Discipline Appeals Board – Student sought to challenge the decision on liability and sanction made by the Tribunal – The Student’s notice of appeal did not disclose any basis for Panel to interfere with the Tribunal’s Order – The Panel found no reversible error in fact or in law in the Tribunal’s decision – appeal dismissed.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – topic proposal – language used in proposal was unusually sophisticated for an undergraduate student – finding of guilt – plagiarism is a serious matter and requires that a strong message be sent for general deterrence – student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning – grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on the student’s transcript; and report to Provost.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – student did not attend the hearing – student was given reasonable notice of the hearing – student knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an assignment – student’s assignment was similar to another student’s assignment – chances of two students independently developing such similar solutions were virtually zero – finding of guilt – plagiarism and the use of third-party sources are considered serious offences that strike at the heart of academic integrity – University and the Tribunal must send a strong message to other students – grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(e) of Code – credit already obtained – resubmitted work – Student knowingly submitted, without the knowledge and approval of the instructor to whom it was submitted, an essay for which credit had previously been obtained – Student did not attend hearing – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – admission of guilt – Student accepted and requested that the hearing proceed in their absence – finding of guilt – Joint Submissions on Penalty (“JSP”) – a final grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a notation on transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an essay – Student did not appear – Student signed a request that the Tribunal proceed in her absence and waived her right to any further notice of the proceedings – ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – Rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure – Student admitted guilt – Student purchased the essay she submitted for academic credit – Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) – finding of guilt – the University of Toronto and S.C., N.R.H. and M.K.K. (Case Nos. 596, 597 and 598, November 23, 2011) – purchased essay offences are about as serious as can be committed in a University setting – while this was a serious offence there were also important mitigating factors – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) was accepted – final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an assignment – Student did not appear – Student executed a request that the Tribunal proceed in her absence – Student admitted guilt – Student purchased the assignment she submitted for academic credit – Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) is reasonable – final grade of zero in the course; suspension for just over 55 months; a six-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as their own, an idea or expression of an idea, or work of another in two assignments – Student did not attend the hearing – Rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure – ss. 6 and 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act – Panel was satisfied the hearing could proceed in the Student’s absence – Turnitin similarity index of 38 and 45 percent, respectively – passages in the assignments were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from sources without proper attribution – finding of guilt – serious offence – the need for general deterrence in the context of plagiarism offences and online courses – the close proximity of the two offences are more akin to concurring offences rather than indicative that repetition of the offence was likely – a grade of zero in the course; suspension of just under two years and four months; notation on the transcript of just under three years and four months; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forgery – plagiarism – invoice and writing assignment – Agreed Statement of Facts – partial admission of guilt – finding of guilt – Student submitted a forged invoice – parts of writing assignment taken from online blog post – Student must assess and verify authenticity – University of Toronto and C.Z., (Case No. 512, July 27, 2006) – forgery due to unreasonable ignorance or reckless indifference – Student recklessly indifferent about authenticity – Joint Submission on Penalty is reasonable – Student had multiple previous offences – Serious likelihood Student may commit another offence – forgery and plagiarism are on the most serious end of the spectrum of Code – these offences are a breach of the University’s trust relationship with its students – a grade of zero in the course; five-year suspension; a notation on the transcript for six years or until graduation; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in reading responses and two essays – Student admitted guilt – Student purchased the academic work which she submitted for academic credit – Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) – finding of guilt – the University of Toronto and S.C., N.R.H. and M.K.K. (Case Nos. 596, 597 and 598, November 23, 2011) – purchased essay offences are about as serious as can be committed in a University setting – while this was a serious offence there were also important mitigating factors – COVID-19 created exceptional circumstances and challenges for students and that the conduct of the Student cannot be examined without placing it in the context of the impact of COVID-19 – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) was accepted – final grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.