Case #847

DATE: September 6, 2016

PARTIES: University of Toronto v M.K.K.
Hearing Date(s):
August 15, 2016
Panel Members:
Roslyn Tsao, Chair
Michael Saini, Faculty Member
Yusra Qazi, Student Member
Appearances:
Rob Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel
Ejona Xega, Law Student for the Student
Martha Harris, Academic Integrity Officer
In Attendance:
Tracey Gameiro, Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
M.K.K., the Student
Shaun Laubman, Observer
Christopher Wirth, Observer
Natashe Brein, Observer
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism – Agreed Statement of Facts – plagiarism on multiple exams – Joint Submission on Penalty – not first offence Student admitted guilt and cooperated throughout – Joint Submission on Penalty – without JSP the Panel would have been inclined to give a greater punishment grade of zero in course; four-year suspension; five-year notation; report to Provost for publication
The Trial Division of the Tribunal held a hearing to consider charges 11 brought by the University against the Student including plagiarism and the use of unauthorized assistance in four separate classes. The Student was represented by a student from DLS. The Student and the University entered into an Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF). In the ASF the Student admitted to knowingly including verbatim excerpts from uncited sources in her exams contrary to s. B.i.1(d) or, in the alternative, s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
On this basis the Panel entered a finding of guilty on three charges. The University withdrew the other eight charges.
The Hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts relating to Penalty (ASFP) and the parties presented a Joint Submission on Penalty recommending a grade of zero in the courses; a four-year suspension; and a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript. The Student had two prior sanctions on matters of plagiarism since attending the University in 2011. In both instances the Student received a written letter warning her not to reoffend. The Panel felt that the Student had ignored the sentiment and committed the offense in an exam setting.
The Panel also noted the presence of mitigating factors including the Student’s cooperation and full admission. Finally, the Panel noted that the JSP was light and without it the Panel would have been inclined to give a greater punishment.
The Panel imposed penalty of a grade of zero in the course, a four-year suspension; a five-year notation on the Student’s transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost and the University’s newspapers.