DATE:
January 28, 2025
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.C.
HEARING DATE:
October 29, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty
Panel Member Ariana Abbaszadeh, Student Panel
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chloe Hendrie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
The Student was charged in connection with academic work submitted across three courses (collectively, the “Courses”). The Student was charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with a term test in FSC101HS (the “First Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). The Student was also charged with two counts knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in connection with an essay submitted in SOC109H5 (the “Second Course”) and an essay submitted in SOC109H5F (the “Third Course”), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative to the foregoing charges, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) submitted jointly by the Student and the University. With respect to the First Course, the ASF detailed that the Student was required to complete two Term Tests using Quercus, each worth 35% of their final grade, without the use of any aids and without leaving the platform. Quercus maintains a log that records online activities. During the test, the Quercus log recorded the Student leaving the test 93 times in violation of the requirement not to do so. The Student failed to respond to a subsequent request from the course instructor to discuss the Quercus log.
The Student was enrolled in the SOC109, the Second and Third Courses, in both Winter and Fall of 2022. As part of the courses, the Student was required to submit an analytical essay worth 30% of their final grade. Students were required to cite all statements of fact. The Student submitted the Essay for the Second Course and had their essay flagged by a text-matching software, Ouriginal, because it contained text that matched another source, which was not referenced anywhere in the Student’s paper. In Fall 2022, the Student enrolled in the course again, and was required to complete the analytical essay, now worth 35% of their final grade. The Student’s essay was again flagged by Ouriginal due to text matching an external source. Though the Student had cited the external source in two instances, it was not properly cited for other statements, ideas and propositions. The Student did not meet with the course instructor to discuss the similarities between the paper and the external source.
In a meeting with the Dean’s Designate, the Student denied committing academic offences in the Courses but admitted to reviewing their notes during the test in the First Course, and failing to use proper citations in the essays submitted in the Second and Third Courses. In the ASF, the Student repeated the admissions and further admitted to changing many of the words and phrases in the essays to attempt to make the fact that the words and ideas were not their own and were taken from articles without attribution in an attempt to avoid detection. Based on its review of the evidence and the admissions contained in the ASF, the Panel found the Student guilty of two counts of plagiarism and one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance and using an unauthorized aid. The University withdrew the balance of the charges.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered an Agreed Statement of Facts for Sanction (“ASFS”) and the evidence of the Student. The ASFS contained details of a prior offence of plagiarism. The Student indicated in their evidence that they were pursuing coursework at Toronto Metropolitan University and intended to start as a student at the University of Waterloo, once admitted in 2025. The Student proceeded to make further submissions regarding personal circumstances, including the loss of a family member and mental health challenges, at the time of the offence.
In coming to its determination, the Panel considered the sanctioning factors set out in the University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel weighed the Student’s evidence of extenuating circumstances and their expression of remorse against the repeated nature of the offences and the intentionality of the misconduct. The Panel further noted that given that the Student had committed four offences of misconduct, in sequence and in different courses, there was cause for concern about the prospect of repetition either at UTM or at another institution. Finally, with respect to the nature of the offence, general deterrence and detriment to the University, the Panel noted that, with respect to plagiarism specifically, the offence has a reputational impact on the University and affects others outside of the immediate University community. Finally, the Panel noted that there was good reason to extend the notation period beyond the length of the suspension, to provide appropriate notice to the University or any other institution of the Academic misconduct.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Courses; a four-year suspension from the University and; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript.