Academic regulation A-4

(Approved by the Senate on April 17, 2023, and effective May 1, 2023)

In terms of this regulation, to meet a deadline on a working day, a submission must be received by
11:59 p.m., Ottawa time.

Preamble

Academic integrity is a universal value at the heart of all academic activities. The regulation on academic integrity defines the acts that can compromise academic integrity and outlines the various sanctions and consequences of such acts, and the procedures for handling allegations and setting sanctions. At the University of Ottawa, all members of the University community, whether students or faculty members, are expected to work with integrity. Further information on academic integrity is available on the academic integrity website.

In order to cultivate and foster a culture of academic integrity, all undergraduate students must complete an online module. The module must be successfully completed in the first fall term following the student's initial enrolment. Students are supported throughout the process. Students who do not successfully complete this training course will have their access to course enrolment and course changes blocked for the following academic year, except for students enrolled in the Undergraduate Medical Education program (MD Program) and the undergraduate Doctor of Pharmacy program, who follow a different, but equivalent, process. Students in the Translational and Molecular Medicine (TMM) program are required to complete the training module.

The University of Ottawa has three processes in place for handling cases of academic misconduct —the pedagogical approach (for undergraduate students only), and two processes that constitute the disciplinary approach: the accelerated process and the regular process. In all cases, academic misconduct allegations should be treated with a view to providing students with a learning opportunity.

The University is committed to upholding the integrity of the process for handling academic misconduct. Disclosure of the identity of any student against whom an allegation of academic misconduct has been made, or the person(s) alleging academic misconduct, is limited by the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). 

Only the results of the investigation can be disclosed to the person who submitted an allegation of academic misconduct.

A-4.1 Definition

Any act by a student that may result in a distorted academic assessment for that student or another student, or violation of responsible research conduct. Academic misconduct includes but is not limited to activities such as:

1. committing plagiarism, cheating, or failing to properly attribute sources. This includes, for example, failure to identify content generated by any technological means, including artificial intelligence. The student must identify the technology used to generate any content in any form (text, image, sound, graphic, video, software or other);
2. submitting work or a draft of a work not partially or fully the student’s own, excluding properly cited quotations and references, or does not adequately recognize the contributions of others. Such work or a draft of a work includes assignments, essays, tests, exams, research reports, dissertation and theses, regardless of whether the work is in written, oral or any other form. Contract cheating, such as hiring someone else to do work that is subsequently submitted as the student’s own, is included in this section;
3. presenting data, methods or results that are forged, falsified or fabricated in any manner, or failure to keep complete and accurate records of research data, methods and results;
4. conducting research activities that are not consistent with University policies on research integrity and responsible conduct of research, as defined in Policy 115 – Responsible Conduct of Research, including, but not limited to, obtaining ethics approval;
5. attributing a statement of fact or reference to a fabricated source;
6. submitting a duplicate: submitting the same work, or a significant part of the same piece of work or its translation in another language, in more than one course, or a thesis or any other piece of work submitted elsewhere without the prior approval of the appropriate professors;
7. falsifying or misrepresenting an academic assessment, including through the unapproved or unidentified use of technologies, using a forged or altered supporting document, or facilitating the use of such a document;
8. taking any action aimed at falsifying an academic evaluation or research data;
9. inappropriate collaboration, including copying from another student, allowing another student to copy, using data from another person, sharing course materials externally without authorization, collaborating without authorization, collusion;
10. personation: involving another person’s identity or identification to complete an assessment. 

A-4.2 Sanctions

Subject to the provisions regarding the pedagogical approach set out in section A-4.3.1 and available to undergraduate students only, students who commit or attempt to commit academic misconduct, or who are a party to academic misconduct, are subject to one or more of the sanctions below. All sanctions are effective immediately, notwithstanding an appeal. If a student withdraws from a course to which an allegation of misconduct relates, the University may re-enrol the student in the course in question.

Sanctions, as stipulated in sections A-4.2 (a) to (f) inclusively, are imposed by the faculty offering the course. Sanctions should be accompanied by a follow-up mechanism, such as mandatory meetings with appropriate persons or services, e.g. the mentoring centre, the Academic Writing Help Centre (AWHC), etc.

1. a written warning;
2. zero for part of the work in question;
3. zero for the work in question;
4. zero for the work in question and the loss of additional marks for the course in question;
5. zero for the work in question, with a final grade no higher than the passing grade for the course in question;
6. an F or NS grade for the course in question.

Sanctions stipulated in sections A-4.2 (g) to (i) inclusively are imposed by the faculty offering the course, after consulting with the student’s home faculty.

7. the addition of another 3 to 30 units to the student’s program requirements or to the requirements of any program at the same level in which the student subsequently enrols. 
8. suspension of a University of Ottawa scholarship or faculty scholarship for a specified period; 
9. the loss of any faculty or University scholarship opportunity;

The sanctions listed in Sections A-4.2 (j) to (l) inclusively shall be applied when a violation of responsible research conduct is founded. Sanctions are the responsibility of the faculty in which the student is enrolled.

10. withdrawal of the privilege of using University resources pertaining to the subject of responsible violation of research conduct;
11. withdrawal of responsibilities in a group research project; 
12. any other sanctions provided for in the Procedure 29-2: Addressing Allegations of a Breach of Responsible Conduct of Research.

Sanctions stipulated in sections A-4.2 (m) to (p) inclusively are imposed by the Senate Appeals Committee upon the recommendation of the student’s home faculty. The decision of the Senate Appeals Committee takes effect immediately.

13. suspension from the University for a maximum of two years. No course taken at the University of Ottawa or elsewhere during the suspension period will be recognized by the University and no tuition fees will be refunded. Once the suspension ends, the student can re-enrol in the program and is subject to the program requirements in place at that time.
14. inclusion of a permanent statement on the student’s official transcript: Sanction pursuant to contravention of the University regulation on academic integrity.
15. expulsion from the University of Ottawa and permanent statement on the student’s official transcript indicating the student was expelled from the University for committing academic misconduct. Three years following the date of expulsion, the student is eligible to make a request to the Senate Appeals Committee to have the expulsion set aside, including the possibility, where applicable, of having the mention removed from the student’s transcript. If the student reapplies to the University of Ottawa, the regular admission process applies.
16. cancellation or revocation of a degree, diploma or certificate conferred prior to the University becoming aware of academic misconduct.

A-4.3 Procedures

A-4.3.1 Pedagogical approach

Note: This approach applies to undergraduate programs only.

The range of possible responses to academic misconduct can be pedagogical as well as disciplinary. Students facing a first allegation of academic misconduct may benefit from an approach focused on learning methods and strategies to help them work with integrity and avoid academic misconduct in the future.

A.4.3.1.1 A professor who suspects a student of having committed academic misconduct that the professor deems minor, as part of an individual or group assignment, may choose to address the matter using a pedagogical approach. (In case of doubt as to the seriousness of the offence, the professor may consult the dean or dean’s representative). If the infraction is minor, the professor will communicate their decision to the student within five (5) working days from the day the professor informs the student in writing of the allegation.

A-4.3.1.2 Depending on the nature of the case, a professor may determine that it be referred to the dean or dean’s representative who will handle it following the accelerated or regular process (see Disciplinary Approach).

A-4.3.1.3 As part of the pedagogical approach, the professor may impose one or more of the following sanctions:

• Give a written warning.
• Ask the student to participate in an AWHC workshop or another workshop on academic integrity. In this case, the student must provide proof of participation in the workshop.
• Redo the assignment correctly.
• Lower a work’s grade up to a maximum of 10% of the final course grade.
• Any other measure considered appropriate for the circumstances.

A-4.3.1.4 The procedure for handling an academic misconduct allegation using the pedagogical approach involves five steps:

• The professor contacts the office of the vice-dean or vice-dean’s representative to confirm that this is the student’s first case of academic misconduct; otherwise, the case must be handled using the regular process.
• The professor contacts the student to discuss the allegation to better understand the reasons that led to academic misconduct and determine the most appropriate sanction.
• Using the template provided, the professor informs the student of the sanction, as well as of the right to appeal. The professor also informs the vice-dean or vice-dean’s representative and the Faculty’s Office of Undergraduate Studies. The information related to the case will be kept in the student’s file.
• The student accepts or appeals the sanction. If the sanction is appealed, the case will proceed using the disciplinary approach.
• To appeal the sanction, the student must submit a written request to the office of the vice-dean or vice-dean’s representative of the faculty that offers the course, within five (5) working days of receiving the professor’s decision.

A-4.3.2 Disciplinary approach

A-4.3.2.1 Allegations of academic misconduct must be submitted in writing with supporting documentation, to the dean (or the dean’s representative) of the Faculty offering the course in question or supervising the research activities.

A-4.3.2.2 When the allegation of academic misconduct involves several students from different faculties, the case is submitted to the faculty that offers the course, in accordance with the procedure set out in this regulation. 

A-4.3.2.3 Cases involving more than one student enrolled in a course offered by more than one faculty, including courses offered at both undergraduate and graduate level (cross-listed courses), are submitted to the deans or their representatives responsible for the courses in question.

A.4.3.2.4 Within ten (10) working days of receiving an allegation of academic misconduct, the dean or the dean’s representative decides whether there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the allegation is founded and to begin the process. The dean or the dean’s representative:

1. informs the student in writing of the allegation made and provides a copy of all supporting documentation; if the allegation involves an examination, the student has the right to consult the exam in question at the faculty, in a diligent manner.
2. provides a copy of the present regulation;
3. informs the student of their eligibility for either the accelerated or the regular process;
4. The student has five (5) working days to provide a response. A student who fails to respond within this timeline is deemed to have consented to the regular process, which will automatically start on the sixth day.

A-4.3.3 Accelerated process

A-4.3.3.1 A student alleged to have committed academic misconduct is eligible for the accelerated process except in allegations involving:

1. a repeat offence;
2. an allegation serious enough to merit any of the sanctions indicated in sections A-4.2 (m) to (p);
3. more than one student, except in some cases, at the discretion of the dean or their representative;
4. comprehensive exams, thesis proposals, major research papers or theses, or a violation of responsible research conduct.

A-4.3.3.2 By agreeing to the accelerated process, the student acknowledges having contravened the academic regulations and accepts that one or more sanctions will be imposed.

A-4.3.3.3 A meeting is arranged between the person in charge of handling the accelerated process for academic misconduct cases and the student within five (5) working days. The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the situation, determine the sanction(s) to be imposed, and sign an agreement whereby the student acknowledges having committed a contravention of the academic regulation and accepts the imposed sanction(s) listed.  Sanctions possible are those indicated in sections A-4.2 (a) to (m) or any other sanction considered appropriate for the circumstances.

A-4.3.3.4 At this meeting, the student has the right to be accompanied by a person of their choice. The person accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist the student during the meeting keeping in mind that the exchange is, first and foremost, between the faculty and the student. The person in charge of handling the accelerated process for cases of academic misconduct can also be accompanied during the meeting. Each party must provide the other party with the name of any accompanying person at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.

A-4.3.3.5 The student has five (5) working days after the meeting to sign and return the agreement to the person responsible for the accelerated process.

A-4.3.3.6 Within five (5) working days, the person in charge of the accelerated process will forward the decision reached during the accelerated process, along with details of the sanction(s) imposed, to the professor of the course in which the allegation of academic misconduct was made and to the director of the academic unit involved.

A-4.3.3.7 The accelerated process for an allegation of academic misconduct should be completed within twenty (20) working days of the date the allegation is communicated to the student.

A-4.3.3.8 The student can decide to stop the accelerated process at any time prior to signing an agreement by notifying the person in charge of the accelerated process in writing. In such an event, the regular process is followed. The student who sends a notification to stop the accelerated process will be deemed to have consented to the regular process, which will automatically start that same day.

A-4.3.3.9 The person in charge of the accelerated process can also end the process if it is unlikely an agreement can be reached, such as in the following situations:

• The student does not reply to emails or return phone calls or tries to unduly prolong the process.
• The student refuses to acknowledge having committed academic misconduct.
• The student refuses to accept the sanction.
• The student does not attend the meeting.

A-4.3.3.10 The person in charge of the accelerated process will notify the student in writing. This notification will immediately launch the start of the regular process.

A-4.3.3.11 If the regular process is subsequently initiated:

• All information disclosed by a student during the accelerated process is considered confidential and is not to be disclosed during the regular process.
• The fact that the accelerated process was used or that the student had considered it cannot be disclosed to the inquiry committee established under the regular process.
• No person (other than the student) involved in the accelerated process can be a member of the inquiry committee established under the regular process, unless the student has agreed.

A-4.3.4 Regular process

A-4.3.4.1 For academic misconduct allegations not involving doctoral theses, within five (5) working days of receiving the student’s reply, or on the sixth day after the allegation is communicated to the student or on the day the accelerated process is stopped, the dean or the dean’s representative forwards the file to an inquiry committee composed of at least three individuals appointed by the dean. The dean or the dean’s representative is not eligible to sit on the committee. 

A-4.3.4.2 In cases involving a student in a program offered by more than one faculty (e.g., joint, integrated), the dean or the dean’s representative can ask a representative of the faculty or faculties in question to sit on the committee.

A-4.3.4.3 In cases involving a student from another faculty, the dean or the dean’s representative can ask a representative from the other faculty to sit on the committee.

A-4.3.4.4 In cases involving more than one student enrolled in a course offered by more than one faculty, including courses offered at both undergraduate and graduate levels (cross-listed courses), the deans or their representatives will strike a joint inquiry committee.

A-4.3.4.5 In cases of academic misconduct involving a violation of responsible research conduct, the director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity is informed.

A-4.3.4.6 For academic misconduct allegations involving doctoral theses, the inquiry committee is formed and chaired by the vice-provost of graduate and postdoctoral studies (or the vice-provost's representative). The committee shall consist of four members, including the vice-dean of graduate studies (or equivalent) of the faculty where the student is enrolled. In cases of potential research misconduct, the director of the Office of Research Ethics and Integrity will be notified.

A-4.3.4.7 The inquiry committee:

1. asks the student to submit in writing, within ten (10) working days, all information and documents relevant to the allegation;
2. requests any other information it considers relevant;
3. invites the student to appear before the committee at its next scheduled meeting.

 A-4.3.4.8 The student can be accompanied by a person of their choice when appearing before the committee. The person accompanying the student is there to provide support and can, therefore, assist the student during the meeting, keeping in mind that first and foremost, the exchange is between the faculty and the student.

A-4.3.4.9 In cases of alleged academic misconduct involving more than one student, the accompanying person cannot be one of the other students involved in the case.

A-4.3.4.10 A student who fails to appear before the committee at the identified time and place is deemed to have forfeited their right to be heard at this meeting.

A-4.3.4.11 Once the student has been given the opportunity to be heard in writing and/or in person, the inquiry committee can conclude that the allegation is not sufficiently founded, in which case no further action is to be taken. This decision is communicated in writing to the student by the dean or dean’s representative, as well as to the professor of the course in which the allegation of academic misconduct was made, within five (5) working days.  

A-4.3.4.12 Should the inquiry committee conclude that the allegation is sufficiently founded, it has five (5) working days from the date of the meeting to submit a report to the dean or the dean’s representative, including a recommendation for the appropriate sanction(s).

A-4.3.4.13 Within five (5) working days of receiving the inquiry committee’s report, the dean or the dean’s representative sends a copy of the report to the student. The dean informs the student that the student has the right to submit written comments to the committee’s report, particularly with respect to any sanctions being imposed, within ten (10) working days of having received the committee’s report.

A-4.3.4.14 Any new evidence provided by the student should be submitted to the inquiry committee. The inquiry committee will revise and resubmit its report, if necessary, within five (5) working days from the date it receives the new evidence.

A-4.3.4.15 The committee’s final report and, if applicable, the student’s written comments are submitted to the faculty’s executive committee (or its equivalent) at its next scheduled meeting. The executive committee makes a decision on the sanction(s) (in the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the faculty) or recommends sanction(s) to the Senate Appeals Committee (in the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the Senate Appeals Committee). Sanctions possible are those indicated in sections A-4.2 (a) to (p) or any other sanction considered appropriate to the circumstances.

A-4.3.4.16 In the case of sanctions that can be imposed by the faculty, the decision of the faculty’s executive committee, or equivalent, takes effect immediately, notwithstanding an appeal.

A-4.3.4.17 Within five (5) working days following the decision of the faculty’s executive committee, the dean or the dean’s representative informs in writing the student of the executive committee’s decision or recommendation and provides details of the appeal procedure. The dean or the dean’s representative also informs the professor of the course in which the allegation of academic misconduct was made of this same decision or recommendation. 

A-4.4 Appeal

A-4.4.1 Accelerated process

A-4.4.1.1 A student wishing to file an appeal after having signed the agreement must submit the appeal to the Senate Appeals Committee within ten (10) working days of having signed the agreement. Under the accelerated process, an appeal can be launched only in cases of procedural error.

A-4.4.2 Regular process

A-4.4.2.1 A student who decides to appeal the decision of a faculty’s executive committee (or its equivalent) or its recommendation to the Senate Appeals Committee, must inform the Office of the Secretary-General and provide the reasons for the appeal in writing, within ten (10) working days of being notified of the executive committee’s decision or recommendation.

More details are available in the Senate Appeals Committee procedure.

The decision of the Senate Appeals Committee is final and cannot be appealed.