Search

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

Trial Division - sanction decision - s. B.i.1(b) of Code - unauthorized aid - student submitted forged exam - zero on course, two year suspension, three year notation, publication of the decision with the name of the Student withheld

Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal – reasonable notice of hearing – delivery of notice during an academic suspension – delivery of notice via email – no evidence about who accessed email account or which specific emails had been read – exceptional circumstances – s. 7(b) of the Code – Appeal allowed, matter remitted to a new hearing

Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal from sanction – request to set aside order of expulsion - s.B.ii.2 – s. B.i.3(a) – forged academic record – third offence – Board need grant little deference given its very broad powers – deference given on the issue of credibility – expulsion generally penalty for forgery when prior offence – Appeal dismissed – recommendation for expulsion

Discipline Appeal Board – Student appeal from sanction – request to set aside order of expulsion and impose a suspension - s. B.i.1(a) and s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – eight offences committed during a six month period - falsified personal statement in petition for academic accommodation – plagiarism – course work purchased from commercial provider of essays – guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts – conduct during the hearing relevant in determining the Student’s character as well as likelihood the Student would follow University rules in the future – Panel entitled to give little weight to medical evidence where author not available for cross-examination – appeal dismissed - assignment of zero in the affected courses; immediate five-year suspension pending expulsion; and report to Provost

Discipline Appeal Board – plagiarism – Section B.i.1(d) of the Code – requirement of medical corroboration in request for adjournment – student not present – notice – deliberate delay – procedural fairness – factors to consider in denying a request for adjournment – appeal dismissed – final grade of zero in the affected course, degree recall and cancellation, permanent notation on transcript, removal of thesis from library, recommendation of expulsion, publication of decision with name withheld