DATE:
January 25, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. S.K. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 26, 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christopher Wirth, Chair
Professor Michael Saini, Faculty Panel Member
Ben Kitching, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Nadia Bruno, Special Projects Officer, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with two counts of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in a topic proposal submitted in one course and an assignment submitted in another course, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. In the alternative, they were also charged with two counts of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the topic proposal and assignment, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, they were 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 of any kind in connection with the topic proposal and assignment, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
Neither the Student, nor anyone on the Student’s behalf, attended the hearing. The University provided affidavit evidence regarding service, including evidence that the Student had a conversation with counsel for the University after being sent the charges. The Panel held that the University had done everything it could reasonably have done to contact the Student and had taken the steps required under the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”). The Panel was satisfied it was more likely than not that the Student had made a deliberate choice to avoid and turn their back on any official communications from the University. According to the Panel, the Student had been given reasonable notice of the hearing in compliance with the notice requirements set out in sections 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act and rules 9 and e16 of the Rules. The Panel decided to hear the case on its merits in the absence of the Student.
In making its finding of guilt, the Panel noted that the language used by the Student for their proposal was unusually sophisticated for an undergraduate student and concluded with wording that was odd and clearly suspicious that it came from another source. In their meeting with a professor, the Student was unable to explain concepts and was unfamiliar with some of their proposal’s content. The Panel also noted evidence of the Student’s admission that their proposal contained information they had found online and for which they had not provided the source in their references. Based on the University’s evidence and submissions, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count of knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea or work of another in relation to the topic proposal, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code. The University withdrew the remaining five charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel noted that the Student did not have any prior academic misconduct. Further, it observed that the fact that the Student’s conduct had occurred during the early days of the pandemic could have been a mitigating factor; however, plagiarism is a serious matter and requires that a strong message be sent for general deterrence. Moreover, the Panel commented that the Student undermined the grades-based system of evaluation and broke the honour code that is essential to modern learning. According to the Panel, the Student had committed a serious form of academic misconduct.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension; a three-year notation on the Student's transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.