Policy 60: Academic Integrity

 

1. Purpose of Policy

The purpose of this policy is to guide the Toronto Metropolitan University (the “University”) community in understanding: i) what academic integrity and misconduct are for students; ii) the processes the University will follow when there is a suspicion of student academic misconduct; and iii) the academic penalties and other consequences that may be imposed if students are suspected of engaging in or found to have engaged in academic misconduct.

2. Application and Scope

2.1. This policy applies to all current and former University students (undergraduate, including law and doctor of medicine (MD), graduate, post doctoral, and continuing education) and applies to all academic activities, whether on or off campuses, whether within or outside of a course.

2.2. Suspicions of research misconduct that may have occurred under the auspices of the University but are in no way directed towards academic advantage or benefit, are to be addressed under Policy 118: Scholarly, Research and Creative Activity (SRC) Integrity rather than this policy.

2.3. In some programs, students may be required to abide by the standards of a professional code of ethics or code of conduct as a condition of successful completion of a practicum or field placement.  Where such professional codes substantively differ from or impose requirements at variance with this policy, violations of such codes are not to be pursued under this policy.

3. Definitions

3.1. Academic Misconduct

Any behaviour that undermines the University’s ability to fairly evaluate students’ academic achievements, or any behaviour that a student knew, or reasonably ought to have known, could gain them or others unearned academic advantage or benefit, counts as academic misconduct.

Examples of academic misconduct include but are not limited to: plagiarism, including self-plagiarism; contract cheating; cheating; misrepresentation of personal identity or performance; submission of false information; contributing to academic misconduct; damaging, tampering, or interfering with the scholarly environment; unauthorized use of intellectual property; and misconduct in re-graded/re-submitted work. See Appendix A for additional examples. 

3.2. Academic Record

The academic record is a student’s internal record retained by the University and used as the basis for the official transcript. It is also used for advising purposes.

3.3. Advocate

An individual sanctioned by one of the recognized University’s student bodies (e.g., the Toronto Metropolitan Students' Union [TMSU], Toronto Metropolitan Association of Part-time Students [TMAPS], Toronto Metropolitan Graduate Student Union [TMGSU], or any other arm's length student group sanctioned by the University (see Procedures 12.1 for a list of sanctioned students’ groups). An advocate is available at the request of a student to advise and assist with submissions and appeals, and to act as a resource for the student at meetings/formal discussions and appeal hearings. 

3.4. Appellant 

The student who initiates an appeal and/or who is subject to a penalty hearing. 

3.5. Balance of Probabilities

For a finding of academic misconduct to be supported, based on the information presented, it is more likely than not that the student engaged in academic misconduct. The onus is on the University to establish that academic misconduct has occurred.

In keeping with the educational emphasis of this policy, intent does not factor into determining if the policy has been breached. Rather, intent may influence the penalty/penalties and/or consequences.

3.6. Consequences

As a result of a suspicion or finding of misconduct, there may be implications for the student outside of the scope of Policy 60 (see Procedures, Section 8).

3.7. Decision Maker

The person (eligible investigator) or panel authorized to make a decision regarding whether academic misconduct has taken place or not, and/or the appropriateness of the associated penalty.

3.8. Deferred (DEF)

An interim grade assigned during the investigation of academic misconduct. The DEF grade will be replaced by a final course grade upon resolution of the matter.

3.9. Designated Decision Maker (DDM)

A trained faculty member or contract lecturer who can be assigned to act as the decision maker with respect to suspicions of academic misconduct. The DDMs make up the Designated Decision Makers’ Council (DDMC). The DDMC’s Chair assigns cases to individual DDMs.

3.10. Disciplinary Action (DA)

A notation placed on a graduate student’s academic record to indicate academic misconduct.  A DA will be placed on both the student’s academic record and transcript and cannot be removed.

3.11. Disciplinary Action, with Suspension (DA-S)

A program status for a graduate student where they are removed from a program for a period of up to two (2) years, after which the student may request to re-enroll in the program. A DA-S will be placed on both the student’s academic record and transcript and cannot be removed. 

3.12. Disciplinary Notation (DN)

A notation placed on a student’s academic record when they have been found to have engaged in academic misconduct. The DN is removed from the academic record upon graduation.

3.13. Disciplinary Suspension (DS)

An academic standing where a student is removed from a program (including Non-Certificate Studies) for a specified period of one (1) term to two (2) years, after which the student will be automatically reinstated. A DS will be placed on both the academic record and transcript, but will be removed from the transcript upon graduation. 

3.14. Disciplinary-Unsatisfactory (D-UNS)

A progress designation for a graduate student that is granted for unsatisfactory progress for reasons of academic misconduct related to non-course-based graduate program requirements. The D-UNS includes a permanent transcript notation.

3.15. Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW)

An academic standing where a student is permanently withdrawn from a specific program and temporarily withdrawn from the University as a whole for a minimum of two (2) years. After serving the specified period, a student assigned a DW may apply to other programs/certificates at the University, but not to the program from which they have been withdrawn. A DW will be placed on both the student’s academic record and transcript, and cannot be removed.

3.16. Discussion

A meeting between a decision maker and student(s) suspected of academic misconduct. The meeting can be facilitated (FD) with a facilitator provided by the Academic Integrity Office or non-facilitated (NFD).

3.17. Eligible Investigator

A person authorized to investigate suspicions of academic misconduct. Eligible investigators include:

• Toronto Metropolitan employees holding an academic position at the University
• Course faculty/contract lecturer, clinical faculty employed by the University
• The Registrar (or designate)
• The Vice-Provost and Dean, Yeates School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (YSGPS) (or designate)

3.18. Expulsion

An academic standing involving the permanent removal of a student from the University.

3.19. Faculty Academic Integrity Advisor

Appointed by the Vice-Provost Academic, whose role is to provide advice, support, and guidance to faculty/contract lecturers, clinical faculty on issues related to academic integrity and the preparation of materials for discussions and hearings.

3.20. Natural Justice

This is composed of four (4) principles: the right to know the case against you; the right to an impartial and unbiased decision maker; the opportunity to be heard; the right to a decision and the rationale for that decision.

3.21. Penalty – Assigned

A penalty that does not require approval by a higher-level decision maker (i.e., AIC, SAC, RAC, GAAC). 

3.22. Penalty – Recommended

A penalty that has been recommended by a decision maker that can only be assigned by the AIC, SAC, RAC, or GAAC.

3.23. Progressive Discipline

The principle of increasing penalties/consequences with repeated academic misconduct.

3.24. Respondent

The person who replies to the appeal or penalty hearing.

3.25. Supervised Research 

Supervised Research includes academic milestones such as Comprehensive Examinations, Major Research Papers, Research or Thesis Proposals, Theses and Dissertations, as well as the research and associated writing carried out towards any of these at either the undergraduate or graduate level. (See Procedures 1.5 regarding the process to be followed in addressing suspicions of misconduct in these areas.) 

3.26. Support Person

An individual who attends a discussion or hearing solely for the purpose of support. They play no official role in any aspect of the academic integrity process and therefore cannot participate.

4. Principles

4.1. Senate Policy Framework

The values stipulated in the University’s Senate Policy Framework are applicable and fundamental to this policy.

4.2. Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity

This policy is premised on the commitment of the University to foster and uphold the highest standards of academic integrity, the fundamental values of which are honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, courage ¹ . These values are central to the development and sharing of knowledge. All members of the University community, including faculty/contract lecturers, clinical faculty, students, academic assistants (AA's), and staff, have a responsibility to adhere to and uphold them in their teaching, learning, evaluation, research, and creative activity. This includes a responsibility to take action if they have reasonable grounds for believing that academic misconduct has occurred.

4.3. Educational Emphasis

One of the central values motivating this policy is that of education. The University recognizes it has a role in fostering academic integrity by providing students and faculty with educational information and learning opportunities about the nature and importance of academic integrity. Those involved in applying this policy are to keep this emphasis in mind at all stages of the processes described in this policy and the accompanying Procedures.

4.4. Fair Process

The University recognizes that it is a serious matter for students to be involved in an academic misconduct investigation and is therefore committed to handling these matters in a respectful, timely, and thoughtful manner. The University will apply the policy in a non-adversarial, investigative manner that is consistent with the principles of natural justice, including the right to know the case against you; the right to be heard; and the right to a timely and fair decision based on the merits of each individual case. All decision makers will make reasonable efforts to acquire the information needed to make a fair decision and will do so in an unbiased manner.

4.5. Awareness of Academic Integrity

All members of the University community have a responsibility to inform themselves about academic integrity and misconduct, including the contents of this policy. Anyone with concerns or questions about academic integrity should consult with the Academic Integrity Office (AIO) or, in the case of students unsure about a particular matter, the appropriate faculty/contract lecturer, clinical faculty or academic supervisor. The AIO provides educational material and information about this policy for the use of faculty, contract lecturers, staff, and students.

4.6. Academic Integrity and Graduate Education

In graduate education, it is essential that an environment exists where faculty/contract lecturers and students have the utmost regard for academic integrity. Graduate students often engage in research with a large degree of independence. Therefore, they are expected to and must pursue their academic and research activities in a manner that is consistent with the highest standards of ethical and scholarly practice.

4.7. Accommodation

All processes and procedures associated with this policy are to be carried out in accordance with relevant law and University policy concerning the accommodation of students (see Policy 159: Academic Accommodation of Students with Disabilities and the university’s Discrimination and Harassment Policy).

¹ International Centre for Academic Integrity (2013) 

5. University Resources

5.1.  The mandate of the AIO is to ensure that this policy and the accompanying Procedures are carried out in a fair and transparent way, and to provide educational resources to the University community regarding academic integrity and misconduct.

5.1.1.  The AIO provides guidance and support to students and decision makers and ensures that these parties are aware of their rights and responsibilities. 

5.1.2.  The AIO is neutral with respect to decision-making.

5.2.  Members of the University community may consult with the AIO regarding any academic misconduct procedure or concern.

5.3.  The Office of the Ombudsperson (which is confidential, impartial, and independent) may be consulted at any time.

5.4.  Faculty/contract lecturers, clinical faculty may consult with the Faculty Academic Integrity Advisor.

5.5.  Students may consult with an advocate (as defined in Policy, Section 3.3).

6. Suspicions of Academic Misconduct

If there is a suspicion of academic misconduct:

6.1. Preliminary Investigation

6.1.1. An eligible investigator should engage in a preliminary investigation to determine if there is sufficient basis to support a suspicion of academic misconduct. The preliminary investigation should focus on fact finding and evidence gathering. Evidence may include but is not limited to text matching reports, invigilator reports, Learning Management System data, document properties, internet search results, and comparative documents.

6.1.1.1. If the concern is identified by an ineligible investigator, that person has a responsibility to notify an eligible investigator.

6.1.2. Suspicions of misconduct relating to the Admissions process requires special Procedures. (see Procedures, Section. 13.3.)

6.1.3. Suspicions of academic misconduct relating to supervised research require special procedures. (See Procedures, Section 1.5.)

6.2. Registering the suspicion

6.2.1. If the preliminary investigation supports the suspicion of academic misconduct, the eligible investigator must register the concern with the AIO. (See Procedures, Section 1.)

6.2.2. When registering the concern, the eligible investigator will provide a complete/full description of how the behaviour is believed to breach Policy 60, as well as any evidence supporting the suspicion.

6.2.3. At the point of registration, the eligible investigator will choose one of two options;

Option A: Continue as the decision maker; or

Option B: If the eligible investigator is a contract lecturer and does not wish or is unable to pursue the matter, they may request that a Designated Decision Maker (DDM) from the DDMC be assigned.

6.2.3.1.  In appropriate circumstances, the Chair of the DDMC (or designate) together with the Director of the AIO (or designate) may determine that an alternate decision maker be assigned for an eligible investigator who is not a contract lecturer.

6.2.4. The decision maker can choose to hold either a Facilitated Discussion (FD) or a Non-Facilitated Discussion (NFD) (see Procedures, Section 3). In an FD, a facilitator from the AIO is present to guide the discussion and create a written record of the meeting. In an NFD, the instructor guides the discussion and creates the written record of the meeting.

6.2.5. An FD will be held:

• If the student or faculty/contract lecturer prefers an FD to an NFD
• In cases of suspected misconduct in supervised research/non-course program requirements
• In cases involving graduate students 
• Where decision makers opt to have a group discussion where multiple students are under a related suspicion.

6.3. Notification to student

6.3.1.  Students must be notified of a suspicion of academic misconduct in a confidential and timely manner. The notification occurs as part of the registration process and will include an invitation for the opportunity to discuss the matter with the decision maker. Concerns about academic misconduct should be discussed during the scheduled FD/NFD rather than in advance or outside of the formal process. (See Procedures, Sections 1 and 2)

6.3.2.  Any evidence that can be shared in advance of the discussion will be made available to the student. While every effort will be made to provide as much information as possible in advance, additional evidence may be presented to the student at the discussion. 

6.3.3. Students may not drop a course in which there is a suspicion of academic misconduct. At the start of the process, the Registrar’s Office, will place a DEF on the student’s academic record for the course in which there is an active investigation. If the student drops the course before the DEF is placed, the RO will re-enroll the student. (See Procedures, Section 5)

6.4. Discussion (FD/NFD) 

6.4.1. The purpose of a discussion is to allow the decision maker to present the basis for their suspicion and for the student(s) to offer their perspective and answer questions. Discussions are to be carried out in a spirit of inquiry, rather than in an accusatory or adversarial manner. The discussion is a continuation of the preliminary investigation and therefore may result in changes to the nature of the suspected academic misconduct (e.g., the initial suspicion indicated “plagiarism” but the discussion clarified that what had actually occurred was “contract cheating”).

6.4.1.1.  If, during an NFD, either party fails to engage in a respectful manner, either party may choose to terminate the discussion and request an FD.

6.4.1.2.  If, during an FD, either party fails to engage in respectful manner, the facilitator will intervene.

6.4.2. At a discussion, the decision maker, the student(s) suspected of academic misconduct, and the facilitator (for an FD) will be present. When appropriate, other parties may be present (see Section 11).

6.4.3. No decisions related to the suspected academic misconduct should be made prior to the discussion nor should any decision be communicated during the discussion.

6.4.4. If a student fails to attend the discussion and fails to notify the AIO within 24 hours of the scheduled meeting to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence, the decision maker may proceed without the student’s input. If the decision maker fails to attend the discussion and fails to notify the AIO within 24 hours of the scheduled meeting to provide a reasonable explanation for their absence, the matter will be dismissed. The AIO may make exceptions due to extenuating circumstances.

6.4.5. Discussions are not to be audio or video recorded. A written record of the meeting will be maintained. With the permission of all parties, a university approved transcription tool may be used to create the written record.

• In the case of FDs, the AIO will create the record and issue a copy to the student and decision maker.

• In the case of NFDs, the decision maker will create the record and issue a copy to the student.

6.5. Decision 

6.5.1.  After the discussion (FD/NFD), the decision maker will decide, based on the information available and applying a “balance of probabilities” standard of proof, whether academic misconduct has occurred.

6.5.2. Whether or not there is a finding of academic misconduct, decision makers are encouraged to assign educational requirements such as educational workshops and/or online quizzes, when appropriate.

6.5.3. If there is a finding of academic misconduct, the decision maker will determine an appropriate penalty, in accordance with the Penalty Guidelines maintained by the AIO. The finding of academic misconduct will be noted on the student’s internal academic record and removed upon graduation. 

6.5.4. If there is no finding of academic misconduct:

6.5.4.1. The work will be graded according to its academic merit.

6.5.4.2. If further evidence becomes available or known, the decision maker can consult with the Director of the AIO and the Chair of the DDMC for approval to re-open the matter.

6.5.5. The decision maker will submit the decision to the AIO. All decisions should include a full/clear rationale, information regarding penalties, if applicable, and information regarding educational requirements assigned. 

6.5.6. The decision will be issued to the student and will include information on the appeal process, if applicable.

• In the case of FDs, the AIO will issue the decision.
• In the case of NFDs, the decision maker will issue the decision through the AIO Instructor Portal.

7. Penalties

7.1. Penalties - Assigned

Penalties that may be Assigned by an Initial Decision Maker, Academic Integrity Council (AIC), or Senate Appeals Committee (SAC)

7.1.1. The minimum penalty for undergraduate or continuing education students is a grade reduction on any academic work, ranging up to and including a grade of “zero” (0) on the work.

7.1.2. The minimum penalty for misconduct with respect to work submitted in a course by a graduate student is a grade of “zero” (0) on the work.

7.1.3. The minimum penalty for misconduct with respect to non-course program requirements by a graduate student is a grade of “D-UNS.”

7.1.4. Where the component of academic work is worth 10% or less of the final course grade, an additional penalty (i.e., in addition to a grade of “zero” (0) on the work) may be assigned. The additional penalty cannot exceed 10 percentage points of the earned course grade.

7.1.5. A grade of “F” or “FLD” (failure on a pass/fail course) in the course may be assigned.

7.1.6. Temporary or permanent removal from a co-op program option, placement, internship, or practicum in which the student is currently enrolled may be assigned. Decision makers who wish to assign this penalty must first consult with the Chair/Director (or designate) to determine the start date and duration of removal. 

7.1.7. For academic misconduct “outside of course,” no course-specific academic penalty can be assigned. However, the finding of academic misconduct will be recorded on the student’s internal academic record through the DN and the decision maker may recommend additional penalties that can be assigned by the AIC, GAAC, RAC, or SAC. (e.g. DS, DW, Expulsion) The determination regarding whether academic misconduct occurred in a course or outside a course is dependent on whether there is a graded component or not.

7.1.8. Revocation of admission offer (for academic misconduct relating to the admissions process). Once the academic term in which the student has accepted their offer of admissions has begun, the minimum consequence is a DN on the academic record. However, the offer of admission may also be revoked and/or additional penalties recommended. Revocation of admission offer can only be assigned by the Registrar (or designate) in consultation with the relevant Program Director.

7.2. Penalties - Recommended

Penalties that may be Recommended by the Initial Decision Maker, Recommended or Assigned by the AIC, Registrar’s Appeals Committee (RAC), Graduate Admissions Appeals Committee (GAAC), or Assigned by the SAC;

7.2.1. Disciplinary Suspension (DS) (assigned by the AIC, RAC, or SAC)

7.2.1.1. The initial decision maker may recommend a DS between (1) term and two (2) years.

7.2.1.2. Graduate students and Doctor of Medicine (MD) students cannot be assigned a DS.

7.2.2. Disciplinary Action (DA) (assigned by the AIC, GAAC, or SAC)

7.2.2.1. Permanent transcript notation.

7.2.2.2. Undergraduate students including Doctor of Medicine (MD) students cannot be assigned a DA. 

7.2.3. Disciplinary Action with Suspension (DA-S) (assigned by the AIC, GAAC, or SAC)

7.2.3.1. Permanent transcript notation.

7.2.3.2. The initial decision maker may recommend a DA-S between (1) term and two (2) years.

7.2.3.3. Undergraduate students including Doctor of Medicine (MD) students cannot be assigned a DA-S.

7.2.4. Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) (assigned by the SAC) 

7.2.4.1. Permanent transcript notation.

7.2.4.2. The initial decision maker may recommend a DW, or it may be recommended by the AIC, RAC, or GAAC. 

7.2.4.3. A DW results in permanent withdrawal from the academic program and a minimum of two (2) years withdrawal from the University as a whole. After the withdrawal period the student may apply to other programs/certificates at the University but not to the program from which they have been withdrawn.

7.2.4.4. An initial decision maker, Program Director (or designate), AIC, RAC, or GAAC may recommend that the withdrawal period from the university be longer than two (2) years; however, the SAC will make the final decision on the duration. 

7.2.4.5. A DW is effective immediately upon the SAC decision.

7.2.5. Expulsion (assigned by the SAC) 

7.2.5.1. Permanent transcript notation.

7.2.5.2. The initial decision maker may recommend Expulsion, or it may be recommended by the AIC, RAC, or GAAC.

7.2.5.3. An Expulsion is effective immediately upon the SAC decision.

7.2.6. Revocation of a Degree, Diploma, or Certificate (assigned by SAC).

8. Progressive Discipline 

8.1. The University has a responsibility to identify and address cases of repeated academic misconduct and apply the principles of progressive discipline.

8.1.1. In the case where an undergraduate or continuing education student receives a second finding of academic misconduct, a meeting will be held between the student’s PD/Chair (or designate), the Chair of the DDMC (or designate) and the Director of the AIO (or designate). During the meeting, all prior findings of academic misconduct will be reviewed to determine whether an additional penalty is warranted. In cases where a penalty is warranted, the minimum penalty that can be recommended by a Program Director/Chair (or designate) is a one-term DS (see Penalty Guidelines).

8.1.2. In the case where an undergraduate or continuing education student has three or more findings of academic misconduct, a penalty hearing will automatically be required. The student’s PD/Chair (or designate) will be asked to provide a penalty recommendation. The penalty recommendation will normally range from a one-term DS to Expulsion.

8.1.3. With respect to graduate students, a second (or more) finding of academic misconduct will automatically require a penalty hearing. The student’s PD/Chair (or designate) will be asked to provide a penalty recommendation of DA-S, DW, or Expulsion.

8.1.4. For Doctor of Medicine (MD) students, the principle of progressive discipline will be pursued per Policy 175: Standards of Professional Conduct for Students in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program.

8.2. Once a decision to convene a penalty hearing is made, the AIO will notify the student of the hearing, including the type and length of the penalty recommended, and provide the student with an opportunity to respond. (see Procedures, Section 9.2)

8.3. With respect to all matters of progressive discipline, a graduation hold will be placed on the student’s record. Students will not be approved to graduate until all Policy 60 matters are resolved.

9. Representation, Support, and Witnesses at Discussions and Hearings

9.1. At FDs, NFDs, AIC hearings, and RAC/GAAC hearings:

• Students may be accompanied by an advocate (as defined in Policy, Section 3.3), but not by legal counsel; Students are expected to be present and speak for themselves especially with respect to matters of fact 
• Students and decision makers may also be accompanied by a support person 
• Students and decision makers may bring witnesses 

9.2. At SAC hearings: 

• Students may be accompanied by an advocate (as defined in Policy, Section 3.3) or legal counsel (i.e., a lawyer); students are expected to be present and speak for themselves especially with respect to matters of fact 
• The respondent may be represented by legal counsel (i.e., a lawyer) 
• Students and respondents may be accompanied by a support person 
• Students and respondents may bring witnesses 

10. Appeals Committees

10.1. Appeal committees are higher level decision making bodies that adjudicate hearings. At hearings, a member of the AIO and/or the Secretary of Senate (or designate) will be present as well to provide advice on procedural issues and/or to respond to questions concerning students’ academic records.

10.1.1. Academic Integrity Council (AIC) 

The AIO shall establish an AIC, composed of faculty/clinical faculty/contract lecturers and student representatives from each of the faculties. The AIC is responsible for appeal and penalty hearings subsequent to an initial finding of misconduct. AIC panels will consist of two (2) faculty members and one (1) student. 

10.1.2. Registrar’s Appeals Committee (RAC) 

The Registrar will establish a RAC composed of a minimum of three (3) members of the Registrar’s Office for appeals outside of a course that are deemed to be the responsibility of the Registrar’s Office. The Registrar will be a permanent member of this committee and will appoint a designate and/or other members to panels as needed based on the issue. The RAC is responsible for appeals and penalty hearings related to the admissions process and transfer credits. 

10.1.3. Graduate Admissions Appeals Committee (GAAC) 

The Vice-Provost and Dean YSGPS will establish a GAAC composed of a minimum of three (3) members of the Graduate Admissions Office. The Vice-Provost and Dean YSGPS will be a permanent member of this committee and will appoint a designate and/or other members to panels as needed based on the issue. The GAAC is responsible for appeals and penalty hearings related to the graduate admissions process. 

10.1.4. Senate Appeals Committee (SAC) 

The SAC is established by the Senate Bylaw. It will consider appeals of the decisions of the AIC, RAC, or GAAC. See the specific grounds for appeals from the AIC, RAC, or GAAC to SAC in Policy, Section 14.1. SAC panels will consist of two (2) faculty members and one (1) student. 

11. Appeals and Penalty Hearings

11.1. Students must appeal first to the AIC, RAC or GAAC (as appropriate) and may only appeal further to the SAC on the grounds provided in Policy, Section 14.1 , with the exception of appeals relating to a recommendation of a DW or expulsion, where the student can waive the first level hearing and go directly to SAC.  

11.2. Hearings are not open to the public due to privacy and confidentiality issues. 

11.3. Hearings are not to be audio or video recorded. No minutes are taken. The decision letter is the only official record of the hearing. 

12. Appeals - General Regulations

12.1. Appeals are initiated by students.  

12.2. Students have ten (10) business days from the date of issue of the decision letter to submit an appeal to the AIC/RAC/GAAC. 

12.2.1. If an appeal is not filed by the deadline, the decision will stand. Where mitigating circumstances exist, and appropriate supporting documentation is provided, the Director of the AIO (or designate, for the AIO), the Registrar (or designate, for the RAC), the Vice-Provost and Dean YSGPS (or designate for the GAAC) or the Secretary of Senate (or designate, for the SAC) may accept a late appeal.

12.3. In specified circumstances a further appeal may be made to the SAC (See Policy Section 14). Students have ten (10) business days from the date of issue of the appeal decision letter to submit an appeal to the SAC. 

12.4. Where a full appeal hearing is to be held, if the student fails to attend, the appeal will be withdrawn and no further appeals will be accepted. Where mitigating circumstances exist, and appropriate supporting documentation is provided, the Director of the AIO (or designate for the AIC) , the Registrar (or designate for the RAC), the Vice-Provost and Dean YSGPS (or designate for the GAAC) or the Secretary of Senate (or designate for the SAC) have discretion to reschedule the hearing.

12.5. Students may remain in class and may enroll in courses while their case is under appeal. However, if the assigned penalty is removal from placement, co-op program option, internship, or practicum, the student may not remain in the associated course(s) during the appeal process. 

12.6. If a student appeals a finding of academic misconduct or an academic misconduct penalty that results in a prerequisite course failure, they cannot enrol in the subsequent course while the matter is under appeal.

13. Appeals to the AIC, RAC, or GAAC

13.1. A student found to have engaged in academic misconduct may appeal the finding of misconduct and, in some cases, the penalty assigned. 

13.1.1. Students assigned the minimum penalty or assigned a course grade reduction may appeal the finding of misconduct but not the penalty alone.

13.1.2. Students assigned a penalty greater than the minimum, or in cases where a penalty is recommended but must be assigned by AIC or SAC, may choose to accept the finding but appeal the penalty alone.

13.1.3. When both penalty and finding are appealed, they will be heard together.

13.2. The possible outcomes of an appeal to the AIC, RAC, or GAAC are: 

13.2.1. Grant or deny the appeal, in whole or in part 

13.2.2. Confirm or alter (increase or decrease) an earlier penalty 

13.2.3. Uphold or overturn a recommendation for a DS, DA, DA-S, DW, Expulsion, or Revocation

13.3. If an appeal of a finding of academic misconduct is granted (i.e., the finding of misconduct is overturned), the penalty will be removed and the work subject to the misconduct will be graded according to its academic merit.  

13.4. If an appeal of a penalty is granted, the penalty may be removed or altered but the finding of academic misconduct will remain on the student’s internal academic record.   

14. Appeals to The SAC

14.1. The right to this second level of appeal is limited and the onus is on the student to make a case for why the appeal should be heard based on one or more of the following four (4) grounds: 

14.1.1. New Evidence: there is new evidence submitted with the Senate package that was not presented at the AIC, RAC, or GAAC hearing and which has a reasonable possibility of affecting the decision. The appeal should state what the evidence is, justify why it wasn’t previously submitted for the AIC hearing, and briefly give reasons as to how and/or why it might affect the finding. 

14.1.2. Substantial Procedural Error: when it is believed there has been a substantial error in how Policy 60: Academic Integrity was applied, which could have affected the decision reached by the AIC, RAC, or GAAC. The appeal should state what the procedural error was and give reasons regarding how and/or why it may have affected the finding and/or reasons why its correction would reasonably be expected to do so. (Note: a delay in scheduling the AIC/RAC/GAAC hearing is not a procedural error unless that delay may have influenced the decision reached by the AIC/RAC/GAAC panel.) 

14.1.3. Evidence Not Previously Considered: evidence submitted as part of the AIC, RAC, or GAAC package or was stated verbally at the AIC, RAC, or GAAC hearing that was not considered by the panel. The appeal should identify the evidence not considered, provide the rationale for why it is believed this evidence was not considered, and give reasons why consideration of it would be reasonably likely to affect the finding and/or alter the penalty assigned. 

14.1.4. Higher Penalty: if a higher penalty has been assigned by the AIC, RAC, or GAAC than that recommended or assigned by the initial decision maker. 

14.2. If, in receiving the appeal, the Senate Office believes that the grounds have not been met (in accordance with Policy Section 14.1) to warrant an appeal submission, a Senate Appeals Review Panel (SARP) will be convened. The SARP, comprised of two faculty members and a student from SAC, will determine whether the student has satisfied the onus stipulated in Policy, Section 14.1. The Secretary of Senate (or designate) and the Director of AIO (or designate) will attend the hearing as resource persons. The decision of the SARP is final. The Secretary of Senate will inform the student whether an appeal to SAC will proceed to a hearing or if it will be considered by a SARP. 

14.3. The possible outcomes of an appeal to the SAC are: 

14.3.1. Grant or deny the appeal, in whole or in part 

14.3.2. Confirm or alter (increase or decrease) an earlier penalty 

14.3.3. Uphold or overturn a recommendation for a DW, Expulsion, or Revocation 

14.4. The possible outcomes of a SARP are: 

14.4.1. Dismiss the appeal 

14.4.2. Grant a SAC hearing 

14.5. If an appeal of a finding of academic misconduct is granted (i.e., the finding of misconduct is overturned), the penalty will be removed and the work will be graded according to its academic merit. If an appeal of a penalty is granted, the penalty may be removed or altered but the finding of academic misconduct will remain on the student’s internal academic record. The student may still be required to complete educational requirements.  

14.6. All decisions of the SAC and SARP are final and may not be appealed. 

15. Penalty Hearings

15.1. Penalty hearings are initiated either by: 

15.1.1. A decision maker or decision-making panel recommending a penalty that may only be assigned by the AIC, RAC, GAAC, or SAC, or 

15.1.2. The university through the progressive discipline process. 

15.2. Students must be notified of the penalty hearing and the penalty recommended and be given the opportunity to respond.

15.2.1. If a student does not respond to the notice of penalty hearing by the given deadline, a panel will be convened to deliberate on the recommended penalty based solely on the written documentation and without the appellant or respondent present (see Procedures Section 9.2.). 

15.3. Where a full penalty hearing is to be held, if the student fails to attend, the hearing will proceed in their absence. Where mitigating circumstances exist, and appropriate supporting documentation is provided, the Director of the AIO (for AIC) (or designate) or Secretary of Senate (for SAC) (or designate) may reschedule the hearing. 

15.4. The possible outcomes of a penalty hearing are: 

15.4.1. Uphold or overturn a recommendation for a DS, DA, DA-S, DW, Expulsion, or Revocation 

15.4.2. Alter (increase or decrease) a recommended penalty 

15.5. Students may remain in class and may enroll in courses while the outcome of a penalty hearing is pending. 

16. Conflict of Interest and Perception of Bias

Appeal and penalty hearings must be, and be perceived to be, fair. Therefore:

16.1. No member of a hearing panel shall have had any prior involvement with the case under appeal. The exception to this is a SAC hearing where the panel may be the same as the panel assigned to the SARP.

16.2. No member of a panel shall have had any prior participation (as eligible investigator, decision maker, or other decision-making panel) in any other academic misconduct matter where this student was suspected of academic misconduct. 

16.3. No panel members shall be selected from the student’s home department.

17. Verification 

The University or any eligible investigator may verify documents submitted under this policy and its Procedures at any stage of the proceedings. Documents/evidence that cannot be verified may not be accepted and falsified documentation or evidence may result in an additional suspicion of academic misconduct.

18. Privacy and Disclosure

18.1. Any evidence that includes personal information about individuals other than the student under investigation may need to be redacted, or require those individuals’ consent for the University to collect, verify, or share that information. 

18.2. Accrediting bodies and some employers may request information regarding records of academic misconduct. That information is not disclosed without the student’s permission.  

18.3. Some penalties include a permanent transcript notation (see Policy, Section 7)

19. Allegations of Discrimination or Harassment

19.1. A student may share a concern or allegation of discrimination or harassment at any point in the Policy 60 process. This includes allegations relating to any part of the academic misconduct matter involving discrimination or harassment based on one or more  protected ground(s) under the Discrimination and Harassment Policy (which is aligned with the Ontario Human Rights Code):

• Age
• Ancestry 
• Citizenship
• Colour 
• Creed 
• Disability 
• Ethnic origin 
• Family status 
• Gender identity  
• Gender expression 
• Marital status  
• Place of origin 
• Race 
• Receipt of public assistance* 
• Record of offences** 
• Sex 
• Sexual orientation 

*Receipt of public assistance applies only in the area of housing in alignment with the Ontario Human Rights Code.  

**Record of offences applies only in the area of employment in alignment with the Ontario Human Rights Code. 

19.2. When an allegation of discrimination or harassment is made, information about the allegation will be shared with Human Rights Services (HRS) for review under the Discrimination and Harassment Policy (DHP) (see Procedures section 18.3) . The student must contact HRS within ten (10) business days to consult with them regarding the matter. While the matter is under consideration by HRS the Policy 60 process will be paused. Once the HRS review process is complete, the Policy 60 process will resume.  

19.3. If a finding of discrimination is made at the FD/NFD stage, a DDM will be appointed. If there is no finding of discrimination, the person against whom the allegation was made can request that a DDM be appointed.  

20. Communications

All communications relating to Policy 60: Academic Integrity will be sent to the student and any relevant parties via their University email account, which is the University’s official means of communication with students.  

21. Statistics

The AIO will maintain statistics on Academic Misconduct, reporting these in a non-identifying manner, annually, to Senate.  

 

Related Procedures:

Procedures: Academic Integrity

Related Policies:

Policy 118: Scholarly, Research and Creative Activity (SRC) Integrity

Policy 159: Academic Accommodation of Students with Disabilities

Policy 162(a): Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation

Policy 162(b): Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

Policy 170(d): Grading, Progression, and Academic Standing in them Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

Policy 175: Policy on Standards of Professional Conduct for Students in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

 

Back to top

Appendix A - Academic Misconduct (See Policy 60, Section 3.1)

1. Plagiarism

includes but is not limited to:

1.1.  claiming, submitting, or presenting the words, work, ideas, opinions, theories, artistry, drawings, images, or data of another person, including information found on the Internet and unpublished materials, as if they are one’s own, without appropriate referencing; 

1.2. claiming, submitting, or presenting substantial compositional contributions, assistance, edits, or changes to an assignment as one’s own; 

1.3. claiming, submitting, or presenting collaborative work as if it were created solely by oneself or one’s group; 

1.4. minimally paraphrasing someone else’s work by changing only a few words, and/or not citing the original source.

2. Self-plagiarism

2.1. Submitting the same work, in whole or in part, for credit, in two or more courses, or in the same course more than once, without the prior written permission of the faculty/contract lecturer, or clinical faculty. Self-plagiarism can also include presenting one’s own previously published work as though it were new. 

3. Cheating

includes but is not limited to:

3.1. having ready access to and/or using aids or devices (including wireless communication devices) not expressly allowed by the faculty/clinical faculty/contract lecturer during an assessment;

3.2. copying another person’s answer(s) on a test, exam, quiz, lab report, or other work to be evaluated;

3.3. copying another person’s answers on individual work;

3.4. consulting with another person or with unauthorized materials outside of an examination room during the examination period (e.g. discussing an exam or accessing materials during an emergency evacuation or when permitted to use a washroom);

3.5. improperly submitting an answer to a test or examination question completed, in whole or part, outside the examination room unless expressly permitted by the faculty/clinical faculty/contract lecturer;

3.6. resubmitting altered test or examination work after it has already been evaluated;

3.7. presenting falsified or fabricated material, including research results and/or false or fabricated citations;

3.8. improperly obtaining, through deceit, theft, bribery, collusion, or otherwise, access to examination paper(s) or set of questions, or other confidential information;

3.9. collaborating on work to be evaluated where such collaboration has been expressly forbidden by the faculty/clinical faculty or contract lecturer.

4. Contract Cheating

4.1. Submitting work completed in whole or in part by the third party, with or without payment.

4.2. Soliciting a third party to complete work on the student’s behalf.

5. Misrepresentation of Personal Identity or Performance

includes but is not limited to:

5.1. submitting stolen or purchased assignments, research, or creative work; 

5.2. impersonating someone or having someone impersonate you in person, in writing, or electronically; 

5.3. falsely identifying oneself or misrepresenting one’s personal performance outside of a particular course, in a course in which one is not officially enrolled, or in the admissions process (e.g. submission of portfolios, essays, transcripts, or documents); 

5.4. withholding or altering academic information, portfolios, essays, transcripts, or documents, including during the admissions process; 

5.5. submitting work created in whole or in part by artificial intelligence tools unless expressly permitted by the faculty/contract lecturer, or clinical faculty; 

5.6. submitting work that does not reasonably demonstrate your own knowledge, understanding, and performance; 

5.7. use of AI, without explicit permission, in documents submitted for academic purposes, including but not limited to awards, academic appeals, and/or the Policy 60 process. 

6. Submission of False Information

includes but is not limited to:

6.1. submitting altered, forged, or falsified medical or other certificates, or documents for academic purposes, or making false claims, including in or as part of an academic appeal or the academic misconduct process; 

6.2. submitting false academic credentials to the University; 

6.3. altering, in any way, official documents issued by the University; 

6.4. submitting falsified letters of reference; 

6.5. forging or altering a co-op, placement, internship, or practicum evaluation. 

7. Contributing to Academic Misconduct

            includes but is not limited to:

7.1. offering, giving, sharing, or selling essays, questions, and/or answers to tests or exams, quizzes, or other assignments unless authorized to do so;

7.2. allowing work to be copied during an assessment.  

8. Damaging, Tampering, or Interfering with the Scholarly Environment

includes but is not limited to:

8.1. obstructing and/or disturbing the academic activities of others; 

8.2. altering the academic work of others in order to gain academic advantage; 

8.3. tampering with experiments or laboratory assignments; 

8.4. altering or destroying artistic or creative works such as drawings or films; 

8.5. removing, altering, misusing or destroying University property to obstruct the work of others; 

8.6. unauthorized access to, stealing, or tampering with any course-related material;

8.7. unauthorized access to, or tampering with, library materials, including hiding them in a place where they will not readily be found by other members of the University community. 

9. Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property

Use of the intellectual property of others for distribution, sale, or profit without the authorization of the owner of that material. This includes slides and presentation materials used in a class wherever the owner of those materials has not authorized further use. 

10. Misconduct of Re-graded/Re-submitted Work

All of the provisions of this policy will apply to work that is re-assessed (See Policy 162(a): Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation) or for students in the MD Program, Policy 162(b): Grade Reassessment and Grade Recalculation for Students in the Doctor of Medicine (MD) Program

11. Violations of Specific Departmental or Course Requirements

F(f)aculty/contract lecturers,and clinical faculty may, to encourage academic integrity and increase the security of an assessment, include additional specific requirements. Any additional requirements must be clearly communicated to students in advance of the assessment date. 

Back to top

Appendix B - Glossary of Abbreviated Terms