Case Details
DATE:
December 10, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Z.L.
HEARING DATE:
November 17, 2025, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Omo Akintan, Chair
Professor Paul Kingston, Faculty Panel Member
Iva Zivaljevic, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chew Chang, Representative for the Student, Chang Legal & Notary Public
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline & Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with possessing an unauthorized aid in an exam in MAT235 (the “Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”). The ASF detailed that the Student was one of several students who independently engaged a cheating service and used spyware to receive answers to an exam in the Course. The professor received a tip about a cheating account advertising services and two students were caught cheating during the test. Following the exam, the instructor investigated and found similarities in the exams written by several students, including the Student. The Student denied guilt at the Dean’s Meeting but admitted in a sworn affidavit that they paid $1800 for an answer service, wore a miniature earpiece during the exam and was added to a WeChat group to receive answers. On the basis of the ASF and the admissions contained within, the Panel found that the allegation of unauthorized aid was proven on a balance of probabilities and found the student guilty under s. B.I.1(b).
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submissions of Counsel, an ASF on penalty outlining what transpired, and a statement from the Student in which they took full accountability for their actions and apologized. The Panel noted that the Student engaged in a premeditated act of serious dishonesty and compounded it by denying the allegations at the Dean’s Designate meeting. However, they found that the Student subsequently was very cooperative with the University, expressed deep remorse, and had neither a prior nor concurrent charge for other misconduct. Given the Student’s remorse, the Panel believed the likelihood of repetition was small. The Panel found the amount of premeditation required and the commercial element most concerning. They further spoke to the difficulty in detecting this kind of misconduct and the fact that the Student may have received a grade that misrepresented their level of proficiency. Given the difficulty of detecting these types of misconduct, the Panel stated that the consequences upon detection need to be severe enough to deter others from committing similar misconduct. Finally, the Panel noted that the sanction suggested by the University of a five-year suspension fell squarely within the typical range of sanctions.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension from the University for a period of five years; a six-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.