Case #571

DATE: February 3, 2010
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. S.H.

Hearing Date(s): November 18, 2010

Panel Members:
Julie Hannaford, Chair
Professor Graeme Hirst, Faculty Member
Elena Kuzmin, Student Member

Rob Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Noah Craven, DLS for the Student
Eleanor Irwin, Dean’s Designate
S.H., the Student

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work copied from internet – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – prior academic offences – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – undertaking – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Student charged under s. B.I.1(d) of the Code. The Student plead guilty to the charge that she knowingly represented an idea that was not her own in an essay. An Agreed Statement of Fact and Joint Submission of Penalty was submitted by the Student and the University agreeing to a final grade of zero in the course, a three-year suspension, a three-year notation on her transcript and a report to the Provost regarding this case. The Student had committed two previous academic offences. First, the Student had admitted to having brought unauthorized aids into an examination three years prior. The Student received a final grade of zero in the course for said offence. Second, the Student admitted to plagiarizing an essay two years prior for which she received a final grade of zero in the course and a four month suspension. As part of the Joint Submission, the Student agreed to complete a program through the University of Toronto Scarborough Center for Teaching and Learning to undertake five workshops including instruction on ‘Common Types of Academic Assignments’ and the ‘Elements of Writing. The Panel was satisfied with the joint submission, noting the University and the Student had approached the undertaking in a conscientious way. The Panel held it was not appropriate to reject a joint submission that includes an undertaking because it is novel or because the rehabilitative end cannot be guaranteed. The Panel further held that the novel joint submission of the University and the Student was to be respected and accorded great deference and agreed with the terms of the penalty.