Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student submitted an essay for course credit knowing it contained verbatim or nearly verbatim text from the essays of two other students - Student did not attend hearing – reasonable notice of hearing was provided, but University not obliged to show Student had actual notice of hearing –– finding of guilt – plagiarism warrants strong penalty to serve as deterrent – no evidence of remorse or extenuating circumstances – final grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; three-year notation of sanction on transcript; and publication of notice of decision and sanctions, with Student’s name withheld.
Faculty of Medicine – Student appeals from decision of Faculty of Medicine Appeals Committee upholding decision of Board of Examiners referring Student for remediation in professionalism due to lapses in professional behaviour – standard of review is reasonableness - Faculty regulations and procedures followed – relevant evidence taken into consideration – Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship & Immigration [1999] SCC 699 – relaxed standard of procedural fairness appropriate when consequence of decision appealed from are remedial, educational and restorative, not punitive, and right to continue in academic program or career is not at stake – appeal dismissed
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student submitted a film review containing the work of others represented as her own – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - prior academic offence – cooperation, remorse and other mitigating circumstances - final grade of zero in the course; five-year suspension; six-year notation on academic record; publication of notice of decision and sanction, with Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forgery of academic record – Student knowingly forged, circulated or made use of a document purporting to be a degree certificate from the University of Toronto – forgery detected when independent third party requested verification by University of forged degree certificate – Student did not attend hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided - finding of guilt – general approach of Tribunal is to impose recommendation for expulsion when falsified degree is used and no mitigating circumstances – no remorse, character evidence or mitigating factors – no engagement in the discipline process – five-year suspension; recommendation for expulsion; and publication by the Provost of a notice of decision and sanctions with the Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(f) and s. B.i.1(a) of the Code – concoction and forged documents – Student concocted references to sources in a research report – Student falsified the document outlining his sanction to reflect a lesser penalty – Student attached the falsified document to his appeal documents – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided – finding on evidence – finding on guilt – 5-year suspension; recommendation of expulsion; case reported to Provost for publication
Discipline Appeals Board – Student appeal from Tribunal decision – request for new Tribunal hearing - concoction of academic sources and falsification of academic record – s. B.i.1(f) and s. B.i.1(a) of Code - - the standard of proof to be applied in proceedings under the Code is the civil standard of proof on a balance of probabilities – appeal dismissed
UTSC – late withdrawal without academic penalty – family pressures, financial circumstances and illness of family member – wrong to impose rules as rigorous as are imposed by appellate courts but Committee can refuse to consider new evidence – recommendation that all students are warned that full disclosure of all relevant facts is required at petition stage – nature of issue sufficiently disclosed in original petition – University policy on drop dates does not apply when unanticipated circumstances arise after the drop date, when then existing circumstances unexpectedly become significantly more severe, or when then existing circumstances were reasonably expected to abate, but did not – awareness of adverse circumstances and failing grades by drop date – late receipt of mark not grounds for relief because petition not filed promptly – difficulties associated with family member’s illness occurring around or after the drop date not exempted from drop date policy – appeal dismissed
Faculty of Arts and Science – late withdrawal without academic penalty – time spent caring for ill family member and little experience with ways of a Canadian university – the Student finished the course, passed the course and sought only to drop the course with lowest grade – circumstances were beyond the Student’s control, unduly intrusive on the Student’s ability to study, and became progressively and unexpectedly worse past drop date – unlikely to seek help available due to focus on ill family member and newness to Canadian university – appeal allowed – grade in the course vacated and replaced with WDR
School of Graduate Studies – motion – admissibility of evidence of communication with University staff and counsel – evidence of communications inadmissible – settlement privilege – evidence of the fact of negotiations admissible if relevant – jurisdiction to grant remedy – request for removal of grades – request for waiver of tuition – request for compensation for costs incurred – request for compensation for losses and – request for an official apology –Academic Appeal Committee’s (“AAC”) powers limited to those granted expressly or by necessary implication in the Terms of Reference – s. 2.1 of the AAC’s Terms of Reference – purpose of s. 19 of Graduate Academic Appeals Board (“GAAB”) Terms of Reference is to enable GAAB Chair to determine a point of law that arises in connection with an issue that is otherwise within its jurisdiction – GAAB and AAC jurisdiction limited to considering whether academic regulations and requirements have been applied correctly, consistently, and fairly – jurisdiction does not include all the consequences flowing from an otherwise reviewable academic decision – jurisdiction of the AAC is limited to considering whether those academic regulations and requirements have been applied correctly, consistently, and fairly – GAAB and AAC remedial jurisdiction limited to orders of an academic nature and making recommendations regarding tuition – GAAB and AAC have no jurisdiction to award financial compensation or demand an apology – AAC has no jurisdiction to order production of documents prepared for the purpose of assisting the GAAB – AAC has no jurisdiction to order registration of students in upcoming academic year when hearing a preliminary motion on questions of law
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student submitted a purchased essay for course credit – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – request for back-dated suspension granted because Student did not contribute to delay in resolving charges and has not taken further courses pending resolution of charges – students caught submitting purchased essay should receive sanction on serious end of spectrum to deter others – no prior offence – early admission of guilt - grade of zero; five-year suspension to commence one year prior to date of hearing; corresponding notation on Student’s academic record.
Trial Division - s. B.i.1(b) and (d) of the Code - unauthorized aid and plagiarism - student did not attend hearing - Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – final grade of zero in two courses; four-year suspension; notation of sanction on academic record until one year after graduation, withdrawal or program termination; and publication of notice of decision and sanction with student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented the work of another as his own in five written assignments submitted for course credit in three courses – Agreed Statement of Facts – admissions of guilt – Student did not attend second hearing date dealing with sanction – reasonable notice of hearing provided - sanction phase proceeded in Student’s absence – reason to believe Student would reoffend – extent of plagiarism significant – no extenuating circumstances - final grade of zero in three courses; suspension of just under four years; notation of sanction on academic record and transcript until graduation; and publication of notice of decision and sanction imposed with name of the Student withheld – permanent notation not appropriate
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – Student knowingly represented the work of another as her own and knowingly included the ideas and expressions of another without appropriate acknowledgement or citations in an essay submitted for academic credit – hearing adjourned to provide additional time for Student to respond to notice of hearing – service by both email and courier to address provided by Student in ROSI in Cairo, Egypt - Student did not attend either hearing – reasonable notice of hearing provided – finding of guilt – no mitigating factors – no engagement in the discipline process – no response by Student to considerable correspondence from the University – grade of zero; two year suspension from date of hearing; corresponding notation on Student’s academic record for three year period from date of hearing; and publication by Provost of notice of decision and sanctions with the Student’s name withheld.
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism, unauthorized assistance–– Student does not appear at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – knew or ought to have known – finding of guilt - s. B.ii.1.(a)(ii) – party to the offence - sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism – three counts in two different classes – requested postponement granted – Student not present at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – identical spelling errors – finding of guilt – knew or ought to have known - – sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero in each course; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism, unauthorized assistance–– Student does not appear at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – knew or ought to have known – finding of guilt - s. B.ii.1.(a)(ii) – party to the offence - sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – plagiarism – three counts in two different classes – requested postponement granted – Student not present at hearing – substantially similar papers – identical bibliographies – identical spelling errors – finding of guilt – knew or ought to have known - – sanction – no prior offence – grade of zero in each course; three year suspension; notation on transcript until earlier of graduation or four years; report to Provost for publication
Trial Division – interim decision to continue hearing of charges in absence of student - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forgery of academic record – Student charged with knowingly forging, circulating or making use of a document purporting to be a degree certificate in the Student’s name from the University – charges arose when third party requested verification by University of authenticity of degree certificate - Student did not attend first hearing date – first hearing date adjourned to permit University to provide additional evidence of service of notice of hearing upon student - onus of proof on University to demonstrate reasonable notice of hearing provided – obligation on students to maintain and update contact information on ROSI – reasonable notice of hearing provided - under ss. 6 and 7 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act (“Act”) and Rule 17 of the Rules of Practice and Procedure (“Rules”) – hearing to proceed in Student’s absence without further notice to Student.
Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal from finding of guilt – Students should not have been tried jointly, attribution of sources demonstrated the lack of intent to plagiarize or alternatively the lack of plagiarism, University wrongly allowed to reopen its case, evidence wrongly excluded, pre-hearing procedures not complied with as per Code, and inappropriate penalties imposed – considerations met - see s. 9.1 of Statutory Powers Procedures Act - consent of parties to joint trial not avoided by failure of trial reporter - no injustice as result of joint trial - finding of necessary mental element to constitute plagiarism - findings on fact supported by evidence – case not reopened by exchange between Chair and University witness - no injustice occurred so as to interfere with discretion to permit reopening case - decision to exclude evidence not in error - evidence irrelevant to charges - no evidentiary basis for argument - no requirement to afford meeting with teaching assistant – see Code - no disadvantage as result of defect in procedures - no substantial wrong, detriment or prejudice - not appropriate to vary penalty imposed - signal to Student and other students of severity of offence not signaled by sanction limited to report mark - appeal dismissed