FILE:
Case # 1335 (2022-2023)
DATE:
April 19, 2023, via Zoom
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. I.M. (“the Student”)
HEARING DATE(S):
December 9, 2022, and February 10, 2023 via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Christopher Wirth, Chair
Professor Vivienne Luk, Faculty Panel Member
Giselle Sami Dalili, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
William Webb, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty of Grievances
The charges alleged against the Student pertained to two separate incidents of offence. In the first incident, the Student was charged under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code for knowingly representing as her own an idea or expression of an idea, and/or the work of another in a literature searching assignment in CHMB62H3 (the “Course)”. In the alternative to this charge, the Student was charged with knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud, or misrepresentation to obtain academic credit or advantage, contrary to s. B.i.3(b) of the Code.
The second incident concerns the King Faisal Prize which the Student applied for using forged materials from the University of Toronto. With respect to this incident, the Student was charged with two counts under s. B.i.3(a) of the Code, for knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying an academic record, and/or uttering, circulating or using such forged, altered, or falsified record. Both charges under s. B.1.3(a) pertained to documents that purported to be a letter signed by Hira Ali: the first a “Prize in Medicine Nomination Letter” and the second a “Prize in Science Nomination Letter.” The Student was also charged under s. B.i.1(a) with knowingly forging or in any other way altering or falsifying a document or evidence required by the University of Toronto, or uttering, circulating or making use of such forged, altered, or falsified document, which in this case was an email.
In the alternative to each of the charges related to the King Faisal Prize, the Student was charged with 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 advantage, contrary to s. B.1.3(b).
The Student was enrolled in the Course in Winter 2021. The Student submitted the literature searching assignment online. The Turnitin similarity report for the Student’s submission yielded a similarity score of 77%. The Turnitin report showed that the Student’s assignment was similar to an article from Harvard T.H Chan, School of Public Health. The instructor then compared the Student’s assignment to the Harvard article. While the Student had included citations to the Harvard article in the reference section and body of their assignment, the teaching assistant found that the Student’s assignment had copied paragraphs of text verbatim or near verbatim from the Harvard article, without appropriate citations or quotation marks.
Additionally, in February of the Winter 2021 semester, the Student emailed several offices and staff members of the University of Toronto Scarborough Campus (“UTSC”), requesting a nomination to the King Faisal Prize for the Student’s purported work on “Gene Editing Technologies and Mathematics.” The King Faisal Prize recognizes outstanding works of individuals in five major categories, including medicine and science. The Student was emailed back by one of the offices the Student had reached out to and informed that the office would not be able to complete a nomination due to not having familiarity with the Student’s work.
In April 2021, the Executive Assistant to the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean was emailed by Soliman AlMezied, a consultant at the King Faisal Prize, seeking to verify if certain nominations were legitimate. The documents in question were two letters, each purporting to be signed by Hira Ali, for nominations for the Student for the King Faisal Prize in medicine and science, respectively. It was confirmed by University staff that Hira Ali did not write the letters. The University contacted the Student to request a meeting. The Student did not respond.
In the application, the Student alleged to have completed the University of Toronto Faculty of Medicine program in 2006 and claimed to be an elected President of UMMATY Foundation. The application also contained a letter purporting to have the approval of the University of Toronto, as well as documents referring to the Student as “Professor” or “Dr.” in proximity to the UTSC logo.
In July 2021, the Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean requested that the Student meet with them to discuss the allegations of academic misconduct. While the Student was in contact with the Office, she did not attend the meeting, later explaining by email that she was in the hospital at the time of the meeting. The meeting was rescheduled. The Office of the Vice-Principal Academic and Dean also received an email from the UMMATY Foundation, continuing to endorse the Student and stating that there was no forgery of documents on her part. Further investigation found that the UMMATY Foundation and email linked to the Student did not have an apparent presence on the internet.
At the Dean’s Designate meeting, the Student claimed she did not know how the reference letter with a forged signature from University of Toronto staff got to the King Faisal Prize. The Student then stated she had nothing more to say about these allegations. When discussing the allegation that the Student had plagiarized in her assignment, the Student was asked whether she believed what she did in the assignment was correct, to which she responded “yes.”
The Student confirmed in July 2022 that she was available to attend proceedings but did not continue correspondence with the University afterwards. The Student joined the hearing after she was found guilty but before the sanctions were determined. With the consent of the Student and the University, the Panel adjourned the hearing to a later date to allow the Student to retain legal counsel. The Student did not attend this hearing. The Panel heard evidence that the University had made serious efforts to serve the Student with notice, through email and telephone. The Panel found that reasonable notice of the hearing was provided according to the Rules of Practice and Procedure and the Statutory Powers Procedure Act.
The Panel was satisfied on a balance of probabilities that the Student had used the ideas and expressions of ideas by others whom she did not cite, and thus committed the academic offence of knowingly representing as her own, another’s work. The Panel was also satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the Student had sent the forged letters for the King Faizal Prize and emailed the Academic Integrity Office from an organization that does not exist, thus committing academic offences contrary to s. B.i.3(a) and s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. After considering the evidence in its totality, the Panel found the Student guilty of one count under s. B.i.1(d), two counts under s. B.i.3(a), and one count under s. B.i.1(a) of the Code. The University withdrew the alternative charges.
In determining the appropriate sanctions, the Panel considered the chart of prior decisions and sanctions in similar cases contained in the University’s Book of Authorities. The Panel considered the Assistant Discipline Counsel (“ADC”) submission that because the Student did not attend the hearing, there was no evidence of remorse or insight into whether the Student had taken responsibility, nor any evidence to the Student’s character or any extenuating circumstances. The Panel accepted the ADC’s submission that though the Student had no prior academic offences, there was a strong potential of repetition considering that she falsified and forged two letters and email. The Panel agreed with the ADC that not only did the Student deny wrongdoing, but the Student also went to great lengths to cover it up, suggesting a likelihood of repetition of the conduct. The Panel found that with respect to the nature of the offence, similar to a previous Tribunal case, the Student had engaged in extensive false work to obtain a substantial prize, which the Panel found very concerning. The Panel affirmed that a severe sanction is required in cases of serious offence for deterrence.
The Panel imposed the following sanctions: a final grade of zero in the Course; a recommendation from the President of the University that the Student be expelled from the University; immediate suspension from the University for a period of five years from the date of the Tribunal’s order or until the Governing Council makes its decision on expulsion; a corresponding notation on the Student’s transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.