Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student represented as their own an idea or an expression of an idea in an essay – Student did not attend the hearing – Student requested that the hearing proceeding in their absence – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – admission of guilt – the Student admitted to purchasing the essay – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – the proposed penalty would not be contrary to public policy or bring the administration of justice into disrepute, and appropriately considers the mitigating factors – a grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized assistance regarding a problem set – student did not attend hearing – errors in student’s answer were similar to errors in Chegg.com answers – had the Student participated in hearing and provided an explanation, the outcome may have been different – grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – two counts of plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an assignment and a final exam – Student did not appear – s. 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – notice was properly provided in accordance with the Rules and therefore, ordered the hearing to proceed in the Student’s absence – finding of guilt – the Student copied many of the sentences and passages, and paraphrased others without citation – the penalty was adjusted because there appeared to be a substantial delay between the incident itself and the scheduling of the hearing, and to ensure consistency with the effective lengths of the suspensions – the University has a lot of control over when academic discipline matters come to a hearing and there is nothing wrong with that, or with counsel setting a date that is convenient to them – counsel’s convenience should not be permitted to have an adverse impact on when the student may re-enroll after a suspension – final grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code – unauthorized assistance and plagiarism – Student knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance and knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an assignment – Student did not appear – Rules 9, 13, 14 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act (“SPPA”) – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students – Student’s assignment contained answers that were almost identical to those of another student – both students used the same words and mathematical expressions in their answer – given the number and degree of similarities, it was highly unlikely that the similarities were coincidental – finding of guilt – final grade of zero in the course; a 23-month suspension; a three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Discipline Appeals Board – Student appealed on the basis that they were not in attendance at the trial and were not represented at the trial hearing – Provost seeks an order dismissing the appeal summarily and without a formal hearing because it is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – sections C.ii.(a)7, C.ii.(a).11, and E.7(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters (“Code”) – section 4.2.1(1) of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – the procedures of the Tribunal shall conform to the requirements of the SPPA – there are two divisions of the Tribunal; (a) Trial and (b) Appeal – the University has determined that SPPA procedures are to apply to hearings and appeals before its Tribunal, and that by including section C.ii.(a)7 in the Code, they have advised their students of such an application – courts have long distinguished between procedural and substantive matters in this regard and have been willing to intervene on procedural matters (Re Polten and Governing Council of University of Toronto (1976), 8 O.R. (2d) 749 (Divisional Court); 1975 CanLII 709) – section 4.2.1(1) of the SPPA applies, and Associate Chair may hear the motion as a panel of one person – an appeal can be classified as frivolous or vexatious if the student takes no steps to move the appeal forward and fails to engage with the process or comply with Directions – the Student’s failure to communicate and engage in the process to advance the appeal renders the appeal vexatious – the Student’s own statements indicated that they used external aids in an assignment, which violated the assignment’s requirements to do the work independently – the appeal is frivolous, vexatious or without foundation – motion granted – appeal dismissed summarily and without formal hearing
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea and/or the work of another in an essay – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – admission of guilt – purchased essay – finding of guilt – expulsion is the appropriate starting point for offences involving purchased papers although mitigating factors sometimes lead to a reduction, generally to a five-year suspension – reduction in suspension to less than five years would require evidence of exceptional mitigating or extenuating factors – exceptional mitigating or extenuating factors that were not present in this case – remorse and admission of guilt were factors weighed in favour of not recommending expulsion – a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension for just under five years; a notation on transcript for just under five years; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(e) of Code – credit already obtained – resubmitted work – Student knowingly submitted an essay for which credit had previously been obtained in another course at the University – no permission obtained to resubmit previous work – Student did not attend hearing – ss. 6 and 7 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – Rules 9 and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – very high similarity index – the actions of the Student constitute plagiarism – finding of guilt – a final grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.1(d) of Code – unauthorized assistance in two exams – plagiarism in an assignment – use of Chegg.com for two exams – similarities between Student’s code and code submitted by another student detected with Measure of Software Similarity (“Moss”) – Student did not attend hearing – admission by the student regarding the assignment – hearing on the merits in the absence of the student – grade of zero in the course; three-year suspension; notation on transcript until graduation; and report to Provost.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as her own an idea or expression of an idea and/or the work of another in a research paper – Student did not attend hearing –Student accepted and requested that the hearing proceed in their absence –ss. 6 and 7 of Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – Rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) – admission of guilt – finding of guilt – Joint Submissions on Penalty (“JSP”) – a final grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-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 an expression of an idea and/or the work of another in a final paper – Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) – Joint Book of Documents (“JBD”) – Agreed Statement of Fact on Penalty – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – finding of guilt – University of Toronto and M.A. (Case No. 837, dated December 22, 2016) – final grade of zero in the course; five-year suspension; six-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.