DATE:
October 17, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.S. (“the Student”)
Hearing Date(s):
June 15 and July 22, 2022, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Ms. Karen Symes, Chair
Professor Joseph Clarke, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Dylan Dingwell, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. Ahmed Elahi, Articling Student, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ms. Carla Luna, Clerk, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. Justin Nathens, Student Representative, Downtown Legal Services (attended on July 22, 2022, only)
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances (June 15, 2022)
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances (July 22, 2022)
On two occasions the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that they knowingly represented as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in an essay and a revised essay. The Student was also charged with two counts of knowingly submitting academic work containing a purported statement of fact or reference to a source which had been concocted, contrary to s. B.i.1(f) of the Code. The Student was further charged with two counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
A hearing convened on June 15, 2022 to consider the aforementioned charges of academic dishonesty brought by the University against the Student. The June 15, 2022 hearing was adjourned during the penalty phase. A continuation hearing took place on July 22, 2022 where the Student was represented by Downtown Legal Services.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Fact (“ASF”). The ASF outlined that the Student submitted an essay in the course through Turnitin.com which detected that the essay had a similarity index of 43% to numerous source documents. The teaching assistant (T.A.) wrote to the Student regarding the similarity index report and the Student responded advising the T.A. that they had accidently submitted their draft which didn’t contain citations, and included a link to a revised essay. Upon review of the essay, the Professor who taught the course for which the essay in question was submitted confirmed that there were passages in the assignment that were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from external sources without attribution. Furthermore, the essay contained references cited in the footnotes that did not contain the words or ideas to which they were cited in the body of the essay. The ASF also outlined that the revised essay showed considerable similarity with the original essay, but certain passages had been edited and revised but incorrect citations that were identified in the original essay remained in the revised essay. The Professor forwarded the file to the Office of Student Academic Integrity but the Student did not respond to requests to meet with the Dean’s Designate. The ASF contained various admissions and acknowledgements on the part of the Student. The Student admitted that they knowingly committed plagiarism, knowingly submitted academic work contained a purported statement of fact or reference to a source which has been concocted, and knew or ought to have known that they engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud of misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code. After considering the evidence and the ASF, the Panel concluded that charges 1 and 2 were proven on a balance of probabilities; the Student knowingly committed plagiarism and knowingly submitted academic work containing a purported statement of fact or a reference to a source which has been concocted. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
The Panel received a JSP. In considering the JSP, the Panel noted that the admission of wrongdoing came early on, and it noted that Student's desire to have the issue resolved as soon as possible. The Panel also took into consideration the serious and deliberate nature of the offence and the detriment to the University. Having regard for the circumstances of this matter, and based on the review of similar cases, the Panel found that the joint submission was reasonable. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a four-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.