FILE: Case #541 (2007-2008)
DATE: April 18, 2008
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. Mr. K.N.
Hearing Date(s): April 16, 2008
Mr. Andrew Pinto, Chair
Prof. Ikuko Komuro-Lee, Faculty Panel Member
Ms. Sujata Pokhrel, Student Panel Member
Mr. Danny Kastner, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Ms. Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Ms. Lucy Gaspini, Academic Affairs Officer, UTM
Mr. K.N., the Student, did not attend
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.i.1(b) – impersonation – impersonator paid to write term test – hearing not attended - Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty - expulsion recommended for impersonation – see Code - deference shown to joint submission – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript or until graduation; and report to Provost
Student charged under s. B.i.1(c), B.i.1.(b), and alternatively, under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student paid an individual to impersonate him and write a term test as if he were the Student. The Student did not attend the hearing. The Panel considered the Notice of Hearing and the Student’s declaration, in which he attested to his permanent residency outside of Canada and requested that the Tribunal accept the Agreed Statement of Facts and Joint Submission on Penalty in lieu of his attendance. The Panel permitted the hearing to proceed in the Student’s absence. The Student admitted his guilt. Based on the Agreed Statement of Facts, the Panel found the Student guilty of the charge under s. B.i.1(c) of the Code. The Panel was informed that it was customary for the period of notation on the Student’s transcript to exceed the expiration of the suspension because it serves as a reminder to the Student to comply with standards of academic integrity upon his return to the University and it serves as an advisory to University officials, in the event that the Student commits further offences after resuming his academic career. The University noted that the proposed sanction included a notation caveat that would safeguard the Student’s reputation after graduation. The Panel accepted the Joint Submission on Penalty. The Panel noted that while the Provost’s guidelines on sanction recommend expulsion for impersonation, deference was to be shown to joint submissions. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a five-year suspension; a seven year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript (or until graduation, whichever was to occur first); and that a report be issued to the Provost.
FILE: Case #367 (2005-2006)
DATE: information not available
PARTIES: University of Toronto v. M.M.
Hearing Date(s): August 11, 2005
Melanie L. Aitken, Co-Chair
Professor Ikuko Komuro-Lee, Faculty Member
Joan Saary, Student Member
Christopher Burr, for M. M.
Lily Harmer, Assistant Discipline Counsel for the University
Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism and concoction – essay - guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts – Joint Submission on Penalty - two prior academic offences – proposed sanction within range of previous decisions - nature of offence and Student’s prior misconduct accounted for – extension of notation on transcript beyond graduation not justified - Joint Submission on Penalty accepted with modification – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension – five-year notation on transcript, or until graduation – and report to Provost
Student charged under s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f), and alternatively, under s. B.i.3(b) of the Code. The charges related to allegations that the Student submitted an essay, portions of which she did not write and/or properly cite, and in which some or all of the citations and references were concocted. The Student pleaded guilty to the charges under s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of the Code. The parties submitted an Agreed Statement of Facts. The Panel considered the Agreed Statement of Facts and the submissions of the parties and accepted the Student’s plea. The parties submitted an Agreed Summary of Facts with respect to the sanction. The Student had two prior convictions for plagiarism. The Panel found that it was significant that the recommendations as to sanction were joint and that the Student cooperated with the University and pleaded guilty to the charges. The Panel found that the proposed sanction was within the range of sentences previously imposed in similar cases and that it properly accounted for the gravity and nature of the offence, particularly in light of the Student’s prior academic misconduct. The Panel accepted the Joint Recommendation on Sentence subject to one modification. The Panel found that extending the five-year notation on the Student’s academic record beyond graduation, should the Student do so within five years, was not justified. The Panel found that while the University had an interest in being able to access the information in the notation for a period of five years, irrespective of a matriculation, to further the interest of protection, there was not enough to be gained by way of deterrence or reformation to justify it. The Panel imposed a grade of zero in the course; a three-year suspension; a five-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript, or until graduation; and that a report be issued to the Provost.