DATE:
February 19, 2025
PARTIES:
The University of Toronto v. H.M.
HEARING DATES:
April 10, 2024, via Zoom
April 16, 2024, via Zoom
April 22, 2024, via Zoom
May 10, 2024, via Zoom
August 20, 2024, via Zoom
September 17, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cheryl Woodin, Chair Professor
Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Ben Kitching, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged in connection with offences committed in two courses: SOC447H5S (the “First Course”) and POL320Y5S (the “Second Course”). With respect to the First Course, the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with a written response, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
With respect to the Second Course, the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with an Essay submitted in the course, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The Student was also charged with knowingly submitting academic work containing a purported statement of fact or reference to a source which had been concocted, contrary to section B.i.1(f) of the Code. The student was also charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty, or misconduct, contrary to section B.I.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing with respect to the first offence proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts submitted jointly by the Student and the University. The ASF detailed that the Student was required to submit an assignment worth 20% of their course grade. The Student’s assignment was processed through Turnitin, a plagiarism detection program. Turnitin flagged a sentence in the Student’s assignment that another student had submitted, and which also appeared on a website from which students could purchase original academic work. The Student met with the course instructor to discuss the similarities. Shortly thereafter, they attempted to withdraw from the course and removed their written response from the internet in order to avoid responsibility for committing an academic offence. The Student admitted, at a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, that they had paid several hundred dollars for assistance with the assignment and performed no meaningful academic work. The Panel concluded, on the basis of such evidence, that the Student had committed plagiarism with respect to the assignment in the First Course, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
With respect to the misconduct alleged in the Second Couse, the Panel considered the affidavit and viva voce evidence of the teaching assistant in the course. Their evidence detailed that the Student submitted an assignment worth 25% of the Student’s grade. The Student’s submission was flagged for potential plagiarism by a plagiarism detection software, which identified a 62% similarity to an online source. Upon further review by the course instructor, it was discovered that the Student had extensively copied from a paper with some changes to the syntax and changes in word choice. The Student testified in their defence. The Student claimed that they had submitted the wrong essay, and that a previous version which was resubmitted did properly cite the source. The Panel did not find the Student’s explanation that the wrong version of the essay had been uploaded because, among other things, the Student did not ever notify the instructor to address the mistake and that the Student uploaded a revised essay only ten days later, attempting to replace the initial submission. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code, of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code, and knowingly submitting academic work containing a purported statement of fact or reference to a source which has been concocted, contrary to section B.i.1(f) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered affidavit evidence tendered by the University, and submissions made by the Student and the University. The affidavit evidence detailed that the Student had committed a prior academic offence as a result of obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a midterm in a prior course. The Student testified that, at the time of the offences at issue, they were experiencing high levels of stress due to the pandemic and was working full-time. The Panel noted that the Student was or ought to have been aware of the consequence of a prior offence and should have recognized that there would be more serious consequences for a subsequent offence. The Panel further observed that the Student paid hundreds of dollars to obtain unauthorized assistance to complete the assignment in the First Couse – a serious offence for which no extenuating circumstances were identified by the Student. With respect to the offence in the Second Course, the Panel found that the Student’s evidence and submissions were not credible and found that the level of intentionality and deception in covering up the offence were relevant sentencing factors. The Panel also found that the evidence of both intentional misconduct and repeated engagement in misconduct did not reflect well on the Student’s character. The Panel concluded that there were no mitigating or extenuating circumstances that could rebut the presumption that the most serious penalty was appropriate in this case.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a recommendation to the President of the University that the President recommend to the Governing Council that the Student by expelled from the University; a five-year suspension from the University and corresponding notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a final grade of zero in the First and Second Course.