Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.1(a); s. B.I.1(f); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – altered Turnitin submission – concocted sources – Agreed Statement of Facts– guilty plea – guilty plea accepted – Joint Submission on Penalty – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - final grade of zero in the Courses; four-year suspension; notation on transcript until the earlier of Student’s graduation or nine years and four months; and report to Provost
Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – plagiarism of final project – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided – deception to avoid scheduling of hearing – abeyance of file – finding on evidence of guilt – no conflict for Panel members – prior academic offences – prior plagiarism offences – prior deception to avoid hearing – history of academic offences – no evidence of remorse – no mitigating factors –University submission on penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for courses; five-year suspension to begin after the end of the Student’s current suspension; recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled; and report to Provost
Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.1(b); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – unauthorized use of an aid during an examination – notes – hearing attended – finding on evidence of guilt – no prior academic offences – University submission on penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost
Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.1(b); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – unauthorized use of an aid during an examination – notes – hearing attended – finding on evidence of guilt – no prior academic offences – University submission on penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism, unauthorized assistance–– Student does not appear at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – knew or ought to have known – finding of guilt - s. B.ii.1.(a)(ii) – party to the offence - sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism, unauthorized assistance–– Student does not appear at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – knew or ought to have known – finding of guilt - s. B.ii.1.(a)(ii) – party to the offence - sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b), and s. B.i.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – course work purchased from commercial provider of essays – guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts – no prior academic offence – rejected sanction proposed by the Student as it was no hardship – submitting an essay purchased from another is one of the most egregious offences – need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation – considered CHK and S.P. – absent the most exceptional circumstances, sanction should be expulsion unless the Student promptly acknowledges their wrongdoing, which the Student did in this case – Panel would have imposed expulsion had the Student been a repeat offender – grade assignment of zero; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost
Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.1(f); s. B.I.1(b); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – concocted sources – purchased essay– Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – no prior academic offences – aggravating factors – actively misled the University – campaign of concerted deception – see CHK case – see Ms. L – see A.M. – see A.K. – see Ms. T - final grade of zero in the Course; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost
Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from sanction – expulsion a likely sanction in purchased essay cases – s. E.7(c) allows Board not to show any deference – principled approach showing some deference – majority erred in concluding Student were victims – submitting purchased essays could not be justified – majority erred in treatment of previous offences – no continuum of remorse – previous offence did not have to be identical to be relevant – majority erred by giving too much weight to demeanor and expressions of remorse – multitude of factors relevant in sentencing – effect of previous offences – indications of continuing dishonest motive and a failure to recognize and adhere to core University values – in purchased essay cases, two Chelin factors were more relevant than others: the detriment to the University and the need for deterrence – expulsion was the appropriate sanction – H’s affidavit was not much different from her earlier expressions of regret and there would need to have been something materially more dramatic to have an effect – Appeal allowed
Trial Division – s. B.I.1.(d); s. B.I.1(f)); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – portions copied verbatim or close to verbatim – concocted sources – hearing attended – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost