Policy 60: Academic Integrity Procedures

Investigating and Registering a Suspicion of Academic Misconduct
Notification and Scheduling of FD/NFD Discussions
Discussions: FD or NFD
Decisions
Dropping a Course During the Academic Misconduct Process
Progressive Discipline
Implications of a DS, DA, DA-S, DW, Expulsion, Revocation of Degree, Diploma ir Cerftificate
Consequences
Hearings
Sequence of Appeals/Hearings
Representation, Support Persons, and Witnesses
Allegations of discrimination
Submission of Falsified Documents
Relevant Documents

1. Investigating and Registering a Suspicion of Academic Misconduct

1.1. A suspicion of academic misconduct must be registered with the Academic Integrity Office (AIO) by an eligible investigator on the AIO Instructor Portal. All others who become aware of a concern of academic misconduct, including but not limited to academic assistants (AAs), invigilators, other staff, associate members of the Yeates School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies (YSGPS), and external examiners, must report the concern to an eligible investigator.

1.2. An eligible investigator who has a suspicion of academic misconduct should proceed with their inquiry/investigation unless it is more appropriate to inform another person (e.g. GPD, PD or Chair).

1.2.1. If a DDM has been assigned, they will determine if there is a reasonable basis for suspicion and let the referring instructor know within five (5) business days if they are proceeding with the case. The DDM may contact the referring instructor if any further evidence/information is required.

1.3. The purpose of the investigation is to see whether there is a sufficient basis to support a reasonable belief that misconduct may have occurred. This involves collecting information regarding the suspected misconduct. The investigation may include checking work for originality by various means, clarifying invigilator reports, examining learning management system data, etc. Where investigators have questions or concerns regarding how to proceed, they should consult with the AIO.

1.4. As necessary, the eligible investigator may consult with additional parties, including but not limited to their Chair/Director, Program Director (PD) (required in the case of supervised research activities), Computing and Communication Services, Campus Security, the Test Centre, or the AIO. Throughout all such consultations, confidentiality and the privacy of those involved are to be fully respected and protected.

1.5. Suspicions of academic misconduct in supervised research/non-course program requirements require additional procedures. Examples of research/non-course program requirements include: 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 the undergraduate or graduate level.

1.5.1. Before registering a suspicion of academic misconduct involving the supervised research activities of a student, the person raising a concern must consult with the relevant PD (or designate). The PD must determine if the research in question is externally funded.

1.5.1.1. If the student is not externally funded, the PD will determine who should act as the eligible investigator/decision maker. If the person raising the concern is an eligible investigator, they may continue as decision maker, if the PD is in agreement. The PD (or designate) may also act as a co-investigator.

1.5.1.1.1. In cases where the person raising the suspicion does not wish to proceed, or is in a conflict of interest, or is not an eligible investigator, the PD may choose to pursue the case themselves (with or without a co-investigator), or to assign a designate. If there is disagreement between the PD and the person raising the concern regarding how to proceed, the matter will be referred to the relevant Dean. The Dean will, in consultation with the AIO, decide who will act as decision maker(s).

1.5.1.2. If the student is externally funded, in support of their supervised research activities, an additional decision maker, external to the University and with disciplinary expertise, will also be present (see Policy 118: Scholarly, Research and Creative Activity). The Office of the Vice-President Research and Innovation (OVPRI) will arrange for this individual to attend the FD. In some cases, the Graduate Program Director (GPD) may also be present as a co-decision maker. While the GPD will normally be able to confirm whether the student is externally funded, the AIO may also consult with the OVPRI, the Dean, and/or the Vice-Provost and Dean YSGPS to make this determination.

1.6. The eligible investigator may ask one or more faculty members with subject matter expertise to review and clarify the importance of the evidence and identify areas where further evidence or clarification should be sought. This must be done making all reasonable efforts to protect confidentiality.

1.7. If a concern of academic misconduct arises more than 20 days after final grades are posted, the Chair of the DDMC must be consulted for approval to register the concern.

1.8. If the eligible investigator determines there is reasonable belief that academic misconduct has occurred, they must formally register a suspicion on the AIO Instructor portal. This should also include uploading any evidence that informs the basis of their suspicion.

1.9. The student will be notified of the suspicion and be offered the opportunity to discuss the matter by participating in a Facilitated (FD) or Non-Facilitated (NFD) discussion.

1.10. All evidence that can be shared in advance of a meeting will be shared with all appropriate parties. All evidence is subject to redaction for the purposes of FIPPA compliance.

1.10.1. In the case of an FD, the AIO issue the evidence

1.10.2. In the case of an NFD, the Decision Maker will issue the evidence.

2. Notification and Scheduling of FD/NFD Discussions

2.1. A notification of discussion will be sent to the student, informing them of the basis for the suspicion and advising who will be acting as the decision maker (e.g., their course instructor, DDM, or designate). An updated notification may be issued if relevant details change (e.g., rescheduled discussion, updated decision maker).

2.2. Any requests by students,faculty/contract lecturers, or clinical faculty for accommodations, or to advise of a scheduling conflict, should be communicated to the AIO in a timely manner and in advance of the scheduled meeting. Without verifiable documented evidence of exceptional circumstances, a discussion will not be rescheduled.

2.3. The discussion (FD/NFD) should normally take place within three (3) to five (5) business days of the date of notice. In cases where an external investigator is required, as in the case of suspected academic misconduct in supervised research activities, this timeline may be extended.

2.4. If the decision maker wishes to schedule subsequent discussions to bring forth other information, this should occur as soon as possible and, normally, before a decision is registered. In such cases, the student must be notified that there will be further discussions with no less than two (2) days notice.

3. Discussions: FD or NFD

3.1. Decision makers must be prepared to speak to their suspicion and/or any evidence in support of that suspicion at the discussion (e.g. course outlines, assignment guidelines, similarity reports).

3.2. Students may present rough notes, drafts, or other supporting materials during the discussion, or they can be sent in advance to the AIO (for FDs) and directly to the Decision Maker (for NFDs).

3.3. Discussions are not to be audio or video recorded. However a written record of the discussion should be created. The notes, though not verbatim, serve as the official record of the meeting. The decision maker and student(s) should have the opportunity to review and confirm the accuracy of the record. With the permission of all parties, a university approved transcription tool may be used to create the written record.

3.3.1. The facilitator (in an FD) will take notes during the discussion, to be distributed to the decision maker and student after the discussion.

3.3.2. Decision makers who choose an NFD should take notes for distribution to the student after the discussion.

3.3.3. For graduate students, in recognition of the severity of the potential impact of a formal suspicion, there is no option of an NFD.

3.4. Where cases of suspected academic misconduct involve more than one (1) student and/or are closely related, the eligible investigator may meet with some or all of the students at once. However, the meeting must be held as an FD. If a student has been scheduled for a group FD, they may also request an additional individual meeting. Note that a group discussion may result in differing outcomes as each case is evaluated individually.

3.4.1. Group FD’s are not permitted for Graduate studies.

3.5. Students who have been invited to an NFD may request an FD instead. Students wishing to request an FD should contact the AIO directly at aio@torontomu.ca as soon as possible and prior to the scheduled NFD. In such cases, the NFD will be cancelled and the AIO will facilitate the scheduling of an FD.

3.6. As discussions are intended to be exploratory, they may lead to a change in the nature of the suspected academic misconduct (e.g., a suspicion initially identified as plagiarism may later be determined to constitute contract cheating). If, after the discussion, the decision-maker wishes to change the suspected academic misconduct type, the student will be provided with an opportunity to reconvene the discussion and respond to the newly categorized concern before a decision is made.

4. Decisions

4.1. After the discussion, the decision maker will consider the discussion notes, evidence, and information presented by all parties and only then will a decision be made regarding whether academic misconduct has occurred.

4.2. The decision maker must register their decision through the AIO Instructor Portal. This should include a full rationale for the decision.

4.2.1. If it is determined that academic misconduct has occurred, the penalties/consequences assigned and/or recommended must be included.

4.2.2. If it is determined that academic misconduct has not occurred, no further proceedings related to the suspicion as set out in the notice to the student may be initiated. The work in question will be assessed/re-assessed/ regraded in accordance with applicable Senate policies.

4.2.3. Whether or not it is determined that academic misconduct has occurred, educational requirements (e.g., workshops and/or quizzes) may be assigned.

4.2.3.1. Failure to complete these requirements may result in additional consequences, including delayed graduation or ineligibility to register in future courses.

4.2.4. Once the decision of a DDM is issued, it is the responsibility of the referring instructor to action the decision.

4.2.4.1. If there is a finding of academic misconduct, action the penalty assigned

4.2.4.2. If there is no finding of academic misconduct, grade the work according to its academic merit.

4.2.4.3. The referring instructor must not modify or in any way alter the decision or penalty assigned by the DDM. The referring instructor must ensure that any grade updates are compliant with Senate Policy and that grade change forms are submitted in a timely manner. They may not appeal either the decision of the DDM nor any penalty or consequences assigned or recommended. They may, however, still be called as a witness in the event of an appeal.

4.3. Students should receive a decision regarding whether or not academic misconduct has occurred within five (5) business days of the discussion, via their TMU University email. Should decision makers require an extension of these deadlines;

4.3.1. In the case of an FD, they must contact the AIO, who will notify the student of the extended time.

4.3.2. In the case of an NFD, the decision maker should inform the student directly of the delay.

4.4. For group work, a decision maker may determine there are varying degrees of accountability across group members. The decision maker will determine an appropriate means of evaluating the work of each student depending on the outcome. (Note: that a decision maker may determine that all group members are equally responsible for any submitted work or that the degree of responsibility varies.)

5. Dropping a Course During the Academic Misconduct Process

5.1. Students may not drop a course in which there is a suspicion of academic misconduct.

5.2. Students who drop a course while a Policy 60 matter is in progress will be re-enrolled by the Registrar’s Office. If an academic misconduct suspicion arises after a student has dropped a course the student will be re-enrolled by the Registrar’s Office.

5.3. If a student has dropped a course and a subsequent suspicion of academic misconduct is raised after the final date to re-enrol the student, the suspicion will be handled outside of the course. (see Policy 60, Section 7.1.7.)

5.4. If No Finding of Academic Misconduct

5.4.1. If the student is currently enrolled or has been re-enrolled by the Registrar’s Office, and there is no finding of academic misconduct and the decision is sent on or prior to the published deadline to drop a course, the student may drop the course.

5.4.2. If the student is currently enrolled or has been re-enrolled by the Registrar’s Office, and there is no finding of academic misconduct, and the decision is sent after the published deadline to drop a course but prior to the official last day of the term, the student has up to two (2) business days from the date/time of the decision being sent to request to drop the course.

Students should email sr.misconduct@torontomu.ca with the following information:

Email Subject: [Last Name], [First Name] - [Toronto Metropolitan student ID#] - Drop [Course Code] (Example: Smith, John - 500000000 - Drop ACC100) Email

Email Body: I have received an Academic Misconduct decision of “no finding” of academic misconduct in [Course Code] from AIO on [date]. I would like to drop [Course Code].

The Registrar’s Office will evaluate the request. If it meets the timelines, the Registrar’s Office will drop the course and inform the student in a reply to their email request.

5.5. If Finding of Academic Misconduct

5.5.1. If there is a finding of academic misconduct and the decision is sent on or prior to the published deadline to drop a course and any penalty assigned/recommended is less than an “F” in the course, the student may drop the course.

Students who are unable to drop the course on MyServiceHub should email sr.misconduct@torontomu.ca with the following information:

Email Subject: [Last Name], [First Name] - [Toronto Metropolitan ID] - Drop [Course Code] (Example: Smith, John - 500000000 - Drop ACC100)

Email Body: I have received an academic misconduct decision with a penalty that is less than an “F” in [Course Code] from AIO on [date]. I would like to drop [Course Code].

The Registrar’s Office will evaluate the request. If it meets the requirements outlined here, the Registrar’s Office will drop the course and inform the student in a reply to their email request. The record of academic misconduct will remain on the student's internal academic record to be removed upon graduation.

5.5.2. If there is a finding of academic misconduct and the decision is issued after the published deadline to drop a course, normally, the course may not be dropped.

5.5.3. If there is a finding of academic misconduct and a penalty of a grade of “F” is assigned for the course, the student may not drop the course. That grade of “F” will remain on the student’s transcript.

5.5.4. If there is a finding of academic misconduct that results in the student being removed from a course co-op program option, placement, internship, or practicum in which the student is currently enrolled, the published fee refund schedule will apply.

6. Progressive Discipline

6.1. In the case where an undergraduate or continuing education student receives a second finding of academic misconduct, a Progressive Discipline meeting will be held and the student’s Program Director/Chair (or designate) will determine if a penalty recommendation is warranted, or if the student will be issued a warning.

6.2. The AIO will schedule a meeting with the following:

Director of AIO (or designate)
Chair of DDMC (or designate)
Program Director/Chair (PD/Chair) (or designate): In the event of a conflict of interest, the AIO will determine the next most appropriate decision maker (normally the Chair/Associate Dean).

6.3. Factors that may influence the decision may include:

Policy 60: Academic Integrity
Policy 60: Penalty Guidelines The nature of the academic misconduct findings
Toronto Metropolitan University’s academic integrity expectations
School/Program/Department’s academic integrity expectations
Student’s individual circumstances

6.4. If it is determined that a penalty recommendation is warranted for the purposes of progressive discipline, the student will be notified by the AIO that their case has been reviewed, that a penalty hearing will be held, and they will be provided ten (10) business days to respond to the penalty recommendation. The minimum penalty that can be recommended by a PD/Chair (or designate) is a one-term Disciplinary Suspension (DS).

6.5. If it is determined that a penalty recommendation is not warranted (i.e., a warning is issued), the student will be notified by the AIO that their case has been reviewed, that findings of academic misconduct will remain on their academic record, and that any further finding of academic misconduct will automatically result in a penalty hearing, with a penalty recommendation ranging from a DS of one (1) term up to Expulsion.

6.6. In the case where a graduate student receives a second finding of academic misconduct, a penalty hearing will automatically be held. The student will be notified by the AIO that their case has been reviewed and that a penalty hearing will be held, and they will be provided ten (10) business days to respond to the penalty recommendation. The penalty recommendation will normally range from a DA-S of one-term up to Expulsion.

6.7. In the case where an undergraduate or continuing education student receives a third or more findings of academic misconduct, a penalty hearing will automatically be held. The student’s PD/Chair (or designate) will be asked to provide a penalty recommendation. The student will be notified by the AIO that their case has been reviewed, that a penalty hearing will be held, and they will be provided ten (10) business days to respond to the penalty recommendation. The penalty recommendation will normally range from a DS of one-term up to Expulsion.

6.8. If a student does not respond to the Notice of Penalty Hearing by the given deadline, the AIC panel will be convened to deliberate on the recommended penalty based solely on the written documentation and without the appellant or respondent present. If a student is unable to respond to the Notice of Penalty Hearing due to compelling extenuating circumstances and is able to provide verifiable documentation, the AIO Director (or designate) may grant an extension.

6.9. A student with a previous DS, DA, or DA-S who has a further finding of academic misconduct will automatically have a penalty hearing regarding the appropriateness of the recommended penalty, which will normally range from a DW up to Expulsion.

6.10. A student with a previous DW who has a further finding of academic misconduct will automatically have a penalty hearing regarding the appropriateness of the recommended penalty, which will normally be Expulsion.

7. Implications of DS, DA, DA-S, DW, Expulsion, Revocation of Degree, Diploma, or Certificate

7.1. Disciplinary Suspension (DS)

7.1.1. The DS designation shall be placed on both the student’s academic record and official transcript and remain there until a student graduates.

7.1.2. In cases where a student does not graduate in the normal period during which a program is to be completed, or the student has not enrolled in a course at Toronto Metropolitan University for at least five (5) years, a written request to the Chair/Director of the program can be made to remove the DS from the transcript.

7.1.3. If there is a subsequent finding of academic misconduct prior to graduation, the DS will be re-instated on the transcript.

7.1.4. While on a DS, a student may not take courses at Toronto Metropolitan University, including at The G. Raymond Chang School of Continuing Education (The Chang School), nor do a placement, work experience hours, internship, or any other program requirements.

7.1.5. Course work taken elsewhere during the period of Disciplinary Suspension will not be credited towards Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) GPA calculations, Academic Standing, or graduation requirements within the student’s program.

7.1.6. The DS will normally begin as soon as reasonably possible; however, the panel will determine the appropriate timing.

7.1.7. A student who is assigned a DS is automatically reinstated into their program or may apply to any other program or certificate after serving the specified period of suspension and after meeting any specified conditions established by the AIC, RAC, GAAC, or SAC.

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

7.2.1. A DA or DA-S shall be placed on both the graduate student’s academic record and official transcript and cannot be removed.

7.2.2. While on a DA-S, a graduate student may not apply to any other Toronto Metropolitan University program, or take courses, including at The Chang School, do a placement, work experience hours, internship, or any other program requirements, including research.

7.2.3. Courses taken elsewhere and/or research progress completed during the DA-S will not be credited towards Toronto Metropolitan University GPA calculations, Academic Standing, or graduation requirements within any Toronto Metropolitan University program.

7.2.4. The DA-S will normally begin in the term following the one in which the misconduct that led to the DA-S occurred.

7.2.5. A graduate student who is assigned a DA-S may request to re-enroll after the period of suspension.

7.3. Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW)

7.3.1. A DW will be permanently noted on a student’s academic record and official transcript.

7.3.2. While on a DW a student may not re-apply to any other Toronto Metropolitan University program, or take courses, including at The Chang School, or do a placement, work experience hours, internship, or any other program requirements during the period of DW.

7.3.3. Course work taken elsewhere during this period will not be credited towards Toronto Metropolitan University GPA calculations, Academic Standing, or graduation requirements within any Toronto Metropolitan University program.

7.3.4. The DW will normally begin on the date of the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC) decision letter, or as required to support the decision outcome.

7.3.5. After serving the specified period, a student assigned a DW may apply to other programs/certificates at Toronto Metropolitan University, but may not apply to the program from which they were withdrawn.

7.3.6. A recommendation of DW can only be assigned by the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC). While the academic misconduct process is being considered at all levels, students may continue in their program and can be registered in courses for up to one subsequent term until a final outcome is determined.

7.4. Expulsion

7.4.1. Students who are expelled from the University shall not be allowed to register or enroll in any course, program, or certificate offered by Toronto Metropolitan University, including through The Chang School.

7.4.2. Expulsion will take effect on the date of the SAC decision letter.

7.4.3. Expulsion shall be permanently noted on a student’s academic record and official transcript.

7.4.4. A recommendation of Expulsion can only be assigned by the Senate Appeals Committee (SAC). While the academic misconduct process is being considered at all levels, students may continue in their program and can be registered in courses for up to one subsequent term until a final outcome is determined.

7.5. Revocation of a Degree, Diploma, or Certificate

7.5.1. Revocation of a Degree, Diploma, or Certificate shall be permanently noted on a student’s academic record and official transcript.

7.6. Revocation of offer of admission

7.6.1. Revocation of the offer of admission will result in the student being withdrawn from all courses.

8. Consequences

Potential consequences of academic misconduct, some of which are external to Policy 60, include:

A decision maker may require a student who has engaged in academic misconduct to replace any damaged or destroyed material.
Scholarships, awards, bursaries, external funders, relevant professional and accrediting bodies, may require the reporting and disclosure of academic misconduct.
Previously assigned grades may be adjusted.
A student’s graduation may be delayed until all relevant academic misconduct matters have concluded.
Students found to have engaged in academic misconduct cannot be on a Dean’s List or be nominated for other internal awards or scholarships in the academic year that the misconduct occurred.
In the case of a DS the student cannot be on a Dean’s List in the academic year that the DS is served.
The University may be required to inform outside parties whose interests may have been adversely affected by the academic misconduct (e.g., co-op/placement hosts, community partners).
In the case of forged documents, official or otherwise, the Registrar’s Office, Director of Admissions, or Manager of Admissions may share the information with counterparts who are members of the Association of Registrars of the Universities and Colleges of Canada (ARUCC) and/or Government officials (e.g., Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA)).
Where warranted, the issue may be pursued under Policy 61: Non-Academic Conduct.

9. Hearings

9.1. AIC, RAC, GAAC Appeal Hearings

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

9.1.2. An AIC, RAC, or GAAC appeal form must be filed with the AIO by this deadline. Students must ensure that all parts of the form are completed. Incomplete submissions will not be accepted. Instructions for the filing of an appeal to the AIC, RAC, or GAAC can be found on the AIO website and are also available from the AIO.

9.1.2.1. Evidence submitted may be subject to authentication at any time (see Policy, Section 17).

9.1.3. If an appeal is not filed by the deadline, the decision will stand. Where mitigating circumstances exist, and appropriate verifiable documented evidence supporting extenuating circumstances 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 GAAC) may accept a late appeal.

9.1.4. In appealing to the AIC, RAC, or GAAC, at the time of submission students must explain their rationale for disputing the finding and/or penalty and include any evidence they wish to be considered.

9.1.4.1. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is not permitted in the preparation of an appeal under Policy 60: Academic Integrity. Any use of generative artificial intelligence in an appeal may be subject to consideration under this policy.

9.1.5. The AIO will forward a student’s complete appeal to the decision maker (now referred to as the “respondent”) for their written response. Once all documents are received, the AIO will schedule a hearing.

9.1.5.1. As AIC appeals are initiated by students, students must be engaged in the process. If a student (now, “the appellant”) fails to respond to availability requests to attend a hearing by the given deadline, or fails to attend a scheduled hearing without notifying the AIO within a timely manner, the appeal will be withdrawn. The matter will then be closed and no subsequent appeals will be accepted.

9.1.5.2. The decision maker (now “the respondent”) must respond within ten (10) business days to the student’s appeal in writing to the AIO. Any relevant documentation and evidence they wish to be considered should be included with their response. If a Respondent fails to respond to availability requests to attend a hearing by the given deadline, scheduling will proceed and the Respondent will be notified of the date/time of the hearing. If the Respondent fails to attend a scheduled hearing without notifying the AIO within a timely manner, the hearing will proceed in their absence.

9.1.6. Appeal hearings must be scheduled as soon as possible. The AIO will inform all necessary parties of the date and time of the hearing. Reasonable effort will be made to accommodate the availability of all parties.

9.1.7. Appellants and Respondents must receive at least ten (10) business days’ notice of the date, time, and place of the appeal hearing. This notice will include:

the names of all parties who will be in attendance, including the panel members, the appellant, the respondent and designates from the AIO and SAC offices
any witnesses, advocate(s) from the TMSU, TMGSU, TMAPS, or TMMSC and any support persons previously designated by the student or respondent, if applicable. (Students and respondents may be accompanied by legal counsel (i.e. a lawyer) at the SAC level only)
An appeal hearing may be scheduled with fewer than ten (10) business days’ notice with the written agreement of the appellant and the respondent.

9.1.8. Copies of the appellant’s and respondent’s submissions will be distributed to all parties (students, respondents, advocates, and panel members) and to relevant University administration at least five (5) business days in advance of the hearing.

9.1.9. If new evidence becomes available after the initial submission deadline, the student (appellant) or Respondent must contact the AIO as soon as possible. New evidence must be submitted to the AIO by 12:00 pm on the business day before the hearing along with an explanation as to why this evidence was not previously available. New evidence received after this deadline will not be considered.

9.1.9.1. The evidence will be shared with all parties in advance of the hearing by the AIO. The Panel will decide whether the evidence will be accepted at the hearing. The most important criteria for the admission of new evidence are:

its relevance to whether academic misconduct occurred (where applicable);
its relevance to the appropriateness of the penalty assigned/recommended; and/or
its authenticity, which may need to be verified.

9.1.9.2. For hearings that proceed solely as a panel deliberation, without the appellant or respondent present, no new evidence may be submitted or considered.

9.1.10. The Academic Integrity Office, Registrar’s Office or Graduate Admissions Office may determine that a resource person/subject matter expert relevant to the case should be present at the hearing to answer questions. A resource person/subject matter expert may answer questions but may not ask questions of the appellant or respondent. They cannot speak to whether academic misconduct took place. If the individual has knowledge relevant to the specific actions of either the appellant or respondent, they should be called only as a witness.

9.1.11. Students may normally remain in class and may enroll for courses while their case is under appeal (see Policy, Section 12 and also Procedures sections 7.3.6 and 7.4.4). If an appeal hearing decision results in a DS, DA-S, DW, or Expulsion being assigned, the student will be dropped from all courses and the fees refunded. However, the hearing panel will have the responsibility and authority to determine the timing of a DS or DA-S. A DW will normally begin on the date of the SAC decision letter.

9.1.12. The appropriate office will send the decision letter by TMU University email to the student within ten (10) business days of the appeal hearing. Every effort to meet deadlines will be made. However, if there is a delay, the relevant office will communicate that to the student through their TMU email. If the student does not receive the decision within this time, they should contact the relevant office.

9.2. AIC, RAC and GAAC Penalty Hearings

At a penalty hearing, as opposed to an appeal, the finding(s) of academic misconduct is not in dispute. Rather, the issue is the appropriateness of the recommended penalty. The general rules and procedures are the same for penalty hearings as in appeals, with exceptions noted below.

9.2.1. A student who wishes to dispute the recommended penalty must file a Response to Notice of Penalty Hearing Form with the AIO, within ten (10) business days from the date of the letter notifying them of the recommended penalty.

9.2.1.1. Evidence submitted may be subject to authentication at any time (see Policy, Section 17).

9.2.1.2. For penalty hearings at the AIC, 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.

9.2.1.3. If a student is unable to respond to the notice of penalty hearing due to compelling extenuating circumstances and is able to provide verifiable documentation, the AIO Director (or designate) may grant an extension.

9.2.2. A student who is facing a penalty hearing may:

Dispute the recommended penalty and proceed to a penalty hearing at the AIC.
Accept the recommended penalty, after which the panel will make a decision without the appellant or respondent in attendance.
Where the recommended penalty is DW, Expulsion, or Revocation of Degree, Diploma, or Certificate, the student may waive the penalty hearing at the AIC level and go directly to a penalty hearing at SAC.

9.2.3. The AIO will notify the student of the intent to schedule a penalty hearing.

9.2.4. In their written response, students should address why they consider the recommended penalty inappropriate. While students may choose to include information from the initial finding(s) that led to the recommended penalty, the focus of the panel will be on the appropriateness of the recommended penalty. The initial findings of academic misconduct are a matter of record at this stage, are no longer appealable, and will not be considered disputable at the hearing.

9.2.5. Any documents relevant to the recommended penalty must be submitted by the initial submission deadline by both the student (appellant) and the respondent. Incomplete submissions will not be accepted. If new evidence becomes available after the initial submission deadline (see Procedures 9.2.8).

9.2.6. The AIO will;

9.2.6.1. forward the student’s written response letter regarding the penalty to the decision maker (now referred to as “the respondent”) for their written response.

9.2.6.2. Issue a Notice of Hearing to all relevant parties no later than ten (10) business days from the scheduled hearing date, followed by the hearing package within five (5) business days of the hearing date.

9.2.6.3. Authenticate documentation submitted by either party, as appropriate.

9.2.7. Within ten (10) business days of receiving the appellant’s submission for the penalty recommendation, the respondent will reply in writing and provide any documentation or evidence supporting the recommended penalty.

9.2.7.1. In cases of progressive discipline, the respondent at an AIC penalty hearing will normally be the student’s Program Director/Chair (or Designate). In cases where a single finding of academic misconduct results in a penalty recommendation that can only be assigned by AIC, GAAC, RAC or SAC, the respondent will normally be the initial decision maker (or designate).

9.2.8. If new evidence becomes available after the initial submission deadline, the student (appellant) or Respondent must contact the AIO as soon as possible. New evidence must be submitted to the AIO by 12:00 pm on the business day before the hearing along with an explanation as to why this evidence was not previously available. New evidence received after this deadline will not be considered.

9.2.8.1. The evidence will be shared with all parties in advance of the hearing by the AIO. The Panel will decide whether the evidence will be accepted at the hearing. The most important criteria for the admission of new evidence are:

its relevance to whether misconduct occurred;
its relevance to the appropriateness of the penalty assigned/recommended; and/or
its authenticity, which may need to be verified.

9.2.8.2. For hearings that proceed solely as a panel deliberation, without the appellant or respondent present, no new evidence may be submitted or considered

9.2.9. If the student (appellant) or respondent fails to respond to availability requests to attend a hearing by the given deadline, scheduling will proceed and all parties will be notified of the date/time of the hearing.

9.2.10. If the appellant or respondent is unable to attend a scheduled penalty hearing due to compelling extenuating circumstances and is able to provide verifiable documentation, a hearing may be rescheduled once.

9.2.11. If the appellant or respondent fails to attend a scheduled hearing without notifying the AIO within a timely manner and without providing verifiable documentation, the hearing will proceed in their absence.

9.2.12. Once the hearing has taken place, the AIO Office will send the decision letter by Toronto Metropolitan University email to the student and all other relevant parties within ten (10) business days of the hearing. If the student does not receive the decision within this time, they should contact the relevant office (AIO or Senate Office).

9.3. Appeals to the SAC

9.3.1. A student may appeal a decision made by the AIC, RAC, or GAAC to the SAC within ten (10) business days of the issuing of the AIC decision letter The appeal form and instructions for filing an appeal are included in the AIC decision letter, and can also be found on the Senate website.

9.3.2. The right to this second level of appeal at the SAC 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 four (4) grounds for appeal set out in Policy 60, Section 14.

9.3.3. The student must provide, in writing, a detailed explanation as to why the SAC should consider their appeal.

9.3.3.1. The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is not permitted in the preparation of an SAC appeal under Policy 60: Academic Integrity. Any use of generative artificial intelligence in an appeal may be subject to consideration under this policy.

9.3.3.2. Evidence submitted may be subject to authentication at any time (see Policy, Section 17).

9.3.4. The Secretary of Senate (or designate) will receive all appeals to the SAC and determine whether the appeal meets the specified grounds to proceed to an SAC panel hearing. If the appeal proceeds to a hearing, the procedures for scheduling the hearing will be followed (see Section 9.5.2).

9.3.4.1. An appeal to the SAC, if accepted as meeting one or more of the specified grounds, is limited to a discussion of the grounds relevant to the decision or processes of the previous decision-making panel unless the Secretary of Senate has decided that the matter will be heard over from the beginning.

9.4. Senate Appeals Review Panel (SARP) Process

9.4.1. If, after reviewing the appeal, the Secretary of Senate (or designate) determines that the grounds for appeal have not been met (set out in Policy, Section 14), the Secretary of Senate (or designate) will make a recommendation for dismissal and the student will be notified. A Senate Appeals Review Panel (SARP) will be convened to determine whether the student has satisfied the grounds.

9.4.1.1. The SARP will be composed of two faculty members and a student from the SAC.

9.4.1.2. The Secretary of Senate (or designate) and the Director of AIO (or designate) attend the SARP review as resource persons.

9.4.1.3. The role of the SARP is to determine whether one or more of the grounds (set out in Section 14.1) required for a hearing before a panel of the SAC have been established.

9.4.1.4. The Secretary of Senate will inform the student within ten (10) business days of the SARP review as to whether the appeal to the SAC will proceed or not.

9.4.1.4.1. Where a SARP decides to proceed to a hearing, the same faculty and student panel members may make up the SAC panel.

9.4.1.5. If the SARP determines there are no grounds to proceed to a hearing, the SARP will issue their decision letter through the Chair and provide it to the Secretary of Senate (or designate), for distribution to all relevant parties within ten (10) business days of the review date.

9.4.2. The decision of the SARP is final and may not be appealed.

9.5. SAC Hearings

9.5.1. In cases where the AIC, RAC, or GAAC upholds the recommendation of a penalty of DW, Expulsion, or Revocation of a Degree, Diploma, or Certificate and the student does not appeal to the SAC, an automatic penalty hearing will be convened before a panel of the SAC. The hearing will be limited to consideration of the recommended penalty (i.e. DW, Expulsion, Revocation of a Degree, Diploma, or Certificate).

9.5.1.1. A Notice of Intent to Schedule a Penalty Hearing will be sent to the student after the ten (10) business day period for a student to submit an appeal has elapsed.

9.5.1.2. If a student does not respond to the notice of penalty hearing by the given deadline, the form will be completed by the Senate Office and a penalty hearing will be scheduled.

9.5.2. At SAC hearings, the AIC, RAC, or GAAC Panel Chair is the Respondent. The original Respondent (e.g., the PD/Chair (or designate), or the initial decision maker) may also attend as a Co-Respondent.

9.5.3. If a student (now, “the Appellant”) or the Respondent fails to respond to a request to attend a hearing by the given deadline, a hearing will be scheduled based on the availability of the required participants and all relevant parties will be notified.

9.5.3.1. The Senate Office will forward the appeal to the Respondent(s) for a written response. The Respondent(s) must submit their response to the Senate Office within ten (10) business days of receiving the complete appeal submission.

9.5.4. The Senate Office will issue a Notice of Hearing to all relevant parties no later than ten (10) business days from the scheduled hearing date, followed by the hearing package within five (5) business days of the hearing date.

9.5.4.1. If the appellant or respondent is unable to attend a scheduled hearing due to compelling extenuating circumstances and is able to provide verifiable documentation, a hearing may be rescheduled once.

9.5.4.2. If the appellant or respondent fails to attend a scheduled hearing without notifying the Senate Office within a timely manner and without providing verifiable documentation, the hearing will proceed in their absence.

9.5.5. The SAC Panel Chair, in consultation with the Secretary of Senate (or designate), will also determine if further resource people should be required to attend the hearing.

9.5.5.1. A resource person/subject matter expert may answer questions but may not ask questions of the appellant or respondent. They cannot speak to whether academic misconduct took place. If the individual has knowledge relevant to the specific actions of either the appellant or respondent, they should be called only as a witness.

9.5.6. The Secretary of Senate (or designate) may make submissions, both orally and in writing to the Senate Appeals Committee in respect of an appeal.

9.5.7. If new evidence becomes available after the initial submission deadline, the student (appellant) or Respondent must contact the Senate Office as soon as possible. New evidence must be submitted to the Senate Office by 12:00 pm on the business day before the hearing along with an explanation as to why this evidence was not previously available. New evidence received after this deadline will not be considered.

9.5.7.1. The new evidence will be shared with all parties in advance of the hearing by the Senate Office. The SAC Panel will decide whether the evidence will be accepted at the hearing. The most important criteria for the admission of new evidence are:

its relevance to whether academic misconduct occurred (where applicable);
its relevance to the appropriateness of the penalty assigned/recommended; and/or
its authenticity, which may need to be verified.

9.5.8. Once the hearing has taken place, the Senate Office will issue the decision letter by TMU University email to the student and relevant parties within ten (10) business days of the appeal hearing. Every effort to meet deadlines will be made. However, if there is a delay, the Senate Office will communicate that to the student through their TMU email. If the student does not receive the decision within this time, they should contact the Senate Office.

10. Sequence of Appeals/Hearings

10.1. If there is both an appeal of a finding or penalty and a pending hearing based on Progressive Discipline (Policy 60, Section 9), normally, the appeal must be heard and decided upon before the Progressive Discipline hearing can take place.

10.1.1. Where a student has two or more findings of academic misconduct on their record and one or more additional matters are pending, the Progressive Discipline process may proceed at the discretion of the AIO if postponing the process would result in undue delay to the application of progressive discipline. If the pending matters result in additional findings of academic misconduct, the Progressive Discipline process will be initiated again.

10.2. Where there is a suspicion of academic misconduct or an academic misconduct appeal and there is an associated grade or academic standing appeal, the Policy 60 process, including all levels of appeal, must be exhausted before the grade and/or standing appeal can be considered. The decision regarding the academic misconduct will be communicated to the appropriate Department/School/ Program by the AIO or the Senate Office.

10.2.1. The grade and/or standing appeal should not proceed until the student’s academic record is updated to reflect the outcome of the Policy 60 process.

10.2.2. Any impact to a student’s grade as a result of a Policy 60 decision must be taken into consideration and cannot be altered and may impact the decision on a related grade appeal,

10.3. If there is a claim of Discrimination or Harassment (see Procedures Section 12), as defined by Discrimination and Harassment Prevention Policy, the AIO, or the Senate Office will forward the appeal (with the student’s approval) to HRS for investigation. The student must then consult with Human Rights Services (HRS). The appeal will be paused while the matter is being considered.

10.3.1. Once HRS has concluded their inquiry and informs the AIO or Senate Office that the matters under its jurisdiction have been settled, the appeal may proceed on any remaing grounds.

10.3.1.1. For AIC appeals, the AIO will convene a panel to hear the appeal.

10.3.1.2. For SAC appeals, the Senate Office will evaluate the appeal to determine if sufficient grounds exist, and inform the student whether an SAC panel or SARP will be convened. (See Policy, Section 15).

10.3.2. If it was determined by HRS that the matter does not meet the threshold to proceed to an investigation, any further allegation of discrimination or harassment will be treated as resolved and may not be reintroduced in the AIC and/or SAC hearing process.

11. Representation, Support Persons, and Witnesses

11.1. Students are encouraged to contact a University sanctioned advocate for assistance in preparing for discussions and hearings. The following are student groups sanctioned by the University, who may provide advocacy for students involved in the Academic Integrity process:

Toronto Metropolitan Students’ Union (TMSU)
Toronto Metropolitan Association of Part-time Students (TMAPS)
Toronto Metropolitan University Medical Student Council (TMMSC)
Toronto Metropolitan Graduate Students' Union (TMGSU)

11.2. At discussions and hearings, students may be accompanied and represented by an advocate from the TMSU, TMGSU, TMAPS, TMMSC (or by legal counsel at the Senate level only). It is the student’s responsibility to notify the AIO/Senate Office before the discussion/hearing if an advocate will be present.

11.3. The Senate Office must be given, at minimum, five (5) business days’ notice if legal counsel will be present at a hearing.

11.4. The advocate or legal counsel may speak on behalf of the student, may confer with the student as necessary, and may ask questions as appropriate; however, students are expected to be present and speak for themselves especially with respect to matters of fact.

11.5. At an SAC hearing, the University may retain legal counsel to represent the respondent. Legal counsel may speak on behalf of the respondent and may confer with the respondent as necessary and ask questions as appropriate. The respondent is expected to be present and answer questions, especially with respect to matters of fact.

11.6. The SAC Panel, in exceptional circumstances, may request advice from, or the presence of, legal counsel prior to or during the hearing with respect to matters of process.

11.7. If legal counsel fails to attend a hearing, the SAC Panel Chair has the authority to postpone, delay, or proceed with the hearing. The Panel Chair’s rationale shall be included in the preamble to the decision.

11.8. If an advocate fails to attend a hearing, it may proceed in their absence. Advocates' availability, while understandably very important to the Policy 60 process, cannot supersede policy timelines.

11.9. At discussions and hearings, the student and decision maker/respondent may have a support person present. The support person may not participate in the discussion or hearing. They remain silent and do not take notes. They may confer with the student or respondent only outside the discussion/hearing. The AIO and SAC must be notified in advance if a support person will be attending.

11.9.1. If a support person fails to attend the hearing, it will proceed in their absence.

11.10. Both the student and the decision maker/respondent may have witnesses at the discussion/hearing. The AIO or Senate Office must be notified in advance and prior to the hearing being scheduled of any witnesses.

11.10.1. Multiple witnesses are not necessary to support or validate the same point, only one will be accepted.

11.10.2. A witness can either submit a written statement or attend a hearing, but not both. If a witness provides a written statement, they do not need to attend a hearing to support or validate the same point.

11.10.3. A witness will normally be present at the hearing only while giving evidence. A witness must make themselves available during the scheduled hearing.

11.11. It is the responsibility of the party calling the witness(es) to ensure their presence at the discussion/hearing.

11.11.1. If a witness fails to attend the hearing, it may proceed in their absence.

12. Allegations of discrimination

12.1. Allegations of discrimination can be raised at any stage of the Policy 60 process. When an allegation is raised, the AIO or Senate Office will:

confirm that the student wishes to register a complaint,
inform HRS, and
provide case details as appropriate.

12.2. If an allegation of discrimination or harassment is made before an FD/NFD, the AIO will request permission from the eligible investigator to assign a DDM. If permission is granted and an alternate decision maker is assigned, the Policy 60 process will proceed concurrent with the HRS investigation. If permission is denied, the FD/NFD will be postponed until the HRS investigation is complete.

12.3. If there is an allegation of discrimination or harassment during the appeal/ hearing process, the AIO or the Senate Office will forward the appeal (with the student’s approval) to HRS for investigation. The student must then consult with Human Rights Services (HRS). The appeal will be paused while the matter is being considered.

12.4. Once HRS has concluded their inquiry and informs the AIO or Senate Office that the matters under its jurisdiction have been settled, the appeal may proceed.

12.4.1. If the HRS matter has not met the threshold to proceed to an investigation, any further allegation of discrimination or harassment will be treated as resolved and may not be reintroduced in the AIC and/or SAC hearing process.

13. Submission of Falsified Documents

13.1. The University or eligible investigator (see Policy 60, Section 3.13) may at any point in the academic integrity process take appropriate steps to verify documents submitted.

13.2. If at any time during the Policy 60 process it is determined that falsified documentation has been submitted and/or relied on as evidence, it may be subject to additional consideration under this policy.

13.3. The submission of any falsified documents (e.g., transcripts, essays, portfolios, letters of recommendation, or information considered in the admissions process) or omission/withholding of pertinent information/documents that would be considered in the admissions process may result in the following:

13.3.1. For Undergraduate students - The Undergraduate Admissions Office will notify the student that they will revoke any Undergraduate Offers of Admission. If determined after classes have begun, students may appeal to the RAC within ten (10) business days of issue of the revocation notice (see Policy, Section 13).

13.3.2. For Graduate students - The Graduate Admissions Office will notify the student that they will revoke any Graduate Offers of Admission. If determined after classes have begun students may appeal to the GAAC within ten (10) business days of issue of the revocation (see Policy, Section 13).

13.4. If submission of falsified documentation is found after the granting of an undergraduate degree, diploma, or certificate the Undergraduate Department/School/ Program or Undergraduate Admissions Office may recommend to the Secretary of Senate Revocation of the Degree, Diploma, or Certificate.

13.4.1. If revocation is recommended, a penalty hearing will be conducted by the SAC. The student will be notified, and the hearing process shall proceed per Policy 60, Section 15. The decision of the SAC is final and may not be appealed.

13.5. If submission of falsified documentation is found after the granting of a graduate degree, diploma, or certificate, the Graduate Program or Graduate Admissions Office may recommend to the Secretary of Senate Revocation of the Degree, Diploma, or Certificate.

13.5.1. If revocation is recommended, a penalty hearing will be conducted by the SAC. The student will be notified, and the hearing process shall proceed per Policy 60, Section 15.

13.6. The decision(s) of the SAC is final and may not be appealed.