DATE: January 7, 2022
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. S.T. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE(S): October 15, 2021, via Zoom
Panel Members:
Mr. Shaun Laubman, Chair
Dr. Robyn Stremler, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Giselle Dalili, Student Panel Member
Appearances:
Mr. Robert Centa, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Not in Attendance:
The Student
Hearing Secretary:
Ms. Carmelle Salomon-Labbé, Associate Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that the Student knowingly represented as her own, an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in an essay, which she submitted in partial completion of the requirements of a course. In the alternative, the Student was charged under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code on the basis that the Student knowingly engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code in order to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind in connection with the essay.
The Panel received an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) which outlined that the Student pled guilty to the charges. The University agreed to withdraw the alternative charge if the Panel found the Student guilty of the first charge. The ASF further outlined that upon submission of the essay the teaching assistant and instructor were concerned that the Student may have committed plagiarism. The Student met with the teaching assistant and instructor at which time the Student admitted that she had purchased the essay that she submitted for partial completion of the requirements of the course. The Panel noted that in the ASF the Student admitted to contacting someone on WeChat who advertised that she provided tutoring and essay services for students. The Student further admitted that she provided the author with some draft ideas for the paper and paid the author $100 for the essay, which the author wrote and delivered to the Student. The Student submitted the purchased essay for academic credit. The ASF further outlined that the Student was very remorseful for her conduct and knew or ought to have known that she had committed plagiarism and a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, or fraud. The Panel noted that the Student acknowledged that she signed the ASF freely and voluntarily, knowing the potential consequences, and did so with the advice of counsel or waived the right to counsel. Based on the Student’s admissions, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of the academic offence of plagiarism, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. Given this finding, the University withdrew the charge under s.B.i.3(b) of the Code.
In determining sanction, the Panel heard submissions from the Student and the University. The University submitted that plagiarism in the form of purchased work was amongst the most serious offences as it introduces an economic element, and therefore, is premeditated. The University further outlined that the misconduct undermines the University’s reputation and the ability of third parties to rely on marks assigned by the University and it disadvantages honest students who put forth the effort to submit their own original work. The University provided the Panel with twelve cases involving purchased essay plagiarism offences to support its requested penalties. The Panel noted that these cases establish that the usual penalty for purchasing an essay is expulsion with the potential to reduce the penalty to a five-year suspension when mitigating factors were present. Furthermore, the standard penalty for plagiarism also involves a grade of zero in the relevant course. The Panel noted that the University acknowledged that the Student immediately admitted her guilt and cooperated through the process and that her cooperation was taken into account as a factor in not requesting expulsion. However, the University submitted that this did not constitute the type of exceptional mitigating circumstances that the past decisions indicate is required before a suspension of less than five-years is imposed. The University asked the Panel to follow the clear line of precedent and start with the presumption that expulsion is the appropriate penalty when the offence involves purchasing a paper and then take account of the University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976) factors to determine whether a lesser penalty was appropriate. The University identified the nature of the offence, the need for general deterrence, the harm to the University and the extenuating factors as the relevant factors that supported the requested five-year suspension.
In her submissions, the Student was apologetic and remorseful. She explained that she did not realize she was making a mistake at the time she committed the offence but acknowledged that she was doing poorly in the course and wanted a better mark. The Student further explained that the remote learning was difficult for her and that she suffered from anxiety and insomnia as a result of the discipline process. The Student spoke to the impact that a long suspension would have on her, her education and work prospects. The Student asked the Panel to impose a more lenient penalty than the University’s proposed five-year suspension although she did not identify a specific alternative penalty. In response to the Student’s submissions, the University pointed out that the Student was able to achieve a strong grade in another course that was delivered virtually at the same time as the course in question. Furthermore, the University argued that the pandemic should not be considered as a mitigating factor as it was a common experience for all students.
Upon review of the past decisions provided by the University, the Panel noted that it is clear that expulsion is the appropriate starting point for offences involving purchased papers although mitigating factors sometimes lead to a reduction, generally to a five-year suspension. The Panel further noted that to reduce the suspension to less than five-years would require evidence of exceptional mitigating or extenuating factors that were not present in this case.
The Panel accepted the Student’s evidence that she made a mistake that she regretted and would learn from. These factors weighed in favour of not recommending that the Student be expelled. However, the seriousness of the offence combined with the detriment to the academic integrity of the University and the strong need for general deterrence all supported the University’s proposed five-year suspension. The Panel accepted the University’s submissions on penalty and imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a suspension for just under five years; a notation on transcript for just under five years; and a report to the Provost for publication.