred. The Panel, however, felt the presence of an ASF and JSP were significant mitigating factors, along with the Student’s early admission of guilt and acceptance of responsibility. While the Panel was concerned the Student sought to profit from their dishonest actions, they noted that the Student provided an undertaking not to re-apply to the University, so the range of sanctions established in other spy technology cases remained appropriate. The Panel concluded that the sanctions proposed in the JSP would not be contrary to the public interest nor would they bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grades of zero in the courses; a suspension from the University for a period of five years; a seven-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.