Search

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(c) of Code – impersonation – impersonator paid to write term test – Student had denied the allegations the day before the test – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Student’s conduct fell within the most serious category of impersonation – need for both specific and general deterrence – commercial transaction; availability of online advertising makes it harder to monitor – strong need for general deterrence – these factors outweigh rehabilitation needs – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; recommendation that Student be expelled; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(f) of Code – concoction – thesis contained concocted statements – hearing not attended – Student requested adjournment but failed to provide information requested by the Tribunal – allowed matter to proceed in the absence of the Student – affidavits submitted and oral testimony given by the Student’s thesis supervisor – University met the burden of proof – Student claimed “honest” and “unintentional” mistakes – Panel rejected the claim and stated that even if accepted, it cannot be a defence based on the extended definition of “knowingly” – finding of guilt – Student ought to have known that he was submitting concocted work for his thesis – deliberate concoction and a lack of appreciation about seriousness of misconduct – differentiated the case from D. (Case No. 406) – grade assignment of zero for course; recommendation that the degree be cancelled and recalled; permanent notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – falsified marks on a mid-term test – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt based on agreed statement of facts – Student proposed a two-year suspension with permission to resume classes after one year – Student submitted that a suspension of greater than two years would amount to an effective expulsion due to personal reasons – prior offence of similar nature – Panel stated that if Student was unable to resume, then she has only herself to blame – permission to attend classes while under suspension contravenes the Code – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript or until graduation; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – purchased and submitted a forged medical certificate and a physician’s letter to defer an exam; also charged with aiding or abetting to falsify evidence – Student attempted to give evidence in his closing argument; Panel allowed it – Student argued that he should not be found guilty because the charges were all the subject matter of one single charge of forging his petition and the University could not prove that his petition was falsified as he was actually ill – s. B.i.1(a) referred to “any document” implying that each document could be a subject of a separate charge – Student pleaded guilty to falsifying the documents and pleaded not guilty to aiding and abetting – the commercial provider left a voicemail to falsify evidence by pretending to be a doctor’s assistant – Student knew or ought to have known that the provider would take action – finding of guilt – premeditated and egregious – wasted University resources – there can be no excuse for submitting false documents – importance of deterrence – mitigating factors – grade assignment of zero for course; four-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – Medical Certificate and Personal Statement – hearing not attended – Difficulty serving notice on the Student - Student served with notice three days prior to hearing – no communication from Student regarding an intention to take a position - Panel allowed the matter to proceed – doctor did not testify; evidence from his office staff not given much weight – Student admitted to providing the forged certificates during her meeting with the Dean's Designate – finding of guilt – case for expulsion is strong as Student neither appeared nor offered explanation – need for deterrance is strong given the forgeries were sufficiently credible to mislead officials - grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aids – possessed unauthorized notes during exams in two courses – hearing not attended – reasonable notice must include a warning – Student had engaged in correspondence from his University email address – reasonable notice provided – Student claimed that he felt that notes were allowed; he did not go to classes or read online announcements – students are responsible for ensuring compliance with course requirements; cannot claim ignorance as defence – Student ought reasonably to have known – finding of guilt – consideration of the facts and precedents – importance of general deterrence – grade assignment of zero for courses; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Note: Overturned on appeal.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged documents – submitted forged transcript to ten employers; claimed to have received scholarship and a study skills success certificate – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Panel rejected that a learning disability can partially justify the misconduct – it had not been proven that expulsion had a greater deterrent effect than a five-year suspension – embarrassment of having to explain formed part of the deterrent effect – statement of remorse relevant but would have been more relevant if it had come at an earlier stage – no prior academic offence – Panel considered CHK and A.K.G. – for students with no prior offence, expulsion was not the only justifiable sanction – Board in A.K.G. imposed a five-year suspension for a similar offence; the student did not attend hearing – a more severe sanction was not justified in this case – Student’s psychologist’s testimony – Student attended the hearing, giving Panel an opportunity to assess his character – five-year suspension; five-year notation on transcript; report to Provost – Panel recommended names of guilty students be disclosed

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.1(c) of Code – unauthorized aids and impersonation – impersonated a professor to obtain a copy of a midterm test and the answer key – hearing not attended – reasonable notice provided – evidence from the computer systems manager – Student denied the charges – wide ranging and serious damaging repercussions to the University community – plagiarism offence – innocent classmate under suspicion – finding of guilt based on evidence – offences are of brazen nature – need for general deterrence – grade assignment of zero for courses; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled; permanent notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aids – midterm contained answers allegedly copied from another student – some similarities between answers submitted by the two students – Student omitted intermediate steps – University only needs to prove the case on a balance of probabilities – evidence only circumstantial – test instructions regarding intermediate steps were ambiguous – charges not brought promptly – testimony from classmates that they did not see Student looking at the other student’s test – Provost failed to prove the charges on a balance of probabilities – charges dismissed

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism and concoction – passages from essay taken verbatim from internet sources and references concocted – prior plagiarism offences – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Student repeatedly committed plagiarism despite warnings – Panel stressed the seriousness of plagiarism offences – Student cooperated and indicated acceptance of responsibility – Joint Submission consistent with the range of sanctions imposed in similar cases – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of Code – unauthorized aids – possessed unauthorized notes during the exam – whether the invigilator identified the correct student – University must prove on a balance of probabilities – invigilator walked away from the student and “returned” later to write down his name – Student did not engage and had his head down – discrepancy between the testimony of the invigilator and that of the instructor – neither the invigilator or the instructor could identify the Student with certainty – University failed to meet the burden – Student found not guilty

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism – passages from essay taken verbatim from secondary sources – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript or until graduation, whichever is later; report to Provost

Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from sanction – request to set aside the penalty and impose a recommendation for expulsion – Board need grant little deference given its very broad powers – deference given on the issue of credibility did not apply in this case because the Student did not testify – the possibility of expulsion is a real deterrent effect – no extenuating circumstances to justify a lesser sentence than expulsion – concern that if expulsion was not the result in this case, it would be difficult to justify in any case – whether the Student had prior offences should be seen in combination with other factors – nothing to put context around the first offence in a mitigating sense – no remorse or explanation by the Student – guilty plea in its own terms was neutral or irrelevant – Board found it significant that Student continued his misconduct even after being warned by a potential employer – Board rejected the idea that because the act itself is the same on each occasion, they should be considered all as one – little weight on the psychiatrist evidence – the fact that the Student had accumulated enough credits to graduate was not a mitigating factor – Board differentiated the case from A.K.G. on the ground that the circumstances were different – deterrent effect and the harm occasioned to the University by the nature of the offence were the two most important sentencing principles in a serious case such as this – nothing in this case that could blunt or ameliorate the facts of the case or the need for consistency and uniformity in sentencing principles – Appeal allowed – recommendation for expulsion