Academic Misconduct Procedures

Academic Misconduct Procedures

These procedures outline the steps to be followed in the event a teacher detects that a student has breached academic integrity (defined and described in section 11.4 of IPESA). These procedures also outline specific actions to be taken by the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar, Faculty Deans, the Coordinator of Continuing Education, as well as Academic Misconduct Review Committees (AMRC).

At any point in the process, students can contact the Student Advocacy Office for guidance and support. Teachers can contact their Faculty Dean office, the Coordinator of Continuing Education, and/or the chair of their Department’s AMRC.

A diagram highlighting the key elements of these procedures will follow the written description.

Academic Misconduct in DCS (DEC) Courses

1. When a teacher has detected academic misconduct, it is recommended they meet with the student(s) in situations where clarification is needed and/or to intervene in the case of Tier 1 – formative offenses. If the teacher decides to apply a consequence impacting a student’s grade, they must inform the student in writing and compile and document details of the offence that is being reported as academic misconduct.
   • For cases related to plagiarism, this could mean making copies of the assignment along with the copied source. In the case of suspected plagiarism (without proof of a source text), a selection of other assignments or coursework could be provided that indicate the assignment under suspicion presents content and/or writing style markedly different from, or superior to, the other work presented by the student.
   • For cases related to cheating during an in-class examination or test, the teacher should document their steps/actions upon the discovery of academic misconduct and explain why they believe the student was cheating. The teacher could include copies of relevant material if available. If cheating is detected following an in-class examination or test or in an out-of-class test or assignment, then the teacher should include copies of the materials in question.
2. The teacher will apply the relevant consequence to the student’s grade depending on the severity level as outlined in the policy (i.e., Tier 2 is a mark reduction on the assessment; Tier 3 is an assessment mark of zero; and Tier 4 is an assessment mark of zero along with an automatic course failure).
   • A teacher’s decision regarding the specific tier category will be based on professional judgement and normative standards for specific disciplines or fields of study at Vanier College.
   • In order to respect the guiding principles of IPESA noted in sections 1.2.1 and 1.2.2 (i.e., equity and fairness), and to ensure consistency in reporting from teachers in the same discipline, departments and programs are encouraged to establish specific examples for the various tiers that are relevant and appropriate to the pedagogy of their discipline(s). These examples should be communicated to students where appropriate (e.g., with assessment instructions). A list of examples for each tier level is provided at the end of this document as a guide.
   • In the absence of discipline or department-specific examples, teachers should use this guide of examples as their reference when applying consequences for academic misconduct.
3. Within 10 working days of the teacher notifying the student about the consequence to their grade, the teacher must report the offence to the College by completing the appropriate Form and include the relevant supporting documents.
   • The Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar will receive the information from the teacher, noting the tier of severity and applied consequence, and will notify the student.
   • A student may request a review of the accusation of academic misconduct if they believe it is not justified. This request can be made by completing the appropriate Form within 10 working days of the notification of the offence by the Registrar’s Office.
   • The Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar will receive the request for a review from the student and will notify the teacher, the chair of the relevant AMRC, and the Faculty Dean/Coordinator of Continuing Education. Procedures for this review committee are described separately.
4. For all upheld offenses of academic misconduct (i.e., the student did not request a review of the accusation or the decision was maintained by the AMRC), the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar will evaluate the student’s file to determine if there were previous upheld offences of academic misconduct reported and if so, evaluate the level of severity and frequency of occurrence. The appropriate action as per section 11.4.4 of IPESA will then be taken by the office(s) of the Dean of Academic Systems, the Faculty Deans and/or the Coordinator of Continuing Education.

Academic Misconduct in ACS (AEC) Courses

1. This step remains the same as for DCS (DEC) courses as described above. Due to the more condensed and intensive format of ACS (AEC) programs, teachers of ACS (AEC) courses must pay particular attention to intervene in as timely a manner as possible as delays will negatively impact student progression in the program.
2. This step remains the same as for DCS (DEC) courses as described above.
3. Within 5 working days of the teacher notifying the student about the consequence to their grade, the teacher must report the offence to the College by completing the appropriate Form and include the relevant supporting documents.
   • The Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar will receive the information from the teacher, noting the tier of severity and applied consequence, and will notify the student and the Coordinator of Continuing Education.
   • A student may request a review of the accusation of academic misconduct if they believe it is not justified. This request can be made by completing the appropriate Form within 5 working days of the notification of the offence by the Registrar’s Office.
   • The Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar will receive the request for a review from the student and will notify the teacher and Coordinator of Continuing Education. The Coordinator of Continuing Education will contact the relevant members of the
4. This step remains the same as for DCS (DEC) courses as described above.

Key elements of these procedures by role:

Review by the Academic Misconduct Review Committee (AMRC)

1. The role and composition of the AMRC (or the ad hoc committee in cases of academic misconduct in ACS (AEC) courses), is outlined in section 6.4 of IPESA.
2. Upon receipt of the student request for review, the chair of the AMRC will arrange for either a virtual or in-person meeting to review the accusation of the offence within 10 working days in cases pertaining to DCS (DEC) courses and within 5 working days in cases pertaining to ACS (AEC) courses.
3. The AMRC is responsible for reviewing contested accusations of academic misconduct and determining if the accusation of the offence is justified or not.
   • The teacher will be allowed to present the reasons for the accusation of offence.
   • The student will be allowed to present the reasons for contesting the accusation of offence.
   • To promote objectivity, the AMRC may review, but not discuss, documentation from both sides prior to the meeting.
4. The student may be accompanied by another member of the Vanier community (e.g., the Student Advocate) if they so choose. This person acts as a support person. As per IPESA section 6.9.6, the Student Advocate may also speak on students’ behalf at meetings, when appropriate.
5. The meeting and deliberations by the AMRC must be held in confidence.
6. Minutes of the meeting shall be taken by a member of the AMRC and retained by that person for at least two semesters following the semester in which the meeting was held.
7. The final decision of the AMRC can be to:
   • uphold the original accusation;
   • overturn the accusation;
   • or amend the Tier level associated with the offence (i.e., raise OR lower the severity level).
   In cases where the AMRC amends the severity of academic misconduct to a Tier 1 or 2 level, it is the responsibility of the accusing teacher to re-grade the student’s work in line with normative standards for their specific discipline.
8. The chair of the AMRC will, in writing, inform the Office of the Dean of Academic Systems – Registrar, as well as the student and the Faculty Dean/Coordinator of Continuing Education (as applicable), of the Committee's decision as soon as possible after the meeting, but no later than 5 working days.
9. Upon receipt of the report of the AMRC, the Dean of Academic Systems maintains or changes the grade in accordance with the decision of the AMRC (and the accusing teacher where applicable for Tier 1 and 2 offences) and issues a new transcript if there is a change.
10. All upheld or amended offences (to Tier levels 2, 3, or 4) of academic misconduct will remain recorded in the student’s college file until graduation. If the accusation of offence is overturned or amended to a Tier 1 offence, then the offence report and related evidence will be removed from the student’s file and destroyed.
11. Decisions from the AMRC, or ad hoc committee in Continuing Education, are final. As per IPESA section 21.1.12, appeals of these decisions can be made if there was a breach of policy or procedure. Students are encouraged to reach out to the Student Advocacy Office for guidance with the appeal process.

Examples of Academic Misconduct by Tier Level