ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, SWINTON AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROBERT WOJTASZYK Applicant
- and -
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Respondent
Counsel: W. Gerald Punnett, for the Applicant Linda Rothstein and Robert A. Centa, for the Respondent
HEARD: March 25, 2004
FERRIER J.: (Orally)
1Section C.II.B.(1)(g) of the Code permitted the trial panel to assign a grade of zero for any course in respect of which the offence in question was committed. The same penalty has been imposed in numerous other similar cases.
2Both panels carefully considered the purpose of the Code and the nature of the violation committed and concluded that a more lenient penalty would not adequately reflect the serious threat that plagiarism poses to the principles of learning and academic integrity.
3As was held in Paine v. University of Toronto (1981), 131 D.L.R. (3d) 325 (Ont. C.A.), the Court should not interfere with the appeal panel’s decision unless there is evidence of manifest unfairness or a violation of the rules of natural justice.
4The record of proceedings indicates that the University did nothing to mislead the Appeal Tribunal as to the impact of a zero grade upon the applicant’s ability to re-enroll. The trial panel had no information as to the ultimate impact of a zero grade upon the applicant since the applicant failed to provide the necessary information. The appeal panel however, admitted fresh evidence that was not before the trial panel. This was on the advice of counsel and with his consent and concerned the applicant’s academic record and the impact of the penalty imposed by the trial division.
5The appeal panel was advised that the applicant’s academic record was such that he would be unable to re-enroll regardless of the result in this course. He would have had to achieve 93% in the course, an apparent impossibility regardless of the result on the report in order to re-enroll.
6The appeal panel decided that it was not appropriate to vary the penalty. The appeal panel did not err in concluding that it was not the objective of the trial division panel to impose a sanction which would necessarily permit the student to re-enroll in January, 2000, if he was otherwise ineligible. This was not an unreasonable decision. For these reasons, the application is dismissed.
7We have decided that costs should be fixed at $3,500 including disbursements and GST, and have endorsed the application record accordingly.
FERRIER J.
SWINTON J.
LINHARES DE SOUSA J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 25, 2004
Date of Release: March 29, 2004
COURT FILE NO.: 607/02
DATE: 20040325
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
FERRIER, SWINTON AND LINHARES DE SOUSA JJ.
B E T W E E N:
ROBERT WOJTASZYK Applicant
- and -
UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO Respondent
ORAL REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
FERRIER J.
Date of Reasons for Judgment: March 25, 2004
Date of Release: March 29, 2004