DATE:
August 4, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. J.L. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
May 3, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ms. Sabrina Bandali, Chair
Professor Alexander Koo, Faculty Panel Member
Mr. Branden Cave, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Ms. Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Mr. William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
On two occasions the Student was charged with knowingly representing as their own, an idea or expression of an idea, or work of another in an assignment, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 1995 (the “Code”). In the alternative, the Student was charged with two counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with an assignment, contrary to s. B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with two counts of knowingly engaging 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, contrary to s. B. i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing was scheduled to commence at 9:45AM and the Panel waited until 10:05AM before commencing the hearing. The Student did not appear. The Panel noted that s. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and Rule 17 of the University Tribunal Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) outlines that a tribunal may proceed in the absence of a party provided that reasonable notice of an oral hearing has been given to the party in accordance with the SPPA, and where a party does not attend the hearing and reasonable notice has been given, a party is not entitled to further notice. The Panel further noted that pursuant to Rule 9 of the Rules, a Notice of Hearing may be served on a Student by various means including emailing a copy of the document to the Student’s email address as recorded in the Repository of Student Information (“ROSI”). The University’s Policy on Official Correspondence with Students expressly states that students are responsible for maintaining a current and valid postal address and email account in ROSI, and they are expected to monitor and retrieve all mail, including emails, on a frequent and consistent basis. The University requested that the Panel proceed in the absence of the Student. The University filed evidence that the Student was served with the Charges, the Notice of Electronic Hearing, and disclosure to the Student’s email address as contained in ROSI. The University also filed evidence that Assistant Discipline Counsel’s office attempted to reach the Student by telephone at the telephone number contained in ROSI, and that a package containing, among other things, copies of the Notice of Electronic Hearing and Charges was couriered to the Student’s physical address in ROSI. Additionally, the University filed evidence that the last time someone accessed the email account of the Student was approximately one week prior to the hearing date. In light of the evidence, the Panel was satisfied that the Student received the Notice of Electronic Hearing and that reasonable notice had been provided in accordance with the Rules and the SPPA. Therefore, the Panel determined that there was no reason not to proceed in the absence of the Student in accordance with s. 7(3) of the SPPA. The Panel proceeded to hear the matter on its merits in the absence of the Student.
Regarding the charges under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code, the Panel received affidavit evidence of the Professor who taught the course in which the assignments in question were submitted. The Professor’s affidavit was supplemented by oral evidence. The Panel noted that the Professor explained that the Student submitted two assignments via Turnitin.com which indicated a 38% and 45% similarity index, respectively. The Professor confirmed that there were passages in the assignments that were taken verbatim or nearly verbatim from sources without proper attribution. The Professor emailed the Student about these allegations. After not hearing from the Student, the Professor forwarded the allegations to the Student Academic Integrity (“SAI”) office. After the allegations were forwarded to the SAI office, the Student responded to the Professor’s email and the Professor advised the Student that the matter has already been forwarded to the SAI office. The Panel noted that the University must establish on a balance of probabilities, using clear and convincing evidence, that the academic offence charged was committed by the Student. The Panel found that the course clearly articulated the academic integrity expectations for the assignment and accepted the evidence of the Professor. The Panel reviewed the two assignments submitted by the Student, the alleged source articles, and the Professor’s comparison charts. Based on the evidence, the Panel concluded that there was clear and convincing evidence that the Student knowingly represented as their own, an idea or expression of an idea, or work of another in two assignments, contrary to s. B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the charges made in the alternative and the further alternative.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the factors and principles related to sanction outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). In considering the aforementioned factors, the Panel outlined that there was little character evidence available, however, the Panel noted that the Student made no effort to engage with the discipline process. The Panel considered the two offences committed by the Student in close proximity to one another and noted that the Panel considered these to be more akin to concurring offences rather than indicative that repetition of the offences was likely. The Panel considered the serious nature of the offence, and the need for general deterrence which is significant in the context of plagiarism offences and online courses. The Panel reviewed previous plagiarism cases of the Tribunal and noted that in cases where there was no prior offence, the sanctions included suspensions of at least two years and a notation of at least three years. Based on the relevant factors and case law, the Panel agreed that the sanctions proposed by the University were appropriate in the circumstances. The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; suspension of just under two years and four months; notation on the transcript of just under three years and four months; and a report to the Provost for publication.