Search

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) and s. B.i.2(a) of the Code - forged academic records – forged degree certificate and transcript – hearing not attended - Student responded to Notice of Hearing - Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty - credibility of University and students undermined by falsification of documents – see case of Mr. M.S. – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; five-year suspension pending expulsion decision; permanent notation on academic record; and report to Provost

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(b), s. B.ii.1(a), s. B.ii2 of Code – unauthorized aid - joint hearing – inappropriate communications during two final examinations – objection to joint hearing – no consent to joint hearing - power to determine Tribunal practices and procedures subject to provisions of Code¬ – see s. C.ii.(a).7 of Code¬ – consent requirements of Statutory Powers Procedure Act not applicable – see ss. 9.1(1) of Statutory Powers Procedure Act – single proceeding because same evidence tendered - exigencies relating to University community - application for separate proceedings dismissed - circumstantial evidence - onus of proof on University not discharged - motion for costs not awarded - University not reckless malicious or unreasonable

Trial Division - s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged document - resubmitted altered mid-term test - individual monitored e-mail, obtained test and forged substitute document – alleged error by markers of test – position and evidence not credible – finding of guilt – premeditation and considerable effort - test not significant part of final mark – significant sanction required to deter future occurrences - grade assignment of zero for course; 18-month suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report issued to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code - forged academic record – forged academic records twice submitted to employer – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea - previous falsification incident at Faculty of Law - unable to advance towards Bar while charges outstanding – expulsion or degree recall for falsification of academic record - see case of Mr. L. and case of Mr. Y. – deliberate acts of deception and dishonesty – third party involvement - fraud and deception perpetrated on third party particularly offensive – publicity caused University to suffer from commission of offence - character highly relevant to disposition – possibility for rehabilitation - three-year suspension; permanent notation on the Student’s transcript; and report issued to Provost

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of Code – plagiarism and concoction - essay plagiarized from internet and containing concocted references – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing – see Code and the Statutory Powers Procedures Act – finding of guilt - paper intentionally and knowingly concocted and efforts taken to disguise fact – finding of guilt - if process had been availed at decanal level then maximum penalty would have been one-year suspension - fair and relevant to consider choice not to engage in disciplinary process and that the matter might have been disposed of at decanal level - no mitigating evidence - University’s submission on penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of Code – forged academic records – degree certificate and falsified curriculum vitae – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – jurisdiction relative to former students – see Appendix A, s. 2(s) of the Code – Joint Submission on Penalty – act required significant deliberation – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; five-year suspension pending expulsion decision; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b) of the Code – unauthorized aids – cell phone, cue cards and prior year’s examination – unaware of possession of aids and ignorance of how to operate cell phone – invigilator instructions not heard – interpretation of rules – cell phone not defined as unauthorized aid – phrase “ought reasonably to have known” suggests subjective element – Student subjectively knew or ought reasonably to have known that the items were unauthorized aids and ought to have known that the unauthorized aids where in the Student’s possession – finding of guilt – continuum of sanctions – see s. C.ii.(b) of the Code – academic status – no evidence aids used or benefited from – first allegation of academic offence – University not compelled to produce evidence of use and benefit in order to enforce rules and impose sanctions – stress and fatigue of preparing for and writing examinations not relevant mitigating factor – academic impact of sanctions is proper consideration – penalty sought by Student too lenient and penalty sought by University excessive for circumstances – grade assignment of zero in course; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.3(a) of the Code – forgery of documents – altered mid term and quiz submitted for re–grading –Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – no prior offences – cooperation with discipline process – academic status relative to graduation – misconduct affected acceptance to graduate school – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for two courses; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a), s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(b) of Code – forged documents and plagiarism –Medical Note and course work – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – mitigating factors that Student pleaded guilty and cooperated with discipline process and offences occurred at approximately the same time – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for two courses; three-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work in two courses – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing – extent of plagiarism precluded possibility of error or lack of proper attribution – finding of guilt – three year suspension warranted due to finding of guilt on two counts of plagiarism – grade assignment of zero for two courses; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript or until graduation; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(a) of Code – forged documents – Academic Bridging Program application form and documents for post–admission transfer credits – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – language in application not understood and degree at foreign university not completed – financial, health and child–care challenges – fraudulent documentation purchased – mitigating factors undermined by two separate occurrences of misconduct – finding of guilt – material distinction not made in sanction between those directly perpetrating a fraud and those who contracts out fraudulent activity to third party – aggravating factor that fraud had commercial aspect – academic status relative to graduation – nearness of completion of degree relevant but not determinative factor in sanction – see The University of Toronto v. Student, Case No. 499 – no evidence that illness provided sufficient nexus to misconduct – tentative conclusions of medical evidence minimized mitigating effect – insufficient evidence of nexus between adverse circumstances and impugned conduct – see University of Toronto v. Student, Case No. 440 (2006-2007) – recommendation that the Student be expelled as per s. C.ii.(b)(i) of Code; permanent notation on academic record; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work copied from internet – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – cooperation with discipline process – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – supplemental reasons on penalty – see case of #00-01-04¬ ¬– s. B.i.1(d) of Code and s. B.i.3(b) – plagiarism - take home test and essay – finding of guilt under s. B.i.1(d) of Code – not guilty under s. B.i.3(b) of Code¬ – no dishonest intent - unusual and extenuating circumstances more appropriately dealt with in context of penalty - teaching assistants’ strike and academic background– no cited cases involving finding of guilt based on extended definition of knowingly – not likely to reoffend – suspension not warranted – motion to stay proceedings on grounds of undue delay - period of delay not inordinate - sanction ramifications or final course grade assignment not addressed in original decision – imposing passing course mark not consistent with Panel’s original approach - Student allowed to complete course by re-writing two assignments, pending approval of course instructor and further to s. C.ii.B.1.(b) of the Code; if permission denied then the Student could apply for late admission to the summer offering of course; final course grade to be recorded on the Student’s transcript equal to the average of the course work already completed excluding the assignments, if not feasible to grant late admission to summer offering; if summer offering of course not applied to then the Student would have to apply to the fall offering of course in order to complete course; grade assignment of 37.5 for work in course; oral and written reprimand; one-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – preliminary hearing to Case #00-01-02 – admissibility of evidence – similar responses in terms tests by co-accused – University request for ruling on admissibility in advance - similar fact evidence – incumbent upon Chair to make similar fact evidence determination and give ruling – see Arp v. The Queen and s. 15 of the Statutory Powers Procedure Act - no qualifications or expertise enabling course professor to give opinion evidence - arbitrary comparators broke down on cross-examination - evidence adduced to confirm charges – no probative value to evidence - flawed analysis and comparisons in evidence – test of objective improbability of coincidence not satisfied and prejudice to accused outweighed probative value of evidence - see Arp v. The Queen - admission of disputed evidence prejudicial - evidence relating to the two term tests inadmissible in the hearing and disregarded by the Panel in disposing the charges

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(c) of Code – impersonation – Student knowingly impersonated another person at an examination – finding of guilt – no extenuating circumstances – recommendation of expulsion; publication with Student’s name withheld.

Discipline Appeals Board – University appeal from acquittal of plagiarism charges – Student found guilty of unauthorized aid offences but acquitted of plagiarism offences arising from the same events – Tribunal erred in concluding that plagiarism under s. B.i.1(d) of the Code requires an element of theft – explanatory appendices are not intended to derogate or otherwise modify Code offences – interpreting plagiarism as requiring an element of theft is unworkable and undesirable – the rule against multiple convictions applies where there is a relationship of sufficient proximity between the facts and the offences which form the basis of the charges – appeal dismissed

Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from acquittal - balance of probabilities applicable standard of proof for proceedings under the Code - requirement to prove case on the balance of probabilities does not detract from requirement that the standard must be met by clear, convincing and cogent evidence – Student’s evidence and credibility of Professor’s evidence accepted – University erroneously required to prove case to a standard higher than balance of probabilities - irrelevant consideration focused on - finding of fact based on irrelevant consideration was material error of law - appeal allowed - matter sent back to Trial Division for a new hearing

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and B.i.1(f) – plagiarism –witnesses – first offense – ought reasonably to have known – finding of guilt – reference plagiarized, not concocted – differing penalty submissions – Student’s submission of community service rejected - no binding appellate authority – sanction to reflect the seriousness of offense – no mitigating factors – aggravating factors – three-year suspension; grade of zero in the course; notation on the Student’s transcript for three and a half years or until the Student graduates

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(b), s. B.i.1.(e) and s. B.i.3(b) of the Code – unauthorized aid, credit already obtained, and academic dishonesty - three counts in three different classes – medical accommodation – current accommodation unsuccessfully challenged – self plagiarism – altering evidence in an attempt to mislead – possession of an unauthorized aid during an exam – finding of guilt – knew or ought to have known – sanction – prior academic offence – mitigating factor of impairing medical conditions – aggravating factor of previous offences and knowledge of student discipline system – grade assignment of zero in the courses affected by her offences; 2½-year suspension; 2½-year notation on the Student’s academic record and transcript

Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from sanction – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - reasonableness of Joint Submission on Penalty – definition of “public interest” in university context – standards of unreasonableness and unconscionability – objective standard of reasonableness - policy benefits of Joint Submissions of Penalty - where an agreement to never reapply to the University is negotiated in a Joint Submission on Penalty when an expulsion is otherwise appropriate, it should be accompanied by a permanent notation on the student’s transcript to alert other institutions of misconduct –– Appeal allowed

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(b) - unauthorized aids – cheating by copying another student’s exam responses – sentencing principles – first offence – defending oneself in a disciplinary action can be consistent with cooperation – transcript notation longer than suspension – nexus required between medical condition and commission of offence – penalty start date – grade of zero, suspension of two years, transcript notation of three years, and report to the provost.

Appeal Division - s. E.7(a) of the Code - motion to dismiss Student's appeal as frivolous, vexatious , or without foundation - Student did not comply with Directions, respond to communications, or meet any time-lines - Student did not respond to motion or offer any reasonable explanation - this constituted vexatious proceedings - motion allowed, appeal dismissed