Case 885


January 17, 2017


University of Toronto v. J.R. (“the Student”)

Hearing Date(s):

December 7, 2016

Panel Members:

Mr. Shaun Laubman, Lawyer, Chair
Professor Pascal van Lieshout, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. David Kleinman, Student Panel Member


Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland, Barristers
Ms. Lucy Gaspini, Manager, Academic lntegrity and Affairs, Office of the Dean, U of T, Mississauga
Mr. Lawrence Williams, Teaching Assistant for SOC219, University of Toronto, Mississauga

In Attendance:

Ms. Tracey Gameiro, Associate Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Mr. Sean Lourim, Technology Assistant, Office of the Governing Council

Not in Attendance:

The Student
Student charged with one charge of plagiarism contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code and one charge of obtaining unauthorized assistance contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code or in the alternative, one charge of academic dishonesty contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to an essay that had been submitted by the Student for course credit that contained significant edits made by an individual who provided professional editing and writing services. The Student did not attend the hearing but the University produced an affidavit establishing that the Student had received reasonable notice. The Panel determined that it was appropriate to proceed.
The University led evidence from a teaching assistant who testified that he had discovered that an essay that had been submitted by the Student included significant edits that had been performed by an individual who provided professional editing and writing services. The University also called a witness who testified that no Dean’s meeting had been held because the Student had only sporadically responded to the University’s requests for a meeting. The Student was found guilty of unauthorized assistance. The University then withdrew the plagiarism charge and the alternative charge of academic dishonesty not otherwise described.
The Student had no prior convictions for academic misconduct. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on penalty and ordered a grade assignment of zero in the course; a suspension of two years; a notation on the Student’s transcript for three years; and a report to the Provost.