DATE:
February 21, 2023
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. A.S. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
November 15 2022, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Karen Symes, Chair
Professor Emily Nacol, Faculty Panel Member
Jessica Johnson, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Daniel Goldbloom, Counsel for the Student, Goldbloom Law
HEARING SECRETARY:
Ms. Krista Kennedy, Administrative Clerk and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with five counts under section B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as their own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in two book reviews and three essays they submitted for academic credit in five different courses. In the alternative, they were charged with five counts for 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 these book reviews and essays, contrary to section B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The hearing proceeded on the basis of an Agreed Statement of Facts (“ASF”) and Joint Submission on Penalty (“JSP”). The Student had submitted book reviews and essays that included verbatim and nearly verbatim excerpts from several sources without proper attribution. In some instances, Turnitin Originality Reports identified similarities with other sources in the Turnitin database. In other instances, Turnitin had not identified the similarities between the Student's and other sources because the Student had re-ordered the words or used a thesaurus to find synonyms of the same words. The professor in the course uncovered the similarities through their own investigation. The Panel accepted the Student’s guilty plea in relation to four papers and found the Student guilty of four counts of plagiarism, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code in relation to three courses. The University withdrew the remaining charges.
In determining sanction, the Panel commented that the plagiarism in the Student’s four papers was very deliberately engaged and represented virtually the entirety of the work the Student had submitted. The Student’s efforts to change the plagiarized material was of particular concern to the University because these efforts had their intended effect by going undetected by Turnitin. The Panel highlighted the importance that the penalty imposed must send a strong message that this type of academic misconduct will be uncovered and will not be tolerated. Since multiple offences were committed in three different courses, the Panel indicated that this factor demonstrated that there was a real risk that the Student would reoffend. It also noted the following mitigating factors: the Student had no prior history of academic misconduct; they had admitted their guilt and entered into the ASF and JSP; they had not attempted to minimize or justify their conduct; they had accepted responsibility and expressed regret and remorse over their conduct; they had committed to the offences when they were experiencing a particularly difficult time; and they sought out counselling. The Panel concluded that the JSP was neither contrary to the public interest, nor would it bring the administration of justice into disrepute. It found that the proposed penalty fell within the range of penalties imposed in other similar cases.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a grade of zero in three courses; a four-year suspension; a 3.5-year notation on the Student's transcript or until their graduation; whichever occurs first; and a report to the Provost for publication.