DATE:
February 16 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. I.M. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
January 10, 2024, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Paul Michell, Chair
Dr. Allan Kaplan, Faculty Panel Member
Samantha Chang, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Tina Lie, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
William Webb, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Christopher Lang, Director, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Trial Division of the University Tribunal (the “Tribunal”) found the Student guilty of plagiarism and forgery or falsification, contrary to sections B.i.1(d) and B.i.3(a) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019. On appeal before the Discipline Appeals Board (“Board”), the Student asserted that the Tribunal’s decision and finding of guilty were unreasonable and that it had imposed a sanction was unreasonable and inconsistent with prior sanctions imposed by the Tribunal in similar circumstances.
At the outset of the hearing, the Panel noted that the notice of appeal was broad and did not identify specific grounds for appeal. The Panel further noted the Student had failed to deliver any written submissions before the hearing or to provide oral submissions at the hearing that could be of assistance in identifying any errors in the Tribunal’s decision that could provide the Board with a basis to intervene.
At the hearing, the Panel heard oral submissions from the Student and counsel for the University. In addition, the Panel reviewed the Tribunal decision and the record that was before the Tribunal. The Panel concluded that the Student had not identified any basis on which the Board should interfere with the Tribunal’s decision on liability, and noted that there were no errors in the Tribunal’s reasons. The Panel further found that the Student failed to identify any basis that would otherwise permit the Board to intervene in the Tribunal’s sanctioning decision. In particular, the Panel noted that the Tribunal had considered the sanctioning factors in Mr. C and applied them to the evidence, and noted that the Tribunal’s recommendation of expulsion, in the absence of any mitigating factors or join recommendations on sanction, was appropriate in view of earlier decisions and the Student’s commission of multiple offences.
After the hearing had concluded, the Student emailed further submissions to the Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances and to counsel for the University. The Panel did not review the submissions and noted that the Student had an opportunity to make written submissions prior to the hearing, and found that there was no basis for the Student to make such submissions after the close of the hearing.
The Student’s appeal was dismissed.