DATE:
March 19, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. P.D. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
December 8 and 11, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Alexi Wood, Chair
Professor Marvin Zuker, Faculty Panel Member
Cameron Miranda-Radbord, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Ryan Shah, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
NOT IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator & Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged under section B.i.1(f) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”) for knowingly submitting academic work containing purported statements of fact or references to sources that had been concocted, in connection with a thesis submitted by the Student. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count under section B.i.3(b) of the Code for knowingly engaging in a form of cheating, academic dishonesty or misconduct, fraud or misrepresentation not otherwise described in the Code.
The Student was registered in the PhD candidate at the School of Graduate Studies at the Rotman School of Management. As part of the Research / Thesis course, the Student submitted a thesis containing five studies and two essays, and which purported to use participants in the studies. The Student submitted three research papers, co-authored by the Student’s PhD supervisor, for publication in several journals. Editors of two of these journals expressed concern regarding the credibility and reliability of the data to the PhD supervisor. The University subsequently appointed an Allegation Administrator to conduct a preliminary inquiry into whether the Student committed research misconduct, and further established an Investigating Committee (the “Committee”) to investigate whether the data used and report in one of the Research Papers had been manipulated. The Committee considered the Student’s thesis as part of its review. The Committee ultimately concluded that the Student committed two acts of research misconduct, namely, fraud in the fabrication or manipulation of published data to support a hypothesis and destruction of research data to avoid detection of wrongdoing.
As a threshold matter, the Panel first considered whether it had jurisdiction to hear the case, given that the Student had received her degree from the University in June 2017. The Panel concluded that, pursuant to section B(i)(4), the Code applies to former students who have committed an offence while they were active students. Accordingly, the Panel determined they had jurisdiction to hear the matter and proceeded to do so. However, the Panel held that the Policy on Official Correspondence with Students did not apply to former students.
The Student was neither present nor represented at the hearing. The Panel found that the Student had reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges pursuant to the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“SPPA”) and the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure (the “Rules”). Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the Student’s absence. The Panel noted that section 6 of the SPPA requires reasonable notice of the hearing to be provided to the parties, and that section 7 of the SPPA and rule 21 of the Rules allowed the Tribunal to proceed in the absence of the Student where notice has been given. The Panel heard evidence that notice of the charges had been sent to the Student at two separate email addresses, and further attempted to notify the Student by cell phone and by mail.
The Panel heard further evidence that counsel for the University made further attempts to contact the Student by email and telephone, and had attempted to initiate contact with the Student and their spouse on Facebook. Counsel was able to contact an individual, listed as next of kin in the Student’s ROSI account, who identified himself as the Student’s father, and requested that the Student check their email. None of the communications were answered by the Student. The Panel was satisfied that the University complied with the Rules and demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to notify the Student of the charges and the hearing, and determined that it would proceed to hear the case in the Student’s absence.
At the hearing, the Panel heard the evidence of an expert in analysis and quantitative research methods (the “Expert”). The Expert testified that the data was not collected in the manner described in the thesis. The Panel also heard testimony from the PhD supervisor, detailing how, after discussions with the editors of one of the journals which had published the one of the Student’s Research Papers, he became so concerned at the underlying data that he agreed to retract the paper. The Panel found that the University had met its burden to establish on a balance of probabilities that it was more likely than not that the Student fabricated the data for her thesis and one of the research papers. Accordingly, the Panel found the Student guilty of the offence of knowingly submitting academic work containing purported statements of fact or references to sources that had been concocted, contrary to section B.i.1(f) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the sanctioning factors outlined in University of Toronto and Mr. C (Case No. 1975/77-3) and heard submissions from the University. The University submitted that all of the evidence that was available reflected negatively on the Student’s character, and in particular the Student’s deliberate effort to cover-up the offence, and suggested that there was a likelihood that the Student would re-offend.
The Panel found that it had no evidence of any extenuating circumstances, and that second hand comments relating to the Student’s mental health issues, referenced in the materials, were to be given little weight since they were not made under oath and could not be verified. The Panel noted that the offence in question was one of the most serious offences, which had the potential to jeopardize the integrity of the University and its degrees and risked enormous detriment to the University. Based on the University’s submissions and the precedent case law, the Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of zero in the course, a recommendation to the Governing Council that it cancel and recall the Student’s Doctor of Philosophy degree; a permanent notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to the Provost for publication.