Case #535

DATE: November 26, 2009
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Z.C.


Hearing Date(s): September 16, 2009

Panel Members:
Mr. John A. Keefe, Chair
Prof. Graeme Hirst, Faculty Member
Ms. Elena Kuzmin, Student Member


Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University

In Attendance:
Ms. Lucy Gaspini, Academic Affairs Officer, University of Torointo Mississauga

800x600

Normal 0 false false false EN-CA X-NONE X-NONE MicrosoftInternetExplorer4 /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow:yes; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif"; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";}

Trial Division – s.B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work – Student did not attend Hearing – agreed statement of facts – joint submission on penalty – joint book of documents – Student acknowledged receipt of reasonable notice – Student advised to obtain legal advice – Student proceeded without legal advice – finding of guilt – sentencing factors in Mr. C – need for proportionality and consistency in sentencing – principle for accepting or rejecting a joint submission on penalty in The University of Toronto and Mr. S.M and R. v. Michael Tsicos – range of sanctions for plagiarism is from two years for first time offences to three years or more for subsequent offences according to The University of Toronto and Mr. S.B. – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted -- . Tribunal ordered: a grade of zero in the course; a four year suspension; a four year notation; and a report to the Provost.

The Student was charged under section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The charge stemmed from allegations of plagiarizing an essay. The Student did not attend the hearing. The hearing proceeded based on Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF), Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) Joint Book of Documents (JBD). The Student acknowledged receiving reasonable notice of the hearing and requested that the hearing proceed in his absence due to his being out of the country at the time of the hearing. The Student had been advised to obtain independent legal advice but proceeded with the Agreed Statement of Facts without legal representation. In the ASF the Student admitted plagiarizing from online sources and failing to properly cite sources. The Tribunal found this to be a serious case of plagiarism due to the extent of plagiarism and found the Student guilty. The Panel noted that the Student had two prior offences for which he was sanctioned. The Panel noted the sentencing factors in Mr.C (November 1976). The Tribunal noted the need for proportionality and consistency in sentencing. No mitigating factors were available due to the Student’s absence. The Panel referred to the principles to be applied in accepting or rejecting a JSP noted in The University of Toronto and Mr. S.M and R. v. Michael Tsicos, CAO, Oct. 11, 2006, Docket: C45531, which noted that a joint submission should be accepted unless it is contrary to the public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute. The Panel noted the seriousness of the offence of plagiarism and the detriment caused to the University as stated in The University of Toronto and Mr. S.B.(November 14, 2007). The Panel considered The University of Toronto and Mr. N.H.H. where a Student received a three year suspension for two counts of plagiarism, and The University of Toronto and Mr. S.B., where the range of sentences was identified as two years for first time plagiarism offences and three years of longer for subsequent offences. The Tribunal found that the two prior offences were two separate offences and that therefore this was the Student’s third offence although he had not been previously suspended for plagiarism. The Tribunal found that the Student was well aware of the seriousness of the offence and that this particular case was on the higher threshold of seriousness. The Tribunal noted that the Student was near completion of the degree, and that the Student’s performance had been initially successful but suffered in recent years, although there was no evidence as to the causal circumstances. The Tribunal accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty. The Tribunal ordered: a grade of zero in the course; a four year suspension; a four year notation; and a report to the Provost.