Case #477

DATE: May 24, 2006
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. The Student


Hearing Date(s): May 18, 2006

Panel Members:
Rodica David, Chair
Professor William Weiss, Faculty Panel Member
Ms Coralie D’Souza, Student Panel Member

Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa for the University of Toronto
Professor Scott Graham
Ms. Lucy Gaspini
The Student, by arrangement, did not appear

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d), s. B.ii.1(a)(ii), s. B.ii.1(a)(iv), and s. B.i.1(b) of Code – plagiarism – assignments copied from assignments by another student – Agreed Statement of Facts – hearing not attended – sworn affidavit provided - guilty plea to charges under s. B.i.1(b), s. B.ii.1(a)(ii) and s. B.i.1(d) of Code – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – case of Mr. C criteria addressed and met by sanction - no character evidence except admission of guilt and acknowledgement of misconduct - grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Student charged with two offences under s. B.i.1(d), six offences under s. B.ii.1(a)(ii), six offences under s. B.ii.1(a)(iv), two offences under s. B.i.1(b), and alternatively, two offences under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted two assignments that very closely resembled assignments handed in by another student in the course. The Student did not attend the hearing and submitted a sworn affidavit agreeing with the University to the facts of the case and agreeing to plead guilty to two offences under s. B.i.1(b), two offences under s. B.ii.1(a)(ii) and one offence under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The Panel considered the agreed set of facts and accepted the Student’s guilty plea. The parties submitted a Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel considered the Joint Submission on Penalty, the Student’s sworn affidavit and previous Tribunal decisions and accepted the jointly submitted sanction. The Panel found that all the criteria advanced in the case of Mr. C were addressed and met by the sanction contemplated by the Joint Submission on Penalty. There was no evidence before the Panel, except for the Student’s admission and acknowledgment of misconduct, which spoke to the Student’s character. The sanction reflected the seriousness of the offences. There were no extenuating circumstances. The sanction spoke to the detriment to the University occasioned by the offences and addressed the University’s interest in deterrence. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a two-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.