The Tribunal of Governing Council is where the most serious cases of academic misconduct eventually end up. Punishments range from a reduced grade in a course to outright expulsion. The Tribunal posts anonymized details of the cases online. The Varsity looked at the past five years and found some remarkable cases.
Case 588: Student digitally manipulated thesis photos
In July of 2007, a student successfully defended his engineering master’s thesis before a panel of professors. After his results could not be replicated, the professor raised concerns about the validity of the circuit board’s design, which the student defended via email. Further investigation revealed that the student had used decoys in the design and had included digitally manipulated photographs in the final paper.
Cases 596, 597, 598: Three students purchased the same ™unique∫ essay
In the winter of 2010, it was found that three students with previous histories of academic misconduct, including the digital manipulation of airplane ticket photos to defer an exam and the sharing of answers during a midterm examination, committed plagiarism. The three submitted similar essays with analogous titles for a course they were collectively enrolled in. The three students had purchased their essays separately from The Essay Place, an essay production company which claimed to adhere to a strict anti-duplication code, assuring the three that each of their essays was unique.
Case 617: Student took course three times, hired imposter for exam
The student enrolled in a year-long math course during the 2008-2009 academic year from which he eventualy withdrew after scoring poorly on the term test. He was granted a late withdrawal after enrolling in the course during the subsequent academic year. The student enrolled in the same course for a third time in September of 2010, and placed advertisements on Internet classifieds websites that read as follows: “Looking for a asian [sic] (Chinese, Korean) guy who graduated from or currently attending to U of T who is good at math.” When questioned by the university, the student claimed that he needed a tutor, given his previous performance. During the first term evaluation, it was found that he had indeed paid someone else to impersonate him and write the test.
Case 628: Medical excuse debunked as doctor has never seen student
During early January of 2011, the student petitioned to defer an already-delayed exam that was originally scheduled for April of 2010, under the basis of illness, for which he provided a medical certificate as well as a letter confirming a medical consultation. The student was made aware of the university’s suspicion regarding the documentation’s validity. Shortly after, a voicemail from an individual claiming to be the doctor’s assistant contacted the university, asserting that the student had indeed visited the clinic and was suffering from influenza. After the doctor confirmed never having seen the student, the student admitted to having purchased the medical certificate from an online service.
Case 631: Student plagarizes course resources
In the spring semester of 2011, a student was found to have committed two instances of consecutive plagiarism — the first occurred when she copied large portions of the reference material provided by the professor for the course’s assignment. The second was discovered when the student’s essay had similar data and explanations to one of her peers’ papers, which the student admitted to copying without her peer’s permission or knowledge.
Case 632: Student damages test paper to hide mark
On October of 2010, a student wrote and received a low mark on a midterm for her course. Unsatisfied with the results, she emailed the professor, citing an inconsistency between the mark that she received on the test paper and that which was posted online, to which the professor responded by telling the student to submit the paper to the TA once more. When producing the document, the student claimed it was in poor condition due to her roommate having spilled liquid on it. The TA did not believe the student, which subsequently prompted her admittance to having written additional text and marks, as well as damaging the document so as not to be discovered.
Case 655: Student resets computer clock to submit paper four months late
The student primarily submitted an assignment according to the course’s deadline in February of 2011. In mid-April however, the student emailed his professor claiming to have uploaded the incorrect document in February, and his account was now updated to contain the correct one. The last save was indicated to have occurred in February, as stated by the student. However, analysis of the file indicated that the document had been last saved in April of 2012. The student admitted to have updated the document in April and reset his computer’s clock to make the date appear
as February.
Case 663: Student’s mark improves 40 per cent on tests, imposter detected
In the winter term of 2011, the student enrolled in a half-year course that contained homework assignments, labs, an early assessment test, a midterm and a final. The student scored below 40 per cent on the early assessment and lab components, and failed to submit any homework. Marks for the midterm and final, however, were both above 80 per cent. During the aforementioned examinations, the student was noted to be wearing a niqab, while no such garment had been seen by the professor or TAs in either class or labs. Forensic analysis of the student’s writing revealed that the handwriting on the final and midterm was in fact distinct from that of the early assessment and labs.
Case 676: Student uses Wikipedia for essay
In the spring semester of 2011, as part of a major essay for her course, the student was found to have plagiarized large portions of the paper, with sources stemming from sites like Wikipedia. In various instances, the student was found to have fabricated sources.
Case 702: Student uses job at hospital to obtain three medical excuses
In early September of 2009, the student requested the late withdrawal of a year long course with documents from a church pastor and a hospital counselling associate to support her claims. The request was accepted and two years later in late August of 2011, she similarly requested to delay the final examination of another year-long course. As before, the student provided medical documentation, declaring an illness as cause of the deferra. In January of 2012, the student provided an additional medical note signed by a different doctor to defer examinations once more. In February, the student opted to defer her exam again, claiming her father had suffered an illness with supporting documentation. All of the above were discovered to be falsified and made possible by the fact that the student was employed at a hospital.
