DATE: July 18, 2016
PARTIES: University of Toronto v M.L.
Hearing Date(s): June 27, 2016
Roslyn M. Tsao, Chair
Faye Mishna, Faculty Member
Vassilia (Julia) Al Akaila, Student Member
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Barristers
Lucy Gaspini, Manager, Academic Integrity and Affairs, University of Toronto Mississauga
Kalina Staub, Instructor of the Course
Christopher Lang, Director, Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
Sean Lourim, IT Support
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(b) of the Code – plagiarism and unauthorized aid – majority of Student’s assignment identical to that of another student – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided – finding on evidence – finding on guilt – not necessary to determine which student drafted the original contents of the assignment provided it is clear that the students collaborated or knew that the work was being used for assistance – University submission on penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero in the Course; 2-year suspension; 3-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; case reported to Provost for publication
Student charged under s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and, in the alternative, s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the majority of the Student’s assignment was identical to that of another student in the Course. The Student did not attend the hearing. The Panel determined that reasonable notice had been provided pursuant to the Rules of Practice and Procedure, and it proceeded in the absence of the Student.
Student was found guilty of plagiarism and unauthorized assistance. The University then withdrew the alternative charge of academic dishonesty not otherwise described. The Panel noted that though it was not clear which student had copied from the other, it is not necessary to determine who drafted the original contents of the assignment, whether the students collaborated, or whether the Student copied from the other student or vice versa – all of these scenarios will attract a finding of guilt provided that it is clear that the students collaborated or that the Student was aware that her work or the other’s was being used for assistance. The Panel found that there was clear and convincing evidence that the students collaborated or that one of them knowingly made his/her work available to the Student to copy. The Panel accepted the University’s submissions on penalty and imposed a grade assignment of zero in the Course; a 2-year suspension; a 3-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that the case be reported to the Provost for publication.