Search

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – essay purchased on internet – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – second academic offence – repetitive nature of behaviour - cooperation with discipline process – expulsion not always imposed despite Code – representational act crucial to commission of plagiarism – files for students sanctioned at decanal level not expunged upon expiry of notation sanction – sentencing principle – see R. v. Cerasuolo – Joint Submissions on Penalty judged on ‘acceptable range’ criterion – character evidence – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript; 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 – proposed suspension concurrent with previous suspension imposed by Division –third academic offence – mitigating factors that Student pleaded guilty and cooperated with process – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year seven-month suspension; five-year seven-month notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s.B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – course work copied from textbook and online sources – Student discharged his representation after commencement of the hearing – representative withdraws representation – Student’s defence was that a T.A. told him it was appropriate to copy and that he was not informed about plagiarism – finding of guilt – willful ignorance of the Student – lack of remorse, evasiveness, and experience of the Student make a two year suspension less effective – grade assignment of zero for course; three year suspension; four year transcript notation; denial of “utoronto” email privileges; and a report to the Provost.

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d) and s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – significant portions of an essay plagiarised – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing - finding on evidence of guilt – sentencing principle – see University of Toronto v. M.H.H. – see University of Toronto v. S.B. – see University of Toronto and A.K. – see University of Toronto v. V.W.S.L. – University submission on penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for course; four-year suspension; five-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.3(b) of the Code - purchased essays – hearing attended– Agreed Statement of Facts– guilty plea – Joint Submission on Penalty – no prior academic offences – admission of guilt – cooperation with University officials –– Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for courses; five-year suspension not to run concurrently with academic suspension; six-year notation on transcript; and report to Provost

Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from finding of guilt – Student permitted to graduate - jurisdiction of the Tribunal to impose sanctions ordered, the sanctions did not reflect nature of offence and sanctions inconsistent with previous decisions - see s. C.ii(b) of the Code - no jurisdiction to entertain appeal due to Student’s graduation and s. C.i.(a)12 of the Code – s. B.1.4 of Code did not detract from s. C.i.(a)12 of Code – requested penalty inconsistent with having allowed Student to graduate and moot due to graduation - amendment of Code appropriate method to address policy concerns – appeal would have been allowed if jurisdiction to do existed and more serious sanction drawn from s. C.ii(b) of the Code – appeal quashed

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.1(a); s. B.I.1(f); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – altered Turnitin submission – concocted sources – Agreed Statement of Facts– guilty plea – guilty plea accepted – Joint Submission on Penalty – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted - final grade of zero in the Courses; four-year suspension; notation on transcript until the earlier of Student’s graduation or nine years and four months; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – submitted essays containing plagiarized passages – plagiarism not deliberate – finding of guilt – Student ought to have known he was plagiarizing – presumptive two-year suspension for first offence plagiarism does not apply where deliberate plagiarism is neither admitted nor proven – cavalier attitude toward University rules off-setting personal mitigating circumstances – grade assignment of zero for the course; 18-month suspension; three-year notation on transcript or until graduation; report to Provost for publication.

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – coursework plagiarized from another student and internet sources – agreed statement of facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt based on Agreed Statement of Facts –Student acknowledged need to address her limited writing ability – Undertaking to complete writing workshops – Joint Submission on Penalty – concern that undertaking may be viewed as an excuse for misbehaviour – Student’s willingness to work with University toward rehabilitation and remediation is a mitigating factor – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted – grade assignment of zero for each of the two courses; three-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript or until graduation; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – coursework purchased from a commercial provider of essays – Student first denied; he admitted when confronted with metadata – Agreed Statement of Facts and Agreed Statement of Facts on Penalty – guilty plea – finding of guilt – prior plagiarism offence – Student only acknowledged fault when confronted with overwhelming evidence – Student cooperated with the University, attended and testified at the hearing, and exhibited general remorse – likelihood of repetition – purchasing academic work is at the most serious end of spectrum of plagiarism – University vulnerable to this type of offence as it is very difficult to detect – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; recommendation that the Student be expelled; permanent notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division - s. B.i.1(d), s. B.i.1(b), and s. B.i.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – course work purchased from commercial provider of essays – guilty plea – Agreed Statement of Facts – no prior academic offence – rejected sanction proposed by the Student as it was no hardship – submitting an essay purchased from another is one of the most egregious offences – need to balance deterrence with rehabilitation – considered CHK and S.P. – absent the most exceptional circumstances, sanction should be expulsion unless the Student promptly acknowledges their wrongdoing, which the Student did in this case – Panel would have imposed expulsion had the Student been a repeat offender – grade assignment of zero; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.I.1(d); s. B.I.3(b) of Code – plagiarism – plagiarism of final project – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided – deception to avoid scheduling of hearing – abeyance of file – finding on evidence of guilt – no conflict for Panel members – prior academic offences – prior plagiarism offences – prior deception to avoid hearing – history of academic offences – no evidence of remorse – no mitigating factors –University submission on penalty accepted - grade assignment of zero for courses; five-year suspension to begin after the end of the Student’s current suspension; recommendation to the President that the Student be expelled; and report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – passages from essay taken verbatim from secondary sources without attribution – hearing not attended – Student submitted a Consent to the hearing proceeding in her absence – Agreed Statement of Facts - guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Panel reviewed JSP and found that it reflected an appropriate penalty – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; two-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – submitted plagiarized essays in two courses – hearing not attended – Consent to proceed in absence – Agreed Statement of Facts - guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – committed plagirism on three different occasions – Panel would have considered a more serious penalty – no compelling circumstances to depart from the joint submission - grade assignment of zero for courses; four-year suspension; four-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – significant portions of essay copied from internet sources – hearing not attended – reasonable notice of hearing provided – course professor's testimony and evidence consisting of the contents on the websites - finding of guilt – three similar prior plagiarism offences – offence not less serious than prior offences as the Student attempted to conceal her plagiarism – Student appreciated seriousness of offence, had no remorse, did not cooperate with the university, attempted to evade service, and did not intend to pursue academic career – grade assignment of zero for course; five-year suspension; seven-year notation on transcript; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of Code – plagiarism – allegations that Student submitted a purchased essay – Student claimed that the essay was her original work and submitted electronic files and notes to corroborate her claim – involvement of a person named “Bryan” – metadata analysis revealed Bryan as author of the document – Panel accepted the expert testimony that the only way to explain was if the document was created on Bryan’s computer – Panel found Student’s notes were her own and corroborated her claim to an extent – Panel concluded that Student gave her notes to Bryan who put them into an essay form – finding of guilt – Panel was not convinced Student purchased the essay – not appropriate to backdate commencement of the suspension unless in close proximity to the date of the hearing – Panel backdated the suspension to commence on a date that would allow Student to resume her studies in the summer term – two-year suspension appropriate for first time plagiarism offenders – Panel would have imposed a far more severe penalty had it found the Student purchased the essay – penalty should meet the need for general deterrence without unduly punishing Student – grade assignment of zero for course; two-year suspension; three-year notation on transcript or until graduation, whichever is earlier; report to Provost

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – submitted essay containing extensive paraphrasing without attribution – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted – Joint Submission on Penalty – fourth offence – two prior plagiarism offences – future prospect of resuming academic studies at University should be considered – Student acknowledged guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted -- grade assignment of zero in one courses; four-year suspension; five year notation on transcript; report to Provost for publication

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) and s. B.i.1(f) of the Code – plagiarism and concocted sources – submitted four assignments in two different courses containing wholesale plagiarism – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea accepted for charges under s. B.i.1(d) – remaining charges withdrawn by University – Joint Submission on Penalty – second offence – Student admitted guilt early for three of four offences – Joint Submission on Penalty accepted -- grade assignment of zero in two courses; four-year suspension beginning on date of hearing; five-year notation; report to Provost for publication

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(d) of Code – plagiarism – passages from essay taken verbatim from internet sources – Agreed Statement of Facts – guilty plea – finding of guilt – Joint Submission on Penalty – Undertaking to complete writing workshops – prior academic offences of similar nature – Panel acknowledged that a joint submission should not be rejected unless its acceptance would bring the administration of justice into disrepute – Panel accepted Joint Submission with reluctance – timing of Undertaking – suspicious unsettled facts – better to address academic deficiencies before and not after repeated academic offences – serious nature of the offence and harm to the university – grade assignment of zero for course; three-year suspension; report to Provost – Panel rejected the Student’s motion for a ban on publication

Discipline Appeal Board – University appeal from sanction – expulsion a likely sanction in purchased essay cases – s. E.7(c) allows Board not to show any deference – principled approach showing some deference – majority erred in concluding Student were victims – submitting purchased essays could not be justified – majority erred in treatment of previous offences – no continuum of remorse – previous offence did not have to be identical to be relevant – majority erred by giving too much weight to demeanor and expressions of remorse – multitude of factors relevant in sentencing – effect of previous offences – indications of continuing dishonest motive and a failure to recognize and adhere to core University values – in purchased essay cases, two Chelin factors were more relevant than others: the detriment to the University and the need for deterrence – expulsion was the appropriate sanction – H’s affidavit was not much different from her earlier expressions of regret and there would need to have been something materially more dramatic to have an effect – Appeal allowed

Trial Division – plagiarism – two offences in two classes – Student not at hearing – finding of guilt – zero in courses; three year suspension; four year academic record notation; report to Provost – dissent – issue of notice – insufficient attempt by University to notify Student

Trial Division – s. B.i.1(d) of the Code – plagiarism – Agreed Statement of Facts – prior offence – admission of guilt – Dean’s Designate meeting – extenuating circumstances – Joint Submission on Penalty – grade of zero in course; three-year suspension; notation on transcript until graduation; report to Provost for publication