DATE:
December 16, 2022
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. M.T. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 25, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Ira Parghi, Chair
Professor Seamus Ross, Faculty Panel Member
Sterling Mancuso, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Justin Nathens, Downtown Legal Services
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under section B.i.1(d) of the Code with three counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or the work of another in relation to two midterm tests and one final exam. In the alternative, the Student was also charged under section B.i.1(b) of the Code with three counts of knowingly possessing an aid or aids or obtaining unauthorized assistance. In the further alternative, the Student was charged with three counts of knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code to obtain academic credit or other academic advantage of any kind, under section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The parties submitted a Joint Book of Documents, which included an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) containing the Student’s admission that they had plagiarized and obtained unauthorized assistance in relation to the midterm tests and final exam in two different courses. The Panel, therefore, accepted the Student’s guilty plea in respect of the three counts of the offence under section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel considered the parties’ Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty, which included evidence regarding the Student’s prior offence for which they had received a warning. The Panel stated that the Student’s plagiarism was deliberate and extensive. It observed that this type of offence poses a grave threat to the integrity of the University’s processes for evaluating students, is profoundly unfair to other students, and jeopardizes the University’s reputation. The Panel raised concerns about possible future repetition. In its view, a significant period of suspension was, therefore, appropriate. The Panel also noted mitigating factors against a more severe penalty. The Student had accepted responsibility for, and demonstrated insight into, their behaviour by pleading guilty early in the process. They had cooperated with the University’s academic discipline process, including by attending the hearing. Their affidavit evidence articulated their regret and remorse for their actions and indicated that they had been seeking help for their mental health issues. At the time they committed the offences, the Student was experiencing personal difficulties due to the COVID pandemic, including mental health issues. The Panel determined that the proposed JSP fell within the well-defined range of penalties established by the jurisprudence for similar cases. The Panel also determined that, in all of the circumstances, the appropriate penalty was the one submitted by the parties in the JSP.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in two courses; a suspension of three years and eight months; a five-year notation on the Student's transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.