Case #872

DATE: January 24, 2017
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. C.D. ("the Student")

Hearing Date(s): October 13, 2016

Panel Members:
William C. McDowell, Lawyer, Chair
Professor Maria Rozakis-Adcock, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Amanda Nash, Student Panel Member

Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Barristers
Dr. Leanne Carroll, Course Instructor for FAH102H1-S (via Skype)
Ms. Heather Huckfield, Program Director, John H. Daniels Faculty of Architecture, Landscape and Design

In Attendance:
Ms. Krista Osbourne, Administrative Assistant, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Mr. Sean Lourim, Technology Assistant, Office of the Governing Council
Mr. Dave Vanderploeg, Audio Technician, Live Media

Not in Attendance:
The Student

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d) of Code - plagiarism - student submitted essay worth 20% with substantial unattributed copying - student did not appear at hearing - proceeding in student's absence on basis of e-mail service - finding of guilt - zero on course, two year suspension, three year notation, publication of the decision with the name of the Student withheld

The Student was charged with plagiarism under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code, and in the alternative of academic dishonesty under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The Student submitted an essay in a course, worth 20% of the final grade, containing entire paragraphs unsourced from an on-online reference. The Student had received specific instruction about plagiarism and proper citation in the course and submitted a signed academic integrity checklist.

The Student did not appear at the hearing. The University had affidavit evidence showing that Student had been served the relevant notices by e-mail to their address. Following the University's Policy on Official Correspondence the Tribunal determined that this was satisfactory service and proceeded in the Student's absence. The Student was found guilty of the forgeries on the basis of testimony from the course instructor and a comparison of the essay and the on-line reference.

The University sought and obtained a mark of zero in the course, a two year suspension, a three year notation, and report of the decision to the Provost with the name of the Student withheld. The Tribunal found that this penalty met the goals of the sentencing factors used by the Tribunal (as enunciated in the Mr C case) and was well within the range of penalties imposed recently in similar matters.