Search

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

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents and purchased course work – requests for academic accommodation based on false information – Student admitted guilt – University counsel permitted to lead witnesses during examination in the absence of an Agreed Statement of Facts – first offence – Student had been warned previously of consequences of academic misconduct – grade assignment of zero in three courses; recommendation that the Student be expelled; five-year suspension

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – forged personal statements and medical certificates on five different occasions over three years – hearing not attended – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – forgery of medical documentation was even more serious than other types of forgery – multiplicity of similar conduct suggested likelihood of repetition – Student fully cooperated and had no prior academic offences – proposed penalty was consistent with precedents – Panel accepted Joint Submission – absent Joint Submission, Panel would have considered extending the period of notation – 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.3(b), s. B.i.1(b) and (d) of Code – unauthorized aid and plagiarism – three offences: cheated on an assignment; had a cell phone in possession during an exam; and submitted an essay containing passages taken verbatim – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – penalty would only delay graduation without the Student having to do further coursework and demonstrate that he had learned from the experience – Panel would have considered a more severe penalty absent the joint submission – high threshold for rejecting a joint submission not met – grade assignment of zero for two courses and 50% for one course; three-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b), s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(f) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – unauthorized aid, plagiarism, concocted sources and academic dishonesty – submitted essay containing another student’s work – submitted essay containing plagiarized passages and references to concocted sources – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted – reasonable to infer guilt in the absence of evidence of the content of the cited journal source where passages bear a close correspondence to the text of uncited websites – revised essay to conceal plagiarism – contested hearing on sanction – two prior offences – Student admitted guilt – Student was absent from University for almost two years before hearing – grade assignment of zero in two courses; four-year suspension; six-year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – altered medical certificate – forged documents submitted in support of petitions for accommodation – Student did not attend hearing – Student had been personally served with Notice of Hearing – finding of guilt – commercial aspect was an aggravating factor – conduct undermined integrity of accommodation process –grade assignment of zero in six courses; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled; report to Provost for publication.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism – passages from essay taken verbatim from various sources – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Panel accepted JSP – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; notation on transcript until graduation; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – altered medical certificate –forged document submitted in support of petition for late withdrawal without academic penalty – Student did not attend hearing – notice provided in accord with Rule 3 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure – finding of guilt – first offence – expulsion not appropriate– Student acknowledged guilt in letter to Registrar – Student authorized University to speak with doctor – grade assignment of zero in two courses petitioned; five-year suspension; five-year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) the Code – plagiarism and concocted sources – submitted essay containing plagiarized passages and references to concocted sources – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted – Joint Submission on Penalty – two prior plagiarism offences – substantial mitigating factors – Student’s husband had left her the day before the assignment was due – Student was sole provider for young daughter – Student’s family had severed contact with Student – assignment worth only 7% of final grade – joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for the course; 31-month suspension; five-year notation on transcript or until graduation whichever is earlier; report to Provost for publication.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of the Code – plagiarism and concocted sources – submitted essay containing plagiarized passages and references to concocted sources – Student did not attend hearing – finding of guilt – first offence – Student appeared to have left Canada – deterrence an important consideration – grade assignment of zero in the course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication

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(c) of the Code – impersonation – Student had someone personate them for term test and final exam – Student did not attend hearing – individual writing exam wore a niqab and Student did not – finding of guilt – no mitigating factors – two instances of personation – poor academic record – serious and premeditated offence – preserving integrity of academic evaluation a paramount concern – grade assignment of zero in the course; recommendation that the Student be expelled; five-year suspension; report to Provost for publication

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – submitted petition containing information known to be false and forged death certificates – Student did not attend hearing – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted – Joint Submission on Penalty – grade assignment of zero in five courses; recommendation that the Student be expelled; five-year suspension; report to Provost for publication

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(a) of the Code – forged documents – submitted another student’s test as Student’s own – Student’s expert’s report submitted minutes before trial unsigned and in draft form –Student could not cross examine University expert on the contents of Student’s expert report where Student’s expert did not attend hearing – Student retracted admission made at Dean’s Meeting – Student did not sign anything at Dean’s Meeting – Panel held retracted admission was of limited assistance because it was possible the Student did not genuinely intend to plead guilty – finding of guilt – evidence against Student was substantial and unambiguous – offence was serious – no mitigating factors – Student implicated professor and TA as having presented fabricated evidence – not an aggravating factor for the Student to criticize the system; students must be free to comment without fear – grade assignment of zero in the course; recommendation that the Student be expelled; suspension lasting five years or until Governing Council makes decision on expulsion; report to Provost for publication

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – submitted another student’s test as Student’s own – Student’s expert’s report submitted minutes before trial unsigned and in draft form –Student could not cross examine University expert on the contents of Student’s expert report where Student’s expert did not attend hearing – Student retracted admission made at Dean’s Meeting – Student did not sign anything at Dean’s Meeting – Panel held retracted admission was of limited assistance because it was possible the Student did not genuinely intend to plead guilty – finding of guilt – evidence against Student was substantial and unambiguous – offence was serious – no mitigating factors – Student implicated professor and TA as having presented fabricated evidence – not an aggravating factor for the Student to criticize the system; students must be free to comment without fear – grade assignment of zero in the course; recommendation that the Student be expelled; suspension lasting five years or until Governing Council makes decision on expulsion; report to Provost for publication

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.

Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal from sanction – appeal limited to the Panel’s recommendation that he be expelled – hearing not attended despite the accommodations Student received regarding scheduling – hearing proceeded in Student’s absence – Student claimed he made every effort to address mistakes and did not attempt to deceive and blamed the prosecution and his supervisor – attempt to introduce new evidence did not meet the criteria for the admission of fresh evidence – Student’s allegations were contrary to factual findings – deference especially appropriate in cases such as this where credibility was at the heart of the decision – Board would have reached the same conclusion even if it was not for deference – discussion of Chelin factors – deliberate fabrication of research results was a serious and inexcusable offence – detriment to the University exacerbated by the inclusion of fabricated data in a grant proposal – Student did not demonstrate remorse and offered no prospect of rehabilitation – evidence of bad character – deterring misrepresentation of research results must be a significant priority – appeal dismissed

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – forged documents – submitted forged medical certificates in support of three petitions for academic accommodation – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – offences were very serious – Student was cooperative throughout the process – suspension less than five years recommended in order to avoid a suspension that would have been greater than five years in effect – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for three courses; suspension just under five years; five-year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication

Note: Overturned on appeal
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – falsified course withdrawal petitions – Agreed Statement of Facts – 2 prior offenses – admission of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty rejected – grade of zero in 17 courses; recommendation of expulsion; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – plagiarism and unauthorized aids – use of Answer Key from previous year – use of another student’s work – uncited excerpts – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted for three of four charges – guilty plea for plagiarism of previous year’s Answer Key rejected – Joint Submission on Penalty – second offence – prior offence involved similar misconduct and was therefore a serious aggravating factor – Student pleaded guilty early and was cooperative – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted -- grade assignment of zero in two courses; suspension just under five-years; notation on transcript just under five-years; report to Provost for publication