Search

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism and concoction – passages from essay taken verbatim from sources not properly attributed and references concocted to disguise plagiarism – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Panel stated it was disinclined to accept JSP and invited Parties for further submissions for the following reasons: (1) Student had committed two earlier plagiarism offences, the latest disposed only a month ago; (2) the Dean’s designate had suspended the commencement of suspension to save Student from losing the rest of the term; and (3) without a JSP, Panel would have considered expulsion – Parties cited Tsicos: high threshold for rejecting a JSP – Panel considered extending the period of notation but “tinkering” with JSP would be difficult to reconcile with the Tsicos test – Panel reluctantly accepted JSP – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; the later of either a six-year notation on transcript or until graduation; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(f) of Code – concoction – falsified research results – credibility of Student – shifting explanations – ex-post rationalization – clear evidence of falsification to make the research results positive or successful – double jeopardy defence – previously cautioned in writing by Chair although exonerated of data falsification in the end – academic dishonesty rules are not relaxed if one re-submits offending material even if it was under investigation in the past – the letters supported a finding that Student ought to have known – finding of guilt – 30 days to make submissions regarding penalty – nature of the offence is serious and inexcusable – Student lacks insight into his actions and their effect on University – Student’s allegation of intimidation by his supervisor is an aggravating factor – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(f) of Code – concoction – falsified research results – credibility of Student – shifting explanations – ex-post rationalization – clear evidence of falsification to make the research results positive or successful – double jeopardy defence – previously cautioned in writing by Chair although exonerated of data falsification in the end – academic dishonesty rules are not relaxed if one re-submits offending material even if it was under investigation in the past – the letters supported a finding that Student ought to have known – finding of guilt – 30 days to make submissions regarding penalty – nature of the offence is serious and inexcusable – Student lacks insight into his actions and their effect on University – Student’s allegation of intimidation by his supervisor is an aggravating factor – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(c) and s. B.i.1(a) of Code – impersonation and forged documents – submitted final exam in another student’s name – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Panel found the sanctions to fall within a reasonable range – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript or until graduation; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forgery of documents – Student knowingly forged, altered or falsified documents (specifically, medical certificates) required by the University in support of petitions for deferrals of exams in two courses – Agreed Statement of Facts (ASF) – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty (JSP) – relevance of previous offences – pattern of forgery and falsification - challenging personal circumstances carry some weight in determining appropriate penalty – University’s lack of intervention after initial offences a mitigating factor – University has duty to proactively assist students in distress rather than simply penalizing such students – test for disregarding JSP is very high – to reject a JSP the recommended penalty must be contrary to public interest or bring the administration of justice into disrepute – JSP accepted - limited circumstances in which motion can be brought to reopen case – final grade of zero; five-year suspension; notation of sanction on academic record and transcript; and publication by the Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with the Student’s name withheld.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – submitted falsified documents in support of petition for seven courses on different occasions – Agreed Statement of Facts - guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Panel would have considered a more severe penalty absent the joint submission – threshold to reject a joint submission is high - Panel accepted Joint Submission on Penalty with regret grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; six-year notation on transcript; report to Provost