Plagiarism at University or College Lawyer

J.D. v. University of Toronto, 2007 CanLII 4311 (ON SC)

Here, the plaintiff, J. D., sued their university for $3 million in damages for negligence, mental distress, and breach of contract. J. D. began her Ph.D. in dentistry in 1986 but did not complete it within the ten-year time limit, despite several extensions and a maternity leave. By 1996, she had not finished her program and sought advice from Dr. A.R. Ten Cate, who advised her to deregister and complete her thesis outside the program before seeking reinstatement. J.D. followed this advice, but her subsequent request for reinstatement was nonetheless rejected by the university.

J. D. asserted that Dr. Ten Cate’s advice was negligent because it failed to sufficiently inform her of alternatives like compassionate leave, which could have extended her enrollment and allowed her to complete her thesis within the program’s deadlines. She also claimed that the university’s review process was unfair, biased, and lacked transparency, thereby violating principles of natural justice.

The defendants moved to dismiss J.D.’s action, arguing that her grievances were essentially about academic matters, which are not within the Court’s purview, except for limited judicial review matters regarding procedural fairness. The judge decided in favour of the defendants, asserting that J.D.’s complaints pertained to academic decisions and procedures, areas where the Court traditionally does not interfere except in exceptional cases.

J.D.’s claims were ultimately dismissed as it was found that she did not disclose a reasonable cause of action for which damages could be awarded. The Court suggested that her proper recourse would be through a judicial review rather than a claim for damages. The decision emphasized that disputes about academic judgments and processes can sometimes be outside the court’s scope, provided that the institution complies with natural justice principles.

Although the Court generally likes to respect the autonomy of educational institutions, in some cases the Court might be willing to intervene in academic matters—especially if the university or educational institution does not comply with basic procedural fairness.

O. v. Law Society of Ontario, 2019 ONLSTH 155

In this case, O.O. applied for a licence to practice law in Ontario. His application was scrutinized due to past academic misconduct, including plagiarism incidents in 2006, 2008, and 2011 during his undegraduate years at university. These actions resulted in academic penalties which included suspension from the university and failing the courses.

Despite these issues, O.O. graduated from law school in England in 2012 and obtained a certificate of qualification in Canada. However, his application for a lawyer licence in Alberta was rejected in 2016 as a result of doubts about his “good character”. Subsequently, O.O. re-applied for a licence in Ontario, where the Law Society conducted a thorough investigation into his character.

During the hearing, O.O. expressed remorse for his past misconduct, attributing his actions to immaturity and personal challenges, including family health issues and experiences with fraud while studying abroad. He emphasized his rehabilitative efforts, supported by his family and church community, and presented character references attesting to his transformation and commitment to ethical conduct.

The Law Society Tribunal examined a number of factors, including the nature and duration of the misconduct, O. O. remorse, his rehabilitative efforts, any repeat findings of academic misconduct, his behaviour since the misconduct, and the passage of time. The Tribunal found that O. O. had matured, taken responsibility for his actions, and demonstrated good character through his rehabilitative efforts.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that O. O. was presently of good character and should be allowed to complete the necessary qualifications to be granted a licence to practise law in Ontario. This decision emphasized the importance of rehabilitation and personal growth in the context of professional licensing.

This case shows that it is important to be mindful when speaking about one’s rehabilitative efforts after being found guilty of academic misconduct. As such, an experienced legal professional can help you discuss strategies to best demonstrate how you have demonstrated growth, remorse, and character development after the incident.

K. H. v. Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario, 2022 ONCPA 15

In this case, the applicant K.H. applied for registration as a student with the Chartered Professional Accountants of Ontario (CPA Ontario). The application was referred to the Admission and Registration Committee (ARC) to investigate if whether K.H. met the “good character” requirement due to significant past misconduct.

K.H.’s background included a conviction for possession of child pornography and multiple instances of academic misconduct. K.H. was arrested in March 2014 for possession of child pornography, with a significant amount of evidence found on K.H.’s laptop. During the criminal trial, K.H. lied under oath, in an attempt to to shift the blame onto his friends. K.H. was convicted in May 2017 and sentenced to 18 months in prison, followed by probation until February 2021. K.H. was also required to register as a sex offender for ten years.

In addition to the criminal misconduct, K.H. committed three instances of academic dishonesty while enrolled in an accounting program at an Ontario university between 2019 and 2020. These incidents included unauthorized use of a test bank, use of a USB key during an exam, and unauthorized use of a cell phone during another examination. Despite receiving due process during the university’s disciplinary proceedings, K.H. consistently denied or minimized these actions, challenging the findings and processes involved.

While he did not want to admit his guilt, it is important to note that in this cases, owning up to one’s mistakes and demonstrating remorse can be seen as a positive factor when determining an individual’s good character.

At the ARC hearing, K.H. presented evidence of remorse and rehabilitation efforts, including ongoing therapy and support from family and the church community. However, K.H.’s disclosures to CPA Ontario were incomplete, failing to fully disclose the academic misconduct incidents. K.H. attributed the failures to stress, misunderstanding of rules, and mental health struggles.

The ARC assessed K.H.’s character based on factors such as the nature and duration of the misconduct, remorse, rehabilitative efforts, conduct since the misconduct, and the time elapsed since the offences. Despite acknowledging K.H.’s rehabilitative efforts and support system, the ARC found that the serious nature of the criminal and academic misconduct, coupled with the incomplete disclosures and attempts to minimize past actions, must not be overlooked. These actions collectively indicated a lack of good character.

Ultimately, the ARC found that K.H. failed to demonstrate good character at the time of the hearing and denied the application for registration with CPA Ontario. This decision demonstrates the high ethical standards required for certain professions and the critical importance of honesty, full disclosure, and rehabilitation in the determination of whether an individual is of good character.