Search

Note: Overturned on appeal.

Majority:Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – essays purchased from a commercial provider of essays – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – each Student had at least two previous offences (H had previously purchased an essay) – Students collaborated on a 2% quiz – Students were also victims – previous offences did not indicate a continuum of planned and deliberate dishonesty – a five-year suspension arguably had the same deterrent effect as an expulsion – except for most egregious offences, expulsion should be reserved for when there is a repetition in kind of offences – precedents should be considered only as guidance – Students’ expression of remorse was clear and unwavering – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; notation on transcript until graduation; report to Provost

Dissent: Extenuating circumstance is but only one factor to be considered – For extenuating circumstances to play a role, there has to be a connection between the causative symptom and the academic offence; the onus is on the Student to show that there was a close connection – C did not want to be in school; H’s self-doubt did not rise to the level of being pathological; and the divorce of K’s parents happened five years ago so the timing did not coincide – no causative relationship – likelihood of repetition as the Students failed to learn from their previous mistakes – plain and obvious detriment to the University as the industry of custom essays had been expanding and it would become harder to detect once they start cleansing metadata – planning, deliberation and collaboration as well as the fact that the Students had many opportunities to reconsider were aggravating factors – consideration of actual deterrence was irrelevant – would have imposed a grade assignment of zero for course; an immediate suspension; a recommendation that each Student be expelled; and 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