DATE:
August 27, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. T.P. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
May 28, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Dena Varah, Chair
Professor Michael Evans, Faculty Panel Member
Konrad Samsel, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ryan Shah, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with seven offences under the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, in connection with evaluations in two different courses. The Student was charged with two counts knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another, contrary to section B.i.1(d), in connection with a précis assignment in HISB52 (the "First Course") and a critical analysis paper in POLB72 (the "Second Course"). The Student was also charged with one count with knowingly using or possessing an unauthorized aid or obtaining and/or providing unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b), in connection with a take-home final exam in the Second Course, and in the alternative to the charge under section B.i.1(d) in connection with the Second Course. In the alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with three counts for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty, or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation in order to obtain academic credit or academic advantage, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student did not attend the hearing and was not represented by counsel. The University requested that the hearing proceed in the absence of the student and provided the Panel with a Book of Documents regarding the preliminary issue of notice and service on the Student. The Book of Documents contained several affidavits detailing the University's effort to contact the Student and deliver the Notice of Virtual Hearing, charges and disclosure to the Student by email, courier and by phone. The Panel was satisfied that, based on the extensive attempted correspondence with the Student, the Student had received reasonable notice of the charges and of the hearing date for the purposes of the Statutory Powers and Procedures Act and the University Tribunal's Rules of Practice and Procedure. The hearing proceeded in the absence of the Student.
The University presented evidence in support of the charges related to the evaluations in the First and Second Courses. With respect to the First Course, the Student was required to submit a précis assignment that provided an overview of an academic text, worth 10% or the final mark in the First Course. The Panel considered affidavit evidence of the course instructor, which detailed textual similarities between the Student's précis and an online source that was not referenced or cited in the Student's work.
With respect to the Second Course, the University presented additional evidence in relation to a Critical Analysis Paper (the “Paper”) and Take Home Exam in the Second Course. The Student was required to submit the Paper which accounted for 35% of their final grade in the Second Course. Students were required to prepare the paper using a primary text, or secondary sources approved by the course instructor, upon consultation. The Student's Paper was flagged by the University's "Ouriginal" service, which detected verbatim and near verbatim similarities to several online sources. The Student was also required to complete a take home exam, worth 20% of their grade in the second course. The exam was open book, but students were required to provide in-text citations and a bibliography where secondary sources were directly quoted. The University's "Ouriginal" service detected verbatim and near verbatim similarities in the Student's submission to several online sources. Despite several attempts, the course instructor was not able to meet with the Student to discuss their concerns regarding the Student's Paper and take home exam submission.
The Panel found that the evidence of plagiarism in connection with the Precis and the Paper, and unauthorized assistance in connection with the take home exam, was clear and convincing. Accordingly, the Panel found that the Student guilty of two counts of plagiarism, contrary to B.i.1(d), and one count of obtaining unauthorized assistance, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. The University withdrew the remainder of the charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered submissions from the University, cases decided by the Tribunal under similar circumstances, and the factors to be considered on penalty. The Panel noted that the Student committed the second and third offences after having received notice of the first and concluded that there was a higher likelihood that there would be a repetition of the offence. The Panel additionally noted that the Student did not engage in the process, and that there was no evidence of any mitigating factors that would factor into a reduction of the penalty. Finally, the Panel observed that the detriment to the University occasioned by the Student's offences were considerable, and the need for general deterrence - especially for repeat offenders - was high, warranted a higher penalty. The Panel accordingly concluded that a three-year suspension, as opposed to a merely two-year period, was in line with previous cases and addressed the serious nature of the offences at issue.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the First and Second Course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.