DATE:
March 19, 2024
PARTIES:
University of Toronto v. X.M. ("the Student")
HEARING DATE:
October 19, 2023, via Zoom
PANEL MEMBERS:
Simon Clements, Chair
Professor Dionne Aleman, Faculty Panel Member
Alexander Bowie, Student Panel Member
APPEARANCES:
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Sonia Patel, Co-Counsel, Paliare Roland Rosenberg Rothstein LLP
Calvin Zhang, Counsel for the Student, Starkman Lawyers
IN ATTENDANCE:
The Student
HEARING SECRETARY:
Samanthe Huang, Coordinator and Hearing Secretary, Office of Appeals, Discipline and Faculty Grievances
The Student was charged with one count under B.i.1(d) of the Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters, 2019 (the “Code”), for plagiarism in connection with a final essay submitted in a course. In the alternative, the Student was charged with one count of knowingly obtaining unauthorized assistance in connection with the essay, contrary to section B.i.1(b) of the Code. In the further alternative, the Student was charged 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 neither present nor represented at the hearing. The University requested that the Panel proceed with the hearing in the absence of the Student. The University filed evidence regarding service and several attempts to contact the Student by mail, email and by phone using information that the Student provided to the University on the Repository of Student Information to no avail. Based on the University’s evidence, the Panel concluded that the Student had received reasonable notice of the hearing and the charges pursuant to sections 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers and Procedure Act, and rules 13 and 21 of the University Tribunal’s Rules of Practice and Procedure. Accordingly, the hearing proceeded in the Student’s absence.
The Panel reviewed the affidavit evidence of the course professor, submitted by the University. Students enrolled in the course were evaluated on the basis of, among other things, a final essay worth 40% of the final grade in the course. Students were expressly prohibited from using secondary texts or sources, and were to use only the required course text. The Student’s essay was flagged upon submission to Turnitin, a website which detects plagiarism, and identified several passages from the essay that were identical or near identical to the text of two online sources, neither of which were the required course text, the only permitted source. Based on the extensive overlap between the essay and the online sources, the professor believed that the essay constituted plagiarism. Based on the University’s evidence, the Panel found that the Student was guilty of plagiarism, contrary to section B.i.1(d) of the Code.
In determining the appropriate sanction, the Panel considered the submission of the University and the sanctioning factors in University of Toronto v. Mr. C. (Case No. 1976/77-3, November 5, 1976). With respect to the Student’s character, the Panel noted that the Student had failed to engage in the discipline process in any way, and there was no evidence that the Student had reflected or reassessed their behaviour, or shown insight into their conduct. Regarding the nature of the offence and the need for deterrence, the Panel accepted the University’s submission that plagiarism poses a grave threat to the core of academic integrity that warrants a strong penalty, capable of general deterrence to others.
The Panel imposed the following sanction: a final grade of grade of zero in the course; a two-year suspension from the University; three-year notation on Student’s academic record and transcript; and a report to Provost for publication.