Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – two counts of plagiarism – Student knowingly represented an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in a final exam and a test – Student did not attend hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided – Rules 9 and 14 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – finding of guilt on both counts of plagiarism – although a Student’s assurance that the behaviour will not be repeated can act as a mitigating factor, there is no onus on the Student to provide such assurances such that an absence is an aggravating factor – final grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and a report to the Provost for a publication.
Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aid – Student knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid, namely, an iPhone during a final exam – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a final exam short answer question – Student not in attendance – Rules 9(c), 13, 17, and 47 of the University Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 6 and 7(3) of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act (“SPPA”) – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence – finding of guilt – a final grade of zero in the courses; a two and a half-year suspension; a notation on the transcript until graduation; and a report to the Provost for a publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in an assignment - Student did not attend hearing – Rules 9 and 17 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) - ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – reasonable notice of hearing provided – finding of guilt – no extenuating or mitigating circumstances as Student declined to participate in hearing – final grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and publication of notice of decision and sanctions with the Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in an assignment - Student did not attend hearing – Rules 9, 17, 61, and 72(b) of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students – reasonable notice of hearing provided – Rule 61 of the Rules – affidavits may be received by the Tribunal as good evidence - affidavit evidence was served in accordance with Rule 72(b) – finding of guilt – Student used wording, verbatim or nearly verbatim, from sources without proper attribution – no extenuating or mitigating circumstances as Student did not participate in the hearing – final grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost for publication with the Student’s name withheld.
Discipline Appeals Board – Student appeals on the basis that it was improper for the Trial Division to proceed in the Student’s absence, that the University is required to establish that the Student received notice beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the sanction is unreasonable – request to set aside the finding of the Tribunal’s Panel and order a new hearing – ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism – the Student had reasonable notice of the charges and the hearing – the University has the onus to demonstrate that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing on a balance of probabilities – once a Panel is satisfied that reasonable notice has been given to a student, the Panel has jurisdiction to proceed in the absence of the student – the Tribunal did not make any error in concluding that the University had discharged its onus to demonstrate that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing and that they could proceed with the hearing in the Student’s absence – the fairness standard relates to having reasonable notice of the adjudication and, thereby, having the opportunity to attend and be heard – the sanction ordered was appropriately consistent with penalties imposed in similar cases – appeal dismissed – Order of the Tribunal affirmed in its entirety
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a final exam – Student did not appear – Rule 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act – reasonable notice was provided – matter heard on its merits in the absence of the Student – the Student copied answers to a final exam from Chegg.com – finding of guilt – Student pled guilty to the same offence on two previous occasions – the Student’s previous offences and the use of a paid service was the basis for a greater penalty – final grade of zero in the course; four-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 an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in an assignment – Student did not attend hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided – Rules 9 and 17 of the Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) - ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students – finding of guilt – final grade of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-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 an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in a final exam – answers to exam significantly identical to another student – finding of guilt – a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension for just over 22 months; a notation on the transcript for just over 34 months; and a report to the Provost for a publication.
Discipline Appeals Board – Student appealed the sanction imposed by the Trial Division – Student took no steps to advance his appeal – Provost moved to dismiss the appeal summarily and without formal hearing – ss. C.II(a)(7), C.II(a)(11), E.7(a), and E.8 of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (“Code”) – s.7(a) of Appendix A of the Discipline Appeals Board’s Terms of Reference (“Terms”) – Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – ss. 3, 4.2.1(1), and 4.6 of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act (“SPPA”) – the Code does not grant a single member of the Board jurisdiction to hear and decided a motion to dismiss an appeal summarily without formal hearing – s. C.II(a)(7) states that the procedures of the Tribunal “shall conform” to the requirements of the SPPA – the use of “conform” suggests that the Code and the Terms seek to make their procedures consistent with the SPPA – the Code and the Terms create a legitimate expectation in the sense employed in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817 and in Canada (Attorney General) v. Mavi, [2011] 2 S.C.R. 504 that the Tribunal will conduct a hearing – an appeal to the Discipline Appeals Board (“Board”) falls within s. 3 of the SPPA – s. 4.2.1(1) of the SPPA applies to this motion – there is no statutory requirement that appeals (or this motion) be heard by a panel of more than one person – a motion in writing is sufficient to dismiss an appeal summarily – a single member of the Board, if designated, can dismiss an appeal summarily by way of a motion in writing, where the appeal is shown to be frivolous, vexatious, or without foundation –s. 4.6 of the SPPA does not apply to this motion nor does it affect the Associate Chair’s jurisdiction to hear and decide this motion – proposed grounds of appeal do not identify any errors in the Trial Division’s decision – Student did not lead any evidence at the trial as he failed to appear – Student would need leave to submit evidence at the appeal hearing – University of Toronto v. M.M. (Case No. 543, April 14, 2011) and University of Toronto v. D.B. (Case No. 1107, August 18, 2021) outline that absent special circumstances, a student who fails to appear at a hearing before the Tribunal of which they had reasonable notice cannot introduce evidence on appeal – no realistic prospect that a motion to admit new evidence would be granted – Student cannot establish an evidentiary basis for his appeal – appeal is frivolous and without foundation – a party who commences an appeal but then takes no steps to advance it ceases to have a genuine intention to appeal – without genuine intent to appeal, an appeal is viewed as vexatious – appeal dismissed
Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(a) of Code – plagiarism – forged or falsified document – Student knowingly represented an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in a paper – Student knowingly forged or altered a paper and submitted it for a course requirement – Student knowingly forged, altered or falsified and made use of a screenshot with document properties of the paper submitted for a course – Statutory Powers and Procedures Act – Rules 9(b), 13, 14, and 17 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure – University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students – finding of guilt – final grade of zero in the course; a suspension for just over 57 months; a notation for just over 69 months or until graduation, whichever is later; and report to the Provost for a publication.