Search

Discipline Appeals Board – Student appeals length of the suspension alone – Student’s motion to introduce new evidence dismissed – four traditional criteria for the admission of fresh evidence on appeal – motion to introduce new evidence dismissed – Provost’s Guidance on Sanctions at Appendix “C” of the Code is not guidance to or from the Tribunal, and it is not binding on the Tribunal – Board considered evidence relating to three other students who had admitted to copying each other’s assignments – two-year suspension was not appropriate in the circumstances – there must rational relationship between the sanctions imposed on a student who immediately admits an offence and a student who unsuccessfully contests it – Board agreed with proposition in University of Toronto v C.A.M. (Case No. 684, June 3, 2014) – In addition to the six Mr. C. factors, Board added a seventh factor to be considered in the imposition of the more serious level of sanctions imposed for offences found after a Tribunal hearing – The seventh factor is the cost in time and resources to the University of proceeding to a contested hearing.