Case #544

DATE: September 1, 2009
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. K.L.

Hearing Date(s): August 17, 2009

Panel Members:
Mr. Clifford Lax, Chair
Prof. Annette Sanger, Faculty Member
Mr. James Camisso, Student Member

Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Mr. Danny Kastner, Counsel

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work – hearing not attended – evidentiary burden on University – effective notice of hearing – essay plagiarized from published paper – finding of guilt – non-cooperation – no remorse – gross act of plagiarism – University submission on penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; three-year notation; and report to Provost

Student charged under s. B.i.1(d), and alternatively, under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted an essay plagiarized from a published paper. The Student did not attend the Hearing and did not respond to the charges. The Panel considered whether the University had discharged its evidentiary burden of establishing that effective notice of the Hearing had been provided. The Panel found that in order to draw the inference that the Student was made aware of the charges there must be evidence that the notice was sent to an address, postal or electronic, that was likely to come to the Student’s attention. The Panel considered the University’s attempts to contact the Student and found that the University’s letter and emails were likely received by the Student. The Panel found that the Student probably received effective notice, both of the charges and of the hearing date, but chose not to participate. The Panel considered a review of the Student’s essay and the published paper and found that the essay was almost entirely plagiarized. The Panel found the Student guilty of the charge under s. B.i.1(d). The Panel found that the Student did not cooperate with the University, did not show remorse for the offence, and that the offence was a gross act of plagiarism. The Panel accepted the University’s submission on penalty and imposed a mark of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and that a report be issued to the Provost.