DATE:
November 18, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. Y.C.
HEARING DATE:
August 27, 2024
PANEL MEMBERS:
Cynthia Kuehl, Chair
Professor Ted Kessick, Faculty Panel Member
James Wang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Chloe Hendrie, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
HEARING SECRETARY:
Karen Bellinger, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
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 final paper submitted in CCT109 (the "Course"), contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with knowingly obtaining and/or providing unauthorized assistance, contrary to sections B.i.1(b) and B.ii.1 of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The Student did not attend the hearing, but a filed a consent indicating that they were content for the matter to proceed in their absence on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts ("ASF"). The hearing proceeded in the Student's absence.
The evidence consisted solely of the ASF. The ASF detailed that the Student was placed on academic probation in September 2022. The Student was enrolled in the Course in Summer 2022 and received a grade of C. In Fall 2022, the Student re-enrolled in the Course. The Student was required to submit a research outline for a research paper as well as a five-page research paper on one of a list of five possible topics provided by the course instructor. The Student was required to read and integrate at least four of five scholarly sources listed in the bibliography for the chosen topic. A failure to respond to one of the pre-selected topics would result in a mark of zero.
The Student delivered an outline of the paper, as required, and received a grade of zero for failing to adhere to the assignment instructions. The outline provided was copied and pasted from a specific article and received a 92% match on Ouriginal, a plagiarism detection service. The Student asked the Professor for permission to re-submit the outline in view of the Student's low GPA. The Professor advised that the best course of action would be for the Student to submit the final research paper. The Student submitted the final research paper a day earlier than required. The research paper was not, however, for one of the pre-selected topics and the TA became concerned that the Student had purchased the paper because the paper contained sources that the TA did not believe the Student was capable of finding based on their prior work, did not contain any of the required sources, and the file metadata for the paper listed another individual as the author. The course instructor shared the TA's concerns and forwarded the matter to UTM Academic Integrity.
The Student attended a meeting with the Dean's Designate and admitted that they had purchased the paper from an online service. The Student acknowledged, in the ASF, that they had not done any meaningful academic work on the Paper, had committed plagiarism, and obtained unauthorized assistance.
On the basis of the facts and admissions contained in the ASF, and the submissions of counsel for the University, the Panel found the Student had committed the offence of plagiarism. The University withdrew the alternative charges as a result.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel reviewed a Joint Submission on Penalty ("JSP") submitted by the Student and the University. In coming to its determination that the JSP was appropriate and reasonable in the circumstances, the Panel considered the sanctioning factors set out in University of Toronto and Mr. C (File No.: 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student's character, the Panel noted that although there were no extenuating circumstances that would otherwise explain the Student's misconduct, the Student had demonstrated insight into their actions early on in the disciplinary process. With respect to the likelihood of repetition of the offence, the Panel noted that the Student had no prior record of academic misconduct. The Panel refused to consider the University's submission that the Student had committed the offence with respect to the Paper after having been given a warning with respect to the Outline, concluding that the impugned conduct was all within a single course and in respect of a single assignment, and further that the Student's remorse mitigated against a likelihood of repetition. With respect to the nature of the offence and general deterrence, the Panel observed that plagiarism, particularly the purchasing of academic work, is one of the most egregious offences as it requires a degree of planning - conduct which, in the absence of mitigating factors would usually merit the expulsion or lengthy suspension of the Student. The Panel further noted that the integrity of the University, and the value of the degrees it confers, are undermined when students engage in serious academic misconduct.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the Course; a five-year suspension; a six-year notation on the Student's academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.