DATE:
March 1, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.G. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
November 24, 2021, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Richard DiFrancesco, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Serena Ju, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ms. Jacqueline Cummins, Law Clerk, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ms. Erica Berry, Representative for the Student, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under ss. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(b) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”) on the basis that the Student knowingly represented as his own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another, and that the Student knowingly obtained unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment. 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 an assignment.
The Student and his representative attended the hearing. The Panel received an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and a Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that the Student acknowledged that he entered into the ASF freely and voluntarily, knowing the consequences he faces, and with the advice of counsel.
The Panel noted that the ASF outlined that upon submission of the assignment Turnitin flagged the assignment as having an overall 46% similarity index, with 39% of the assignment being similar to the assignment of another student (“Student Y”) in the course. The ASF further outlined that once the Professor who taught the course obtained the Turnitin Report, she compared the Student’s assignment to Student Y’s assignment and confirmed that large portions of the text of the two assignments were very similar. The Student admitted that the assignment contains very similar wording and ideas to that of Student Y’s with numerous word substitutions and re-ordering of text. The Panel commented that the ASF outlined that the Student met with the Dean’s Designate where he explained that he had not worked together with Student Y but that they had both received assistance from the same online service. Furthermore, the person they hired to write their respective assignments used the same passages in both of their assignments. Based on the evidence submitted in the ASF and the submissions from counsel for both parties, the Panel was satisfied, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the Student knowingly used or possessed an unauthorized aid or obtained unauthorized assistance; committed plagiarism; and engaged in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct. The Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea with respect to the first charge. The University withdrew the second and alternative charge.
In determining sanction, the Panel noted that a JSP should only be rejected in circumstances where giving it effect would be contrary to the public interest or would bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It is not the Panel’s role to determine if it would impose the same penalty as proposed by the parties. Furthermore, the Panel noted it must determine if the outcome falls within a reasonable range of outcomes, recognizing the institutional value, efficiency and importance of outcomes that are achieved through joint submissions. The Panel noted that plagiarism is an extremely serious offence that must be treated with the appropriate penalty. Furthermore, deterrence must be recognized, and severe penalties enforced. The Panel characterized the commercial nature of this offence as an aggravating factor. With respect to mitigating factors, the Panel noted that this was the Student’s first offence, he admitted to his guilt from the outset, and readily accepted responsibility for his actions. The Panel received submissions and case law addressing the question of whether the suspension for the misconduct should run concurrently or consecutively with the suspension the Student was serving at the time of the hearing. The Panel noted that prior cases demonstrated that in situations where a student had accepted responsibility for their actions, a concurrent suspension was appropriate. The Panel found that the penalty proposed in the JSP was not contrary to the public interest nor would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute. Based on the forgoing, the Panel accepted the JSP. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the course; a four-year suspension which is to run concurrently with the Student’s academic suspension; a five-year notation on the transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.