Students

This video provides a brief introduction to academic integrity at TMU. For a deeper dive, explore the full website and check out Senate Policy 60: Academic Integrity (opens in new window) .

Education

All TMU students are expected to familiarize themselves with and adhere to (PDF file) Policy 60: Academic Integrity (opens in new window) . Policy 60 defines academic misconduct as "Any behaviour that undermines the University’s ability to evaluate fairly 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" (Section 3.1). (Find examples of academic misconduct here.)

Below are some helpful tips to avoid possible academic misconduct:

Review the definitions of academic misconduct (opens in new window)
Learn about Policy 60 by playing Academic Integrity in Space! (opens in new window) and Academic Integrity in Cyberspace! (opens in new window) (Earn certificates of completion!) (opens in new window)
Find out your instructor's course policies around use of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) tools, including Grammarly.
Don't share your work with anyone unless instructed to do so by the instructor.
Don't ask others to share their work. Instead, talk to your instructors--they're there to help you work through the course material and to develop your own ideas and solutions.
Whenever you copy any intellectual property (words, art, code, etc.) from anywhere, write down the source, and if it's text, put it in quotation marks. (With writing, most courses require you to paraphrase, but you'll still need to cite the source and compare your paraphrase with the original to make sure it's different enough to be considered your own words. Note: Swapping synonyms is not enough.)
Make sure you understand assignment/exam expectations. (What sources can I use? Is the exam open book? Is open book the same thing as open internet? Is collaboration allowed for this assignment? Am I allowed to use a graphing calculator?) Your instructor is your BEST resource--don't rely on your peers' interpretations of the rules.
Be pro-active and improve your academic skills by attending Student Life and Learning Support workshops (opens in new window) .
Take advantage of Student Life and Learning Support's Math and Computer Science Tutoring (opens in new window) .
Make an appointment with one of Student Life and Learning Support's writing consultants (opens in new window) .
Review all the academic integrity resources provided here.

Academic Integrity in Space! A game for students taking on-campus courses!

Academic Integrity in Cyberspace! A game for students taking online courses!

Make a difference!

Join the Academic Integrity Ambassadors!

Join the Academic Integrity Council!

When there's a suspicion

When an instructor has a concern about possible academic misconduct they are asked by (PDF file) Policy 60 (opens in new window) to register the concern with the Academic Integrity Office (AIO). That's the first step in a process where the primary goals are inquiry and education. Fundamental to these goals is a discussion between the instructor (or in some cases, Designated Decision Maker) and the student. These discussions may be non-facilitated (i.e. just you and your instructor) or facilitated (i.e. you, your instructor/Designated Decision Maker, and a neutral facilitator from the AIO). The remaining steps of the process are outlined below. For an in-depth look, please refer to Policy 60. At any point during the process you can book a drop-in appointment with the AIO if you have questions about Policy 60: Book an AIO appointment (external link)

1. Notification Letter

You receive a Notification Letter via email. Don't panic--the email does not mean your instructor has decided that you engaged in academic misconduct. Rather, it means that your instructor has a concern and would like to speak with you about it. No decision has been made.

2. Decide if you'd like an advocate and/or support person to join you at the meeting.

Your Notification Letter explains the roles of both the advocate and the support person, and provides contact information for advocates offered through the Toronto Metropolitan Students' Union (external link, opens in new window) and Toronto Metropolitan Association of Part-Time Students (external link, opens in new window) .

3. Prepare for the meeting.

Review your assignment/exam (if relevant) and the summary of the concern in the Notification Letter. Review any documents or evidence your instructor has provided. Consider drafting a statement that you can bring to the meeting. (Be honest and focus on what you've learned from this experience.) If you don't understand the concern or disagree with the instructor's perspective, gather supporting documents to share and draft questions and/or points you'd like to bring forward in the meeting.

4. Attend the meeting.

We understand that students may feel anxious but come to the meeting in the spirit of conversation. Answer your instructor's questions honestly. Make sure to ask for a moment if you need time to breathe, and try to focus on making clear points regarding your perspective. (This is where your notes will help you stay focused.) Remember that no decision will be made during the meeting. Rather, afterwards your instructor will take some time to consider everything and then make a decision based on the "balance of probabilities" (Policy 60, Section 3.3).

5. Await the decision.

Within 5 business days of the meeting you'll receive a Decision Letter via email. Key takeaways you should be looking for in the Decision Letter:

Finding/No Finding of Academic Misconduct

Educational Requirements and deadlines (These may be assigned even if there's no finding of academic misconduct, and failure to complete them can delay graduation.)

6. Decide if you'd like to appeal.

Review the process for appealing in Policy 60, Sections 13 & 14 and see the "Appealing decision" tab above. Please note that you have 10 business days from the date of the Decision Letter to submit your appeal form and documents.

When there's a finding

When there is a finding of academic misconduct, a Disciplinary Notation will be placed on your internal record (not your transcript) and will be removed upon graduation. (For more information on Disciplinary Notations, see the "Progressive discipline" tab above.) You may also be assigned educational requirements like the Fundamentals of Academic Integrity Quiz and/or Student Life & Learning Support or AIO workshops.

As well, if there is a finding, there must be an academic penalty. Below are Policy 60 Penalty Guidelines. Please note that these are just guidelines. Penalites are assigned/recommended by the Decision Maker based on a case by case basis.

Undergraduate and Continuing Education Penalty Guidelines

Penalty	Suggested Guidelines	Examples (not limited to)
Grade reductions which can include a “Zero” (0) on the work	Penalty often selected for most minor acts of misconduct Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of course Minimum penalty in a course	Minor Plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment) Minor cheating in a test or exam
A Course Grade Reduction A student assigned a course grade reduction may appeal the finding of misconduct but not the penalty to the AIC	Faculty/Instructors must have notified students in advance (e.g. on their course outline or via some other posting the students have access to and are made aware of) that this penalty will be assigned to all cases of misconduct related to a specific assignment(s) or aspect of the course	Minor Plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment)
Grade of “F” in the course/Failure in a Pass-Fail Course (FLD)	Seriously premeditated Affected others Serious breach of professional ethics Occurred in an upper year or capstone course for the program Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of course	Major plagiarism Enlisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Fabricating data or information about patient or client Cheating or plagiarizing in a 4th year capstone or upper level course Lying or supplying false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Major cheating in a test or exam
Temporary/Permanent Removal from Co-op Applies to co-op program option, placement, internship, or practicum	Seriously premeditated Affected Others Serious breach of professional ethics	Major plagiarism Englisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Fabricating data or information about patient or client Cheating or plagiarizing in a 4th year capstone or upper level course Lying or supplying false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Major cheating in a test or exam
Recommendation of Disciplinary Suspension For 1 term to 2 years Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Believed that the student needs time off to resolve other issues or re-assess their role as a student Affected many others (large-scale cheating situation) More serious misconduct outside of a course	Situations in which students have been or should be on DS: Students altered transcript for entry into co-op program and potential co-op placement Student enlists outside professional service to complete work Student aids others in large-scale cheating Student lies or supplies false information (severity depends on document and purpose)
Recommendation of Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) For at least 2 years permanent withdrawal from a specific program and fully withdrawn from the University Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Believed that the student is not suitable for the profession in their field of study	Situations in which students have been or should be on DW: Student enlisted someone else to do their exams for them Student stole an exam Student stole someone else’s work and submitted it for grading Student lied or supplied false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Alteration of an official documentation
Recommendation of Expulsion Permanent removal from Toronto Metropolitan University Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing (see tab above on Penalty Hearings), unless the student appeals the penalties and/or finding, in which case the penalties are decided through the appeal hearing.	Very Rare Believed that the student is not suitable for study at TMU in any program	Situations in which students were expelled: Student stole an exam with the intention of selling In an appeal hearing for a charge of misconduct, the student submitted altered documentation Student misrepresented themselves as an instructor to obtain the instructor test bank Student submitted false document and misrepresented themselves as a Dean

Graduate Penalty Guidelines

Penalty	Suggested Guidelines	Examples (not limited to)
“Zero” (0) on the work	Penalty often selected by faculty for most minor acts of misconduct Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of a course Minimum penalty in a course	Minor plagiarism Sharing files/work with another student (e.g. working together on an individual assignment) Minor cheating in a test or exam
Grade of “F’ in the course/Failure in a Pass-Fail course (FLD)	Premeditated Affected others Cannot be assigned if misconduct is outside of a course	Major plagiarism Enlisting someone else to do an assignment or paper Submitting another student’s work (in whole or part) without their knowledge Cheating
Disciplinary-Unsatisfactory (D-UNS)	Unsatisfactory progress for reasons of non-course based academic misconduct Minimum penalty in non-course based graduate program requirements, such as academic “milestones” as well as the research and associated writing D-UNS placed on transcript and cannot be removed	Academic misconduct in any non-course based graduate program requirements
Recommendation of Disciplinary Action (DA) Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Major academic misconduct, or for a second finding within a student’s program Placed on academic record and transcript and cannot be removed Decision maker must communicate with the Graduate Program Director (and Supervisor where appropriate) to determine whether a DA or DA-S is most appropriate for the student	Major plagiarism Falsification of research data Falsification of admission related documents Cheating A second finding of academic misconduct
Recommendation of Disciplinary Action with Suspension (DA-S) Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Major academic misconduct or for a second finding within a student’s program Placed on academic record and transcript and cannot be removed Graduate student is removed from a program for up to two (2) years, after which they may request to re-enroll Decision maker must communicate with the Graduate Program Director (and Supervisor where appropriate) to determine whether a DA or DA-S is most appropriate for the student	Major plagiarism Falsification of research data Falsification of admission related documents Cheating A second finding of academic misconduct
Recommendation of Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Believed that the student is not suitable for the profession in their field of study Serious breach of professional ethics	Situations in which students have been or should be withdrawn: Major plagiarism in a thesis (included submitted drafts) or comprehensive exam Student enlisted someone else to do their exams for them Student stole an exam Student stole someone else’s work and submitted it for grading Student lied or supplied false information (severity depends on document and purpose) Alteration of an official documentation Fabricating data or results Lying or supplying false information
Recommendation of Expulsion Recommended penalties are decided through a Penalty Hearing. (See tab above on Penalty Hearings)	Very rare Believed that the student is not suitable for study at TMU in any program	Situations in which students were expelled: Student stole an exam with the intention of selling In an appeal hearing for a charge of misconduct, the student submitted altered documentation Student misrepresented themselves as an instructor to obtain the instructor test bank Student submitted a false document and misrepresented themselves as a Dean
2 or more Disciplinary Notations (DN)	Disciplinary Action with Suspension (DA-S) Disciplinary Withdrawal (DW) Expulsion	Penalty hearing regarding DA-S, DW or Expulsion occurs when the student has received a second finding of academic misconduct Expulsion normally occurs when a student has received 3 or more DNs

Applicability to Research-Related Actiivities

For purposes of this policy, “supervised research” is treated as a separate category
to accord with the Tri-Agency Framework: Responsible Conduct of Research, and
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.) Suspicions of
research misconduct that may have occurred under the auspices of Toronto Metropolitan
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 Policy 60: Academic Integrity.

IMPORTANT: You have 10 business days from the date of your Decision Letter (email) to file your appeal.

Appealing a decision

1. Decide on the type of appeal

There are two types of appeals:

1. Appealing the finding of academic misconduct (This is the option to choose if you believe you did not engage in academic misconduct under Policy 60.)

2. Appealing the penalty assigned or recommended by the decision maker (This option is only available if the penalty assigned or recommended is greater than the minimum penalty for a finding of academic misconduct. (Refer to the "When there's a finding" tab above for information about minimum penalties.)

Before making any decisions, review our information sheet on the Academic Misconduct Appeals Process for Students (external link, opens in new window) .

2. Gather supporting documentation

If you have any files to support your appeal (course notes, assignment drafts, document history, emails etc) save them as PDFs with meaningful file names.

3. Write your letter to the Academic Integrity Council (AIC)

If you chose to appeal the "finding" of academic misconduct," your letter should speak to why you believe you did not engage in academic misconduct under policy 60.

If you chose to appeal the "penalty" for academic misconduct, your letter should speak to why you believe the assigned/recommended penalty is inappropriate.

4. File your appeal

Go to the AIO student portal (opens in new window) to file your appeal.

5. Review the "Academic Misconduct Appeals Info Sheet" found on our Resources page.

This document will help you understand what to expect at your hearing.

6. Be patient

We do our very best to expedite appeals but the process itself can be lengthy and scheduling can be challenging. Try to be patient, and if you have questions or concerns, email us at aio@torontomu.ca.

Progressive Discipline

Under Policy 60, if a student received more than one Disciplinary Notation (DN), they are subject to Progressive Discipline.

Progressive Discipline is a process that exists outside of the individual cases and their already assigned penalties. (See Policy 60, Section 9, and Policy 60: Procedures, Section 7)

Undergraduate Student Progressive Discipline

When a second (or greater) DN is placed on your internal record, a meeting takes place between your Program Director, the Designated Decision Makers' Council Chair, and the Director of the Academic Integrity Office. In the meeting, your case history will be reviewed and the group will decide to either 1) issue a formal warning or 2) call for a Penalty Hearing with a recommendation of a Disciplinary Suspension.

If a formal warning is issued, a future finding of academic misconduct would automatically result in a Penalty Hearing with a recommendation of a Disciplinary Suspension. (See tab above for more on Penalty Hearings.)

Graduate Student Progressive Discipline

When a second (or greater) DN is placed on your internal record, a Penalty Hearing is automatically called and a Disciplinary Action - Suspension (DA-S), Disciplinary Withdrawl (DW), or Expulsion will be recommended. (See tab above for more on Penalty Hearings.)

Penalty hearings

A penalty hearing is initiated under Policy 60, when a higher penalty (greater than an F in a course) is recommended by a decision maker. This penalty hearing may stem from a single finding of academic misconduct or it may come from the progressive discipline process (see Policy 60, Section 9).

Penalty hearings are heard by a panel of Academic Integrity Council members. The panel consists of a two faculty members (one of which will act as Chair) and a student.

You will:

receive email notification of the hearing
be given the opportunity to submit a letter in response to the recommended penalty
be consulted when scheduling to ensure your ability to attend
be given the opportunity to plead your case to the Academic Integrity Council during the hearing

To prepare for the hearing, review the (google doc) Preparing for Penalty Hearings - Students (external link, opens in new window) document found on our Resources page. This document will explain the order of the hearing so that you know what to expect and can prepare accordingly.