Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented as his own idea or expression of an idea the work of another – Student purchased work from on-line source - Student did not attend hearing – proper service effected on Student – finding of guilt – barring mitigating circumstances, expulsion is likely sanction for purchase of work submitted for academic credit due to insidiousness of this form of plagiarism – goal of deterrence paramount in these cases - prior offences typically considered aggravating factor that tips scale in favour of expulsion – concurrent offences - commission of two academic misconduct offences in quick succession is aggravating factor that speaks to Student’s character - in absence of participation by Student, Panel unable to assess individual rehabilitation - grade of zero; five year suspension from date of order; recommendation of expulsion; and publication by Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with 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 – reasonable notice of hearing provided – Rule 14 and 9 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure – finding of guilt – plagiarism strikes at the very heart of academic integrity and requires a significant sanction – no extenuating or mitigating circumstances as Student did not participate in the hearing – the lack of participation in the process is not an aggravating factor – lack of participation is not evidence that the Student has no insight or is not remorseful – final grade of zero in the course; two-yearsuspension ; notation of the sanction 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 the Code - three counts – plagiarism - Student knowingly represented as her own an idea, or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in essays submitted in two courses - Student did not attend hearing – Rules 9, 16 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 - University of Toronto and B.S. (Case No. 697, December 17, 2013) - harsher suspension is required - grade assignment of zero for both courses - suspension commencing the day the Panel made its Order and ending on December 31, 2022 - a notation of the sanction on the Student’s academic record and transcript commencing the day the Panel made its Order and ending on December 31, 2023.
Trial Division – ss. B.i.1(b) and B.i.1(d) of the Code – unauthorized aid – plagiarism – Student knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or aids or obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment – 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, 16 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 – prior offences – two counts of obtaining unauthorized assistance – repeat offence – prior academic offence; serious offence; great detriment to the University and its students; need for deterrence – final grade of zero in the course; three-year suspension; four-year notation on 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 as her own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in two papers she submitted for a course – Student included verbatim or near-verbatim passages from sources that were either not referenced or improperly referenced – Rule 47 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (written hearing) - guilty plea - Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) - Joint Book of Documents (“JBD”) - Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty (“ASFP”) – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – prior offence - Discipline Appeals Board decision in S.F. (Case No. 690, October 20, 2014) - grade assignment of zero in the course - suspension from the day the Panel made its order to the earlier of (1) three years from the date of the Panel’s order, or (2) May 31, 2023 - notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript from the day the Panel made its order until graduation - report to the Provost for publication of the decision and the sanctions imposed, with the Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented work of another as her own without proper acknowledgement in assignment submitted for academic credit – Student hired third party to write assignment for her - Agreed Statement of Facts – submission of further documents in addition to Joint Book of Documents - guilty plea – each case must be assessed on own facts but guidance of Discipline Appeals Board should not be lightly disregarded – ordinary sanction for plagiarism should be expulsion - if convincing mitigating factors, five year suspension can be substituted –may be unique circumstances which justify departure from this general statement – dispute on length of suspension – exacerbating circumstances included prior incidents of academic misconduct; Student not prepared to “own up” earlier – Panel has authority to impose sanction greater than that sought by University but not prepared to do so in these circumstances – no exceptional mitigating factors – value of all students’ work cannot be diminished by not appropriately punishing those that seek to obtain credit by work other than their own work - grade of zero; five year suspension from date of order; corresponding notation on Student’s academic record and transcript for six years from date of order; and publication by Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student charged with knowingly representing the work of another as her own in essay submitted for academic credit – guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts – prior academic offences – Panel may reject Joint Submission on Penalty only where to give effect to it would be contrary to public interest or would bring administration of justice into disrepute – Joint Submission should only be rejected if truly unreasonable or unconscionable – penalty proposed justifiably comparable to penalties in comparable cases – Joint Submission accepted – finding of guilt – final grade of zero; four year suspension; corresponding notation on Student’s academic record and transcript for five year period; and publication by Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – two counts – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented an idea or expression of an idea or work of another as their own in an assignment – Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”) – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”) – Joint Book of Document – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade of zero in the course; three and a half year suspension; notation on transcript for just under 54 months or graduation, whichever comes first; and a report to the Provost for publication.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student charged with knowingly representing the work of another as her own in lab report and two book reviews submitted for academic credit – Student found guilty of two charges of plagiarism and acquitted of third - University presented clear and convincing evidence of plagiarism on two charges but not on third – no credible explanation for extensive and obvious similarities between work submitted and work of others on first two charges – no source material presented to support allegation of plagiarism on third charge – limited evidence of Professor that sophisticated terminology used by Student in book review subject of third charge not sufficient – evidence of medical condition inadmissible as no proper notice provided and no medical report – fact that assignments at issue worth low percentage of overall grade not a persuasive factor – aggravating factors: multiple offences; deliberate and repeated steps to prevent detection of plagiarism; lack of remorse; no deterrent effect if penalty same or less in duration to Student’s academic suspension – grade of zero in two courses affected; four year suspension; corresponding notation on Student’s academic record and transcript for five year period; and publication by Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty – three prior academic offences – Joint Submission on Penalty – undertaking by Student to complete academic and writing skills training upon return to University - final grade of zero in the course; three-year suspension; notation of sanction on transcript; publication of notice of decision and sanctions with Student’s name withheld.