18.1 - Purposes and Scope of Procedures

The School of Nursing Policy on Academic Integrity is adapted from the Senate Policy on Academic Integrity.  The complete document is available from the Senate Policy on Academic Integrity. This Policy states that students, faculty, and staff have responsibilities to support and uphold the fundamental values of academic integrity: honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage.

Additional guidelines and resources for Instructors and students are available from Academic Integrity at Queen’s.

The purposes of the Procedures are to:

• Affirm the University’s dedication to the values of academic integrity and the seriousness with which it treats departures;
• Protect the academic integrity of the University and the value of its courses, programs, and degrees;
• Explain the responsibilities of students, Instructors, and staff;
• Ensure the rights of students are protected; and
• Ensure consistency among Faculties and Schools and the equitable treatment of students.

The Policy and these Procedures apply to all members of the Queen’s University community including students who have not yet graduated, instructors, and staff. They govern all academic-related activities that receive acknowledgement from the University including both course-related activities as well as non-course activities including, but not limited to internships, professional placements, comprehensive exams, oral thesis exams, academic appeals, academic petitions and/or applications for academic awards, consideration and opportunities (e.g. exchange, personal interest credit).

Proceedings under these Procedures are also governed by the Policy, any applicable rules of the Faculty/School and of Senate and the University, and the principles of procedural fairness.

Each Faculty and School may implement supplementary procedures consistent with these Procedures. Where there are discrepancies between these Procedures and applicable rules of the Faculty/School, however, these Procedures take precedence.

Investigations of potential departures from academic integrity that are discovered after a student has graduated are over by the Policy on Rescinding Degrees.

Titles and headings in these Procedures are for convenience only and shall not be relied on for any purpose related to the construction, interpretation or application of any provision in these Procedures.

18.1.2 - Procedural Fairness

Proceedings must respect the rights and ensure the fair treatment of students and meet the standards of procedural fairness.

The Procedures are to be applied flexibly, in a manner, and with the degree of formality appropriate in an educational environment and commensurate with the seriousness of the case itself.

The student must:

• Know the nature of any allegations and the basis and evidence for them;
• Have a meaningful opportunity to present a response in writing or in person; and
• Have an opportunity to appeal when appropriate.

The decision-maker must:

• Be free from bias or the reasonable apprehension of bias;
• Make and communicate decisions in writing in a timely way; and
• Provide clear reasons for decisions, based on evidence and consistent with all academic regulations.

“Decision-makers” include all those responsible under these Procedures for:

• Deciding whether a departure from academic integrity (DFAI) occurred;
• Deciding on a sanction; and
• Deciding an appeal.

18.1.3 - Evidence 

Evidence in proceedings, whether written or oral, must be relevant and reliable. It should be based, when possible, on first-hand information.

18.1.4 - Confidentiality

The identity of a student may only be disclosed to others when allowed by the student or required under these Procedures.  The Instructor must reasonably safeguard the student’s identity throughout the process.  

An Instructor must not supply to a student any documentation related to an investigation that contains information related to another student unless such information is necessary for the student to understand and meaningfully respond to an allegation.  If information related to another student is necessary for this purpose, the Instructor shall consult with the Academic Integrity (AI) Lead (Associate Director (Undergraduate Nursing Programs) (see Academic Regulation 18.1.6.2) to ensure that appropriate privacy safeguards are in place prior to distributing the information.

Records of proceedings and their outcomes may only be created, compiled, or retained as required under these Procedures.

18.1.5 - Timing

Time limits are provided, and a request for an extension of the time limit may be made to the Course Professor/Instructor only under exceptional circumstances. A time limit stated in “business days” does not include weekends, statutory holidays, the annual holiday shutdown period, or any other day when the University is closed.

18.1.6 - Administrative Requirements of Faculties and Schools

18.1.6.1 - Academic Integrity Administrator

The Academic Integrity Administrator (“the AI Administrator”), is the Undergraduate Program Coordinator and Academic Advisor. The AI Administrator will carry out responsibilities, including providing support to Instructors and maintaining records, as required in these Procedures.

18.1.6.2 - Academic Integrity Lead 

The Academic Integrity Lead (“the AI Lead”), is the Associate Director (Undergraduate Nursing Programs). The AI Lead will carry out responsibilities, including providing advice regarding the investigation, process, remedies, and sanctions; reviewing and investigating matters as appropriate; determining sanctions when appropriate. The AI Lead may delegate administrative but not decision-making responsibilities.

The Undergraduate Academic Progress and Graduation Committee (UAPGC) will consider appeals as required (see Academic Regulation 18.4.2).  

18.1.7 - Categorization, Maintenance, Retention, Release and Destruction of Records 

The AI Administrator will maintain the records required under these Procedures for the purposes of possible further actions or appeals, the annual report and other uses permitted by University Regulations. 

First and second DFAIs are automatically categorized as Level I categorized as Level I except if the finding is sufficiently serious that the sanction assigned is one that can only be assigned by an AI Lead (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.3.1). If the exception applies, the finding is categorized as a Level II. Third and additional DFAIs are automatically categorized as Level II DFAIs. 

Level I DFAIs are stored by the AI Administrator in a file that is separate from the student’s Student Record. Information in such files may only be released when there is a future DFAI with respect to the same student (see Academic Regulation 18.3.3.3 and 18.3.4.1.2) and/or when a student submits a petition or an appeal, where permitted by Faculty/School Regulations, of an academic decision (e.g. academic probation) in which their grade in the course(s) to which the DFAI is tied is partly or wholly related to the academic decision. Level I records are destroyed upon the student’s graduation.

Level II DFAIs, including copies (if applicable) of any DFAIs that previously has been categorized as Level I, are added to the student’s Student Record established for the student in the Faculty/School Office.  Such information may only be released as permitted or required by these Procedures or by other University regulations, when there is a future DFAI with respect to the same student (see Sections 18.3.3.3 and 18.3.4.1.2), when a student submits a petition or an appeal, where permitted by Faculty/School Regulations, of an academic decision (e.g. academic probation) in which their grade in the course(s) to which the DFAI is tied is partly or wholly related to the academic decision and/or with the student’s consent.  These records are destroyed three years after the student’s graduation.

Records of academic integrity investigations, or DFAIs and sanctions, or appeals may not be retained in any other files maintained by the Instructor, department, of Faculty/School.

18.1.8 - Annual Reports

The AI Lead will provide information to the Faculty of Health Sciences for the annual report to the Academic Integrity Subcommittee. This will include the number and type of academic integrity matters in the School and their outcomes, using the Annual Academic Integrity Report form.  The Academic Integrity Subcommittee will make an annual report to Senate based on the Faculty of Health Sciences annual reports.

18.1.9 - Graduation during Investigation, Appeal or Withdrawal Period

No student may graduate or apply to graduate while their conduct is the subject of an ongoing academic integrity investigation or appeal, even if academic credit for the course(s) under investigation is not required to complete the degree.  When an investigation is initiated during a student’s final year of study or involves a course required to graduate, the School shall make reasonable attempts to expedite the investigation and appeal process before the expected convocation date.

No student who has been required to withdraw due to a departure from academic integrity may apply to graduate during the withdrawal period.

18.1.10 - Changes to Course Standing during Investigation, Appeal or Following Decision

Once an investigation has been initiated, no student may drop or request pass/fail status or credit standing in a course associated with an academic integrity investigation during the investigation. These restrictions will remain in place throughout the appeal process.

Courses that were designated as pass/fail (e.g. personal interest credits) and or granted credit standing prior to an investigation being initiated will retain the pass/fail or credit standing designation.

Following the deadline to appeal the sanction, or after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted, a student may drop the course or request pass/fail status or credit standing if:

1. There was no finding (i.e. the investigation was dismissed);
2. The finding was overturned on appeal; or
3. The assigned sanction was a sanction that could be assigned by an instructor and did not include a grade deduction (see Section 18.3.4.2).

If the student is permitted to change the course to pass/fail or credit standing or drop the course because the assigned sanction was a sanction that could be assigned by an instructor and did not include a grade deduction, the finding will remain on file and stored according to its Level I or Level II designation (see Section 18.1.7).

18.2 - Types of Departures from Academic Integrity

18.2.1 - Integrity in Action: The Core Values 

Queen’s University is dedicated to creating a scholarly community free to explore a range of ideas, to build and advance knowledge and to share the ideas and knowledge that emerge from a range of intellectual pursuits.  Each core value of academic integrity, as defined in the Senate Academic Integrity Policy, gives rise to and supports the next.

Honesty appears in presenting one’s own academic work, whether in the context of an examination, written assignment, laboratory, or seminar presentation. It is in researching one’s own work for course assignments, acknowledging dependence on the ideas or words of another and in distinguishing one’s own ideas and thoughts from other sources. It is also present in faithfully reporting laboratory results even when they do not conform to an original hypothesis.  Further, honesty is present in truthfully communicating in written and/or oral exchanges with instructors, peers and other individuals (e.g. teaching assistants, proctors, university staff and/or university administrator).

Trust exists in an environment in which one’s own ideas can be expressed without fear of ridicule or fear that someone else will take credit for them.

Fairness appears in the proper and full acknowledgement of the contributions of collaborators in group projects and in the full participation of partners in collaborative projects.

Respect in a general sense, is part of an intellectual community that recognizes the participatory nature of the learning process and honours and respects a wide range of opinions and ideas.  However, “respect” appears in a very particular sense when students attend class, pay attention, contribute to discussion and submit papers on time. Instructors “show respect by taking students’ ideas seriously, by recognizing them as individuals, helping them develop their ideas, providing full and honest feedback on their work, and valuing their perspectives and their goals” (“The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity”, 3^rd Edition, p. 8).

Ultimately, responsibility is both personal and collective and engages students, administrators, faculty, and staff in creating and maintaining a learning environment supported by and supporting academic integrity.

Courage differs from the preceding values by being more a quality or capacity of character – “the capacity to act in accordance with one’s values despite fear” (“The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity”, 3^rd edition, p. 10).  Courage is displayed by students who make choices and integrous decisions that are followed by action, even in the face of peer pressure to cheat, copy another’s material, provide their own work to others to facilitate cheating, or otherwise represent themselves dishonestly.  Students also display courage by acknowledging prior wrongdoing and taking proactive measures to rectify any associated negative impact.

All of these values are not merely abstract but are expressed in and reinforced by the University’s policies and practices.

18.2.2 - Departures from Academic Integrity

As outlined in “Integrity in Action: The Core Values” (Academic Regulation 18.2.1), the 6 fundamental values of honesty, trust, fairness, respect, responsibility, and courage support the entire educational experience of the University.  Adhering to these values in all academic work and academic-related documentation ensures the value of the degree, the integrity of the institution and the integrity of individual achievement.  Contravening any of these values compromises the integrity of the student’s experience in completing academic work, working with peers, and interacting with Instructors. 

Some examples of specific conduct and actions that may constitute departures from academic integrity are listed below.  The list is not exhaustive, as other conduct and actions may also be found to be departures.

“Conduct” may include any actions or oral or written statements that may give rise to concerns about a possible departure from academic integrity or taking steps in furtherance of a plan to engage in a departure from academic integrity. 

“Academic Work” may include essays, papers, assignments, journal entries, tests, examinations, laboratory reports or results, or any other product of academic. Activity including those produced in a professional environment such as an internship or placement.

“Documentation” may include transcripts, notes from health care professionals, student attestations, audio messages, applications (e.g. for exchange, a scholarship or internship) or any other documentation used to support an application for an academic-related activity or form.

18.2.2.1 - Departure from the Core Values of Academic Integrity

In addition to the specific types of departures from academic integrity listed below, “Departure from the Core Values of Academic Integrity” encompasses a range conduct and infractions. Any acts that deviate from the core values of academic integrity (see Academic Regulation 18.2.1) that do not fall under the specific categories listed below may be categorized under this broader heading.  

In the educational context, there is, for instance, trust that students will abide by the core values of academic integrity and not violate these values or attempt to violate this trust.  Therefore, attempts at plagiarism, facilitation, and other departures are as much a threat to academic integrity as submitting a plagiarized paper or working with a peer to undermine integrity.  Honesty plays a role in exchanges with Instructors, peers and other individuals (e.g. teaching assistants, proctors, university staff and/or university administrators), especially in a professionalized setting, where authentic self-representation and truthfulness are essential.

Investigations and findings under this broad category will cite one or more of these 6 values and indicate how the activity contravenes these values and compromises the integrity of the educational experience. “The Fundamental Values of Academic Integrity”, 3^rd edition, developed by the International Centre for Academic Integrity provides guidance on the meaning of these 6 values in relation to the educational experience.

18.2.2.2 - Plagiarism

Plagiarism involves presenting ideas, words, or work, created by others or by technological assistance, as if they are one’s own or without proper attribution/citation. Self-plagiarism is also a departure from academic integrity. Self-plagiarism refers to the practice of submitting the same work, in whole or in part, for credit in two or more courses, or in the same course more than once without the prior written permission of the instructor. Self-plagiarism can also include presenting one’s own previously published work as though it were new.

Examples: Copying or using quotations or paraphrasing material from a print or other source, including the internet, and output from artificial intelligence, without proper acknowledgement; copying another student’s work; submitting the same piece of work in more than 1 course without permission.

18.2.2.3 - Unauthorized Content Generation

Unauthorized content generation is the production of academic work, in whole or in part, for academic credit, progression, or award, using unapproved or undeclared human or technological assistance.  

Examples: Response generation from artificial intelligence including, but not limited to, text-, image-, code-, or video-generating artificial intelligence tools; submitting assignments to online forums or websites for generating solutions.

18.2.2.4 - Contract Cheating

Contract cheating is a very serious form of plagiarism that involves outsourcing academic work to pay-for-profit websites or others and submitting the work as the student’s own.

Examples: Purchasing a term paper or assignment to be submitted as one’s own; submitting essays or assignments that have been obtained from homework sites, essay mills, tutor sites, friends, family members or classmates.

18.2.2.5 - Use of Unauthorized Materials

Use of unauthorized materials involves using or possessing unauthorized materials or obtaining unauthorized assistance in any academic examination or test, or in connection with any other form of academic work.  

Examples: Using or possessing unauthorized written material or an electronic device with memory and/or web access such as a calculator, cell phone or smart watch that is not permitted during a test or examination; copying another student’s test or examination answer; receiving answers from an exam or test bank website.

18.2.2.6 - Deception

Deception involves misrepresenting the accuracy of information, the authenticity of a document, one’s self, one’s work, or one’s relation to the University.   

Examples: Creating or causing to be created and/or submitting any falsified official academic document, including a transcript; altering any official academic documents, including transcripts; creating and/or submitting any falsified medical note; altering any information on documentation provided by a third party (such as a date); impersonating someone in a test or examination or allowing someone to impersonate you; fabricating or falsifying laboratory or research data; fabricating references and/or information derived from references; using another person’s credentials or representing yourself as having credentials that are not rightfully yours.

18.2.2.7 - Facilitation

Facilitation involves enabling another student’s breach of academic integrity, regardless of whether it is deliberate or not.

Examples: Allowing access - whether deliberate or not - to academic work that another student submits in part or whole as that student’s work; selling academic work; making information available to another student about the exam questions or possible answers during an online or take-home exam window or during an in-person exam.

18.2.2.8 - Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property

Using the intellectual property of another for academic, personal, or professional advantage without the authorization of the owner. 

Examples: Uploading course materials to a note-sharing website without the Instructor’s permission; providing course materials to a commercial study-prep service not sanctioned by the University; distributing, publicly posting, selling, or otherwise disseminating an Instructor’s course materials or providing an Instructor’s course materials to anyone else for distribution, posting, sale or other means of dissemination, without the Instructor’s express consent.

18.2.2.9 - Unauthorized Collaboration

Unauthorized collaboration involves working with others, without the specific permission of the Instructor, on academic work that will be submitted for a grade. 

Examples: Working with others on in-class or take-home tests, papers, or homework assignments that are meant to be completed individually; communicating with another person during an exam or about an exam during the exam window.

18.2.2.10 - Failure to Abide by Academic Rules

Failing to abide by University academic rules and regulations. 

Examples: Failing to follow rules imposed by course Instructors, or others (for example, teaching assistants, guest, or substitute Instructors), regarding the preparation, writing, and submission of academic work; failing to follow rules set out by Instructors or the Exams Office in the writing of tests and examinations; failing to follow regulations governing ethics reviews; failing to comply with assigned sanctions resulting from a departure from academic integrity; unauthorized removal of materials from a library.

18.3 - Instructor Process: Sequence of Events

18.3.1 - Review of Documents (See Appendix F)

18.3.1.1 - Delegation of Investigation

In most cases, the course Instructor investigates a possible departure from academic integrity and decides the finding.  However, when an Instructor is unable to investigate and/or decide the finding, the AI Lead will take over the investigation. For investigations of non-course activities (see Section 18.1) the individual who has the appropriate subject matter expertise may be a staff member whose responsibilities include overseeing the non-course activity in which a possible departure from academic integrity is suspected.

In these Procedures, all references to an “Instructor” include such a delegate.

18.3.1.2 - Initial Collection of Evidence

To begin investigating a possible departure from academic integrity, the Instructor shall assemble all documents related to the case. Such documents may include:

• The work submitted by the student for academic credit;
• The source(s) from which the work submitted by the student is apparently derived;
• Instructions describing the nature of the work to be done;
• The course syllabus;
• Any email between Instructor and student relating to the work;
• Documents alleged to be altered; and
• Documents used by the Instructor or the School stating policies on departures from academic integrity. 

18.3.1.3 - Guidance for Instructors

While collecting evidence (see Academic Regulation 18.1.3), the Instructor is encouraged to seek guidance from the AI Lead, concerning matters relating to departures from academic integrity and as needed, from the University’s Legal Counsel regarding the specifics of the case, or from the Office of the Ombudsperson concerning University policy and procedures more generally. 

18.3.1.4 - Dismissal of Investigation

If, after a careful review of the evidence collected during the initial collection of evidence, the Instructor determines that there is insufficient evidence to continue with the investigation, the case will be dismissed.  All documents related to the case must be destroyed and the student shall not be informed of the Instructor’s investigation.

18.3.2 - Engaging with the Student

18.3.2.1 - Notification by the Instructor

If, after their initial collection of evidence, the Instructor determines that there is sufficient evidence to continue with the investigation of a possible departure from academic integrity, the Instructor must use the Appendix A: Notice of Investigation Form (for instructors) (“the NOI”) to notify the student of the alleged departure.  The following information shall be included in the NOI and sent by email to the student’s Queen’s email account:

• The evidence on which the investigation is based, including all documents upon which the Instructor will rely;
• The possible sanctions as outlined below;
• The student’s right to respond to the investigation by meeting with the Instructor or by providing a written response;
• The student’s right to have support in any response to the investigation; 
• The University has resources available for consultation and the information on the website of the Office of the University Ombudsperson about student rights and responsibilities and University policies and procedures; and
• The student's inability to apply for graduation, drop the course or request pass/fail or credit standing during the investigation.

The student is not entitled to receive any notes or other documents created by the Instructor to aid in the investigation except as required to permit the student to understand and respond to the allegations.

18.3.2.2 - Response from the Student

Within 10 business days of the date that the NOI was emailed to the student, the student must respond to the NOI, indicating either the wish to meet with the Instructor (see Academic Regulation 18.3.2.3) or their election to provide a written response (see Academic Regulation 18.3.2.4).

18.3.2.3 - Meeting with the Student 

If the student elects to meet with the Instructor, the Instructor shall determine whether the meeting will be in person, or by video/audio conference.  The Instructor shall ask who, if anyone, will be present at the meeting with the student.

The Instructor shall schedule a meeting as soon as possible.  The student has the right to know what material will be considered, and that they will have the opportunity to respond to the evidence related to the alleged departure at the meeting. The student is required to bring to the meeting copies of all documents on which they intend to rely in responding to the alleged departure.

At the meeting, the student may have a support person present, to provide emotional support.  The support person may not be directly involved in the case, and may not advocate on behalf of the student.

The Instructor may also ask the AI Administrator or an individual who holds an administrative role such as the Department Head to take on the limited role of providing clarification of the procedures related to investigations of possible departures from academic integrity.

18.3.2.4 - Written Response from the Student 

If the student does not wish to meet, the student may submit a written response to the Instructor no later than 5 business days after the student responds to the NOI indicating their election to submit a written response.

The response must include a detailed explanation of the student’s case and all relevant documents in the student’s possession on which they intend to rely, such as copies of earlier drafts of the work in question.

18.3.2.5 - Final Investigation Steps

If the Instructor receives new information about the alleged departure before issuing a finding, the Instructor must disclose that information to the student and give them the option to respond to it, by way of a written submission to the Instructor no later than 5 business days after the student was informed of the new information.

If the student does not wish to attend a meeting or make any written response to the NOI, the Instructor shall decide based on the available evidence.

18.3.3 - Deciding the Finding or Dismissal

The Instructor shall decide whether to make a finding of a departure from academic integrity or to dismiss the case based on:

• The applicable rules, regulations, policies and procedures, related to academic integrity;
• The evidence that was considered;
• The arguments made by the student; and
• Their own assessment of the relative credibility and strength of the evidence.

At this point in the investigation, the Instructor is not entitled to know about any previous departure(s) from academic integrity by the student, and any previous departure is not relevant to the finding.

18.3.3.1 - Dismissal

If, after a careful review of the evidence and consideration of the response by the student, the Instructor determines that a finding of departure from academic integrity is not supported, the case shall be dismissed. 

The Instructor must use the Appendix G: Dismissal of Investigation Form (for instructors) to inform the student that the investigation has been dismissed.

The Dismissal of Investigation Form shall be forwarded to the AI Administrator to be maintained for reporting purposes only.  The student shall not be identified on the form.  All other documents related to the case must be destroyed.

18.3.3.2 - Deciding the Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity

If, after a careful review of the evidence and consideration of the response by the student, the Instructor determines that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that it is more likely than not (i.e. on a “balance of probabilities”) that a departure from academic integrity occurred, the Instructor must complete a Appendix B: Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity Form (for instructors) ("the Finding form") and will need to follow the steps below to determine an appropriate sanction.  

18.3.3.3 - Contact the AI Administrator

Where there is a finding of departure from academic integrity, the Instructor shall contact the AI Administrator to determine whether a record exists of one or more prior findings of departures from academic integrity by the student. If a record exists, the AI Administrator shall inform the Instructor.  The Instructor shall then indicate on the Finding Form that the case is being referred to the AI Lead for the assignment of an appropriate sanction (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.3).

The Instructor shall then email the Finding form to the student’s Queen’s email (see Academic Regulation 18.3.5). 

18.3.4 - Deciding the Sanction

If the AI Administrator confirms there is no record of a prior finding of a departure by the student, the Instructor shall decide a sanction from those available to the Instructor (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.2) or refer the matter to the AI Lead to determine an appropriate sanction (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.3), if, after considering all the factors in assessing the gravity of the departure (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.1), they believe that a more serious sanction than those an instructor can assign is warranted.

The sanction must be meaningful to ensure that students understand the importance of academic integrity to the academic community at Queen’s and its vital importance in maintaining the integrity of degrees granted by the University.  A sanction must also preserve fairness amongst students in a course or program.  The Instructor should contact the AI Lead for information about the sanctions imposed in similar previous cases.

18.3.4.1 - Factors to Consider 

The Instructor or AI Lead shall consider several factors in deciding the appropriate sanction.  Careful consideration of the factors listed below will help to ensure that the sanction is fair, reasonable, and proportionate to the gravity of the departure found.

Factors that should be considered in deciding a sanction include:

• The extent and seriousness of the departure;
• Any educational measures that may be undertaken to ensure that the student understands the departure and what should have been the appropriate conduct in such circumstances;
• The value of the academic work in relation to the overall grade for the course;
• The experience of the student (for example, a first-year or an upper-year student; a student experienced in the discipline or a student in an elective course);
• If and how the university’s reputation and/or other students were impacted as a result of the departure; and
• Any mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances (see Academic Regulations 18.3.4.1.1 and 18.3.4.1.2).

18.3.4.1.1 - Mitigating Circumstances 

Although mitigating circumstances do not exonerate or excuse a student from the finding of a departure from academic integrity, such circumstances should be considered to ensure that the sanction is reasonable and appropriate.  The onus is on the student to provide evidence of such mitigating circumstances.

Examples of mitigating circumstances that may be relevant include, but are not limited to:

• Documented evidence from an appropriate health care professional of factors directly compromising the student’s capacity to understand or adhere to the standards of academic integrity at the time of the departure;
• Prompt admission to the alleged departure from academic integrity by the student and expression of contrition and willingness to undertake educative measures; and/or
• Evidence that reasonable steps were not taken to bring the standards and expectations regarding academic integrity to the attention of the student (for example, expectations were not included in the course syllabus).

18.3.4.1.2 - Aggravating Circumstances 

Aggravating circumstances may also have an impact on the appropriate and reasonable sanction and should also be considered.  Examples of aggravating circumstances that may be relevant include, but are not limited to:

• Evidence of a deliberate attempt to gain advantage;
• Evidence of an active attempt to conceal the departure;
• The departure has been committed by an upper-year student who ought to be familiar with the expectations for academic integrity in the discipline, department and/or School;
• Conduct that intimidates others or provokes misconduct by others; and/or
• Harm to another student or to the University.

In addition, when the AI Lead sanctions a finding by a student with one or more prior findings of departures from academic integrity on file, the AI Lead should take into account:

• The similarity to and relative severity of the current departure as compared to one or more prior findings of departures from academic integrity by the student.

18.3.4.2 - Sanctions that may be Imposed by the Instructor

The sanction should reflect the extent and gravity of the departure from academic integrity and should be consistent with the sanctions imposed in similar previous cases in the Department/School.

The Instructor may impose one or more of the following sanctions:

• A written warning that such infractions constitute unacceptable behaviour;
• The completion of an academic integrity module;
• A learning experience (e.g. revising original work within a stipulated time period, completing an activity aimed at enhancing the student’s understanding of academic integrity);
• The submission of new or other work within a stipulated period of time;
• A deduction of partial or complete loss of marks for the work or exam; and/or
• A deduction of a percentage of the final grade in the course.

Note: The total percentage points of all sanctions assigned by the instructor must not make it impossible to obtain a passing grade in the course (e.g. a sanction greater than 50 percentage points in a course where a D- (50%) or higher is a passing grade; a sanction greater than 30 percentage points in a course where a B- (70%) or higher is a passing grade). If the total percentage points of the sanction(s) that the instructor determines is reasonable would make it impossible for any student to pass the course, the instructor must refer the finding to the School AI Lead for sanctioning.

18.3.4.3 - Referral of the Case to the AI Lead

The Instructor must refer the case to the AI Lead (see Academic Regulation 18.1.6.2) to decide the sanction, if:

• There is a record of one or more findings of a departures from academic integrity on file in the School Office; and/or
• After the Instructor considers all the factors above in assessing the gravity of the departure, they believe that a more serious sanction than those that may imposed by an Instructor (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.2) is warranted.

When referring a case, the Instructor shall indicate on the Finding form that the case is being referred to the School for the assignment of an appropriate sanction and email the Finding form to the student (see Academic Regulation 18.3.5).

All original documents related to the case, including the submitted work, any relevant correspondence, the Notice of Investigation and the Finding form, shall be forwarded to the AI Administrator to be considered by the  AI Lead in determining an appropriate sanction.  No documentation may be retained by the Instructor or in a departmental student file.

When a case is referred by the instructor, the role of the AI Lead is to review and consider the factors of the case only as they relate to the decision of an appropriate sanction. If the AI Lead does not have sufficient information to conclude the finding is reasonable and/or determine an appropriate sanction the AI Lead may:

• Meet and/or engage in written communication with the instructor (e.g. to make explicit subject- specific expertise that was implicitly used to determine the finding);
• Meet and/or engage in written communication with the student (e.g. to better understand any mitigating or aggravating circumstances that could impact the sanction assigned); and/or
• Request additional documentation (e.g. a course syllabus or material referenced in the meeting summary, but not included in the report).

Importantly, the purpose of these consultations is not to re-investigate the finding, but to provide sufficient information for the AI Lead to assign an appropriate sanction for a reasonable finding. However, if, after additional consultation with the student and/or instructor, the AI Lead is unable to conclude that the finding is reasonable, they may dismiss the finding.

All information gathered during this stage that is relevant to the decision should be included as part of the sanctioning decision. If the information gathered during this stage contains new evidence that could alter the finding, the AI Lead shall have no jurisdiction over the decision and shall send the matter back to the previous decision-maker for reconsideration, unless:

• The delay of sending the matter to the prior decision-maker would be unduly prejudicial to the student; or
• The new evidence clearly demonstrates bias in the prior proceeding that otherwise cannot be remedied.

If the information gathered during this stage contains new evidence that could impact the sanction but does not impact the finding, the AI Lead may consider this information as part of their sanctioning decision.

18.3.4.3.1 - Sanctions that may be Imposed by the AI Lead

The AI Lead may impose any of the sanctions available to the Instructor (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.2) as well as the following sanctions:

• One or more sanctions, which, when totaled together, exceed the percentage points required to pass the course (e.g. sanction(s) totaling more than 50 percentage points in a course where 50% (D-) or higher is a passing grade);
• The rescinding of University- or Faculty-awarded scholarships, prizes and/or bursaries;
• An official written warning that the penalty for a subsequent offence could be a Requirement to Withdraw from the University for a breach of academic integrity for a period of time; and/or
• A Requirement to Withdraw from the University for a breach of academic integrity for:
  • a (specified) period of time;
  • a (specified) minimum period of time; or
  • until (specified conditions) have been met.
• The Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen’s University provides information on the differences between these three types of withdrawal notations, including which notations require the student to apply for readmission and which allow the student to resume their studies without applying for readmission.

18.3.4.3.2 - Requirement to Withdraw 

When the AI Lead determines that a Requirement to Withdraw from the University is the appropriate sanction, the AI Lead must consult with the Vice Provost (Teaching & Learning) to ensure that such sanctions are imposed consistently across the University.

If the Vice Provost (Teaching & Learning) is satisfied that the proposed sanction is in accordance with university standards, the AI Lead shall notify the student in writing of the sanction and include the reasons for the decision (see Academic Regulation 18.3.5).

If the Vice Provost (Teaching & Learning) is not satisfied that the proposed sanction is in accordance with university standards, the AI Lead shall re-consider and adjust the proposed sanction.

Following the deadline to appeal the sanction, or after all avenues of appeal have been exhausted and the Requirement to Withdraw is confirmed, the AI Lead shall forward the Requirement to Withdraw from the University, to:

• The Office of the University Registrar for the notation to be added to the student’s transcript per the requirements of the Policy on Transcript Terminology for Students Withdrawing from Queen's University; and
• The University Secretariat, who will notify the student of the final decision.

18.3.5 - Informing the Student 

18.3.5.1 - Finding and Sanction by Instructor

If the Instructor decides that the finding warrants a sanction from the list of those available to the Instructor (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.2), and the case is not being referred to the AI Lead because the student has one or more prior findings on file (see Section 18.3.4.3), the Instructor must complete the Finding form and email it to the student’s Queen’s email account to inform the student of the outcome of the investigation.

The completed form supplies the student with the following information:

• The details of the finding of a departure from academic integrity;
• The reasons for the finding and the evidence upon which the finding is based;
• That when the instructor determines the sanction the departure is categorized as Level I and that Academic Regulation 18.1.7 explains the applicable provisions with respect to the retention and release of Level I findings for Queen's students and Academic Regulation 18.3.6 for non-Queen's students and those involved in collaborative programs;
• The sanction(s);
• The reasons for the sanction(s), including how any mitigating or aggravating circumstances were considered;
• The student’s right to appeal the finding and/or the sanction to the School;
• The deadline for appealing to the School;
• The University resources available for consultation and the information on the website of the Office of the University Ombudsperson about student rights and responsibilities and University policies and procedures.

18.3.5.2 - Finding by Instructor with Referral for Sanction

When a case is referred to the AI Lead for the assignment of a sanction, the Instructor must complete the Finding form to provide the summary of the meeting with the student including any mitigating circumstances the students may have shared, details of the finding, the reasons for the finding, the evidence upon which the finding was made, and to inform the student of the outcome of the investigation and the referral of the case to the AI Lead for the assignment of the sanction. The completed form must be emailed to the student at their Queen’s University email address.

The AI Lead shall decide the sanction (s) and must inform the student and the Instructor in writing of the following:

• Whether the departure is categorized as Level I or Level II and that Section 1.7 of the procedures explains the applicable provisions with respect to the retention and release of Level I and Level II findings for Queen’s students and Section 3.6 for non-Queen’s students and those involved in collaborative programs;
• The sanction(s);
• The reasons for the sanction(s), including any mitigating or aggravating circumstances;
• The student’s right to appeal the finding and/o r the sanction(s);
• The deadline for appealing; and
• The University resources available for consultation and the information on the website of the Office of the University Ombudsperson about student rights and responsibilities and University policies and procedures.

18.3.6 - Procedures with Respect to Exchange, Letter of Permission and Collaborative Students 

18.3.6.1- Students from Other Post-Secondary Institutions

After a finding of a Level II departure from academic integrity by a student who is studying at Queen’s on an official exchange program or as a visiting student on a Letter of Permission, when all avenues of appeal have expired or been exhausted and if the finding is confirmed, the AI Administrator shall forward a copy of the Finding form to the student’s home university Faculty or Program Office.

18.3.6.2 - Students Registered in Collaborative Programs with Other Post-Secondary Institutions

After a finding of a departure from academic integrity by a student who is registered in a collaborative degree program offered jointly with another post-secondary institution (the “partner institution”), when all avenues of appeal have expired or been exhausted and if the finding is confirmed, the AI Administrator will forward a copy of the Finding form to the partner institution. 

18.3.6.3 - Queen’s Students Attending Other Post-Secondary Institutions

Information received about a finding of a departure from academic integrity by a Queen’s student who is studying on an official exchange program or at another post-secondary institution on a Letter of Permission, or who is registered in a collaborative degree program offered jointly with a partner institution, shall be disclosed to the student’s home School.  The severity of any departure shall be assessed by the School AI Lead as the equivalent of a Level I or a Level II departure and a record of the departure shall be retained in the appropriate file (see Academic Regulation 18.1.7) in the School Office.  Any finding of a departure from academic integrity at a partner institution shall not result in the imposition of any further sanction.  However, it shall be taken into consideration as if the finding was made under these Procedures if there is a subsequent finding of a departure from academic integrity by the student at Queen’s.

18.3.7 - Retention of Documents and Records

All original documents related to an academic integrity investigation, including the submitted work, correspondence, a written response from the student, and the Notice of Investigation and Finding forms, must be forwarded to the AI Administrator to be filed, maintained, and released as required under Academic Regulation 18.1.7. 

No documents or materials may be retained by the Instructor or in a departmental student file.

18.4 - Appeals of a Departure from Academic Integrity

A student may appeal a finding of a departure from academic integrity by appealing the sanction or the finding and sanction.

18.4.1 - Grounds for Appeal 

The grounds for submitting an appeal are limited to cases in which:

1. The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed failed to act in accordance with the rules of procedural fairness.  A breach of procedural fairness includes failing to: 

a. Permit a student to be heard by an unbiased decision-maker;

b. Follow applicable rules, regulations, or University policy, in a way that adversely affected a student’s right to a fair process;

c. Make a reasonable decision with respect to the finding, the sanction imposed, or both.  A “reasonable” decision is one that is rational in that its outcome and the reasoning process that lead to that outcome are intelligible, justified based on evidence, and supported by facts and logical inferences from findings of fact.  To be reasonable, the decision must also be transparent, meaning it must contain adequate reasons for the conclusions. If the decision is “reasonable”, the decision-maker deciding the appeal is not permitted to substitute their opinion for that of the decision-maker whose decision is under appeal.

2. The decision-maker whose decision is being appealed acted without, or exceeded their, jurisdiction. 

18.4.2 - Levels of Appeal 

Each School regulation or procedure with respect to academic integrity matters shall set out the levels of Appeal for that School (see list of individuals/panels on Appendix F - Academic Integrity Appendices).

In addition to the level(s) of appeal within each School, the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy establishes the University Student Appeal Board (“the USAB”), with jurisdiction to hear appeals of the final academic integrity decision made within each School.

18.4.3 - First Level of Appeal to the School 

A student may appeal an Instructor’s finding of a departure from academic integrity, the sanction, or both, to the School.  Based on the School governing regulation, the first level of appeal shall be to the Undergraduate Academic Progress and Graduation Committee (UAPGC) (see Academic Regulation 21.2).

18.4.3.1 - Submitting an Appeal 

Appeals must be submitted using the Appeal Form to the Chair of the UAPGC within 10 business days of the date that the Finding form was emailed to the student by the Instructor.

If the decision on the sanction was referred to the AI Lead (see Academic Regulation 18.3.4.3), the appeal cannot be submitted until a sanction is assigned.  In such cases, the appeal must be submitted within 10 business days of the date that the notice of the sanction imposed was emailed to the student by the AI Lead.

The student’s appeal submission must include:

1. A completed School of Nursing Regulation Waiver Request and/or Appeal Form (Appendix D), clearly stating whether the student is appealing the finding, the sanction, or both;
2. An Appeal of a Appeal of a Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity Form (Appendix I).
3. A letter explaining the reason(s) for their appeal, based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal set out in Academic Regulation 18.4.1 and;
4. Any other documents necessary to establish the grounds for the appeal.

The Academic Integrity Administrator in the student’s home faculty will forward to the Chair of the UAPGC:

1. An Appeal of a Finding of a Departure from Academic Integrity Form (Appendix I)
2. The letter of explanation and any supporting documentation provided by the student,
3. The Notice of Investigation and its attachments,
4. The Finding of Departure from Academic Integrity and its attachments, and (if applicable),
5. Copies of the documents associated with earlier departures from academic integrity.

If the student does not wish to attend the appeal, the student must so indicate in their appeal submission, and the appeal shall then proceed based on the written submissions.

18.4.3.2 - Initial Review by the Undergraduate Academic Progress and Graduation Committee

The UAPGC shall review the student’s appeal submission and determine if it contains new evidence that, through no fault or omission of the student, was not known by or available to the student when the prior decision was made.  No other new evidence shall be permitted.

18.4.3.2.1 - Appeal Contains New Permitted Evidence

If a student’s appeal contains new evidence that is permitted, the UAPGC shall have no jurisdiction over the appeal and shall send the matter back to the previous decision-maker for reconsideration, unless:

• The delay of sending the matter to the prior decision-maker would be unduly prejudicial to the student; or
• The student’s new evidence clearly demonstrates bias in the prior proceeding that otherwise cannot be remedied.

18.4.3.2.2 - Appeal Contains No New Evidence

If the student’s appeal contains no new or permitted evidence, the UAPGC shall provide the Instructor with a copy of the student’s appeal submission and the Instructor shall have an opportunity to provide a written response to the student’s appeal within 10 business days.

The student must be provided with any response material from the Instructor and shall have at least 5 business days to review this material before a meeting is held, or, if the student indicated that they do not want to meet, they shall have 5 business days after receiving the Instructor’s response material to make additional written submissions to the UAPGC.

18.4.3.3 - Meeting with the Student

In most cases the UAPGC will convene a meeting with the student, the Instructor, and any witnesses, to conduct a thorough review of the evidence.

If a meeting will be held, the AI Administrator shall schedule it as soon as reasonably possible.  The student and the Instructor may have an advisor present at the meeting. The advisor(s) are not there to provide evidence and may advise only when input is required. 

The AI Administrator shall ask who, if anyone, will be present with the student, and inform the student whether anyone will be present with the Instructor. 

The student and Instructor shall have the opportunity to respond to the evidence orally at the meeting.

18.4.3.4 - Deciding the Appeal 

After a careful review of the evidence, the UAPGC, can:

• Maintain or overturn the Instructor’s finding if the student appealed the finding and sanction; or
• Maintain or modify the sanction if the student appealed the sanction only.

In making decisions, the UAPGC recognizes that primary responsibility for making decisions about individual students rests with those who are closest to them, who can fairly compare students to other students in similar positions, and who have knowledge of the context in which the decision is made. 

18.4.3.5 - Informing the Student and the Instructor

Within 10 business days of the date upon which the appeal is considered complete, the UAPGC must provide the student with a written decision, which shall include:

• A statement of the issues under review;
• A summary of the arguments and evidence presented;
• Whether the finding and sanction will be maintained or overturned and/or whether the sanction will be maintained or modified;
• The reasons for the decision;
• If necessary, a statement of how the decision will be implemented;
• The student’s right to appeal the decision, with an explanation of the next level of appeal and information or resources to consult about the process for filing an appeal; and
• The information on the website of the Office of the University Ombudsperson about student rights and responsibilities and University policies and procedures.

When the UAPGC determines that a modification to a Requirement to Withdraw from the University is appropriate, the UAPGC shall provide the Vice Provost (Teaching & Learning) with a copy of the decision.

The UAPGC shall also inform the Instructor of the outcome of the appeal and provide them with a copy of the decision.

All relevant documents related to the appeal, including the submitted work, correspondence, the NOI and the Finding forms, and the decision, must be forwarded to the AI Administrator to be placed in the appropriate Office file, and maintained and released in accordance with these Procedures and the University’s authorized Records Retention Schedules (see Academic Regulation 18.1.7).

18.4.4 - Second Level of Appeal to the Faculty of Health Sciences

A student may appeal the decision of the first-level appeal decision from the UAPGC to the Faculty of Health Sciences Student Appeal Board within 10 business days of the date that the first appeal decision was emailed to the student, using the process set out in  the Faculty of Health Sciences Student Appeal Board, Undergraduate Programs: Terms of Reference and Appeal Procedures.

18.4.5 - Appeal of Faculty of Health Science Student Appeal Board Decisions to the University Student Appeal Board

A student may appeal the final appeal decision from the Faculty of Health Sciences Student Appeal Board to the University Student Appeal Board (“the USAB”).  The student may appeal a decision related to a finding and sanction of a departure from academic integrity, or a sanction.

18.4.5.1 - Submission of the Appeal

Appeals must be submitted to the USAB within 10 business days after the date that the last decision of the Faculty of Health Sciences Student Appeal Board was emailed to the student.  During exam or holiday periods the Chair of the USAB will normally grant an extension of time for filing an appeal but only if the student submitted a written extension request to the Chair of the USAB within the original time limit for filing an appeal.

The student may appeal to the USAB based on one or more of the Grounds for Appeal to USAB stipulated in the Senate Student Academic Appeals Policy.  The student must follow the Starting an Appeal procedure set out in the Rules of Procedure for the University Student Appeal Board.

The Office of the University Ombudsperson's website can provide guidance to the student with respect to the appeal process for the USAB.

The Instructor or appeal decision-maker may consult with the University’s Legal Counsel about responding to an appeal to the USAB.  

18.5 - Cross-Faculty Jurisdiction

If a student is enrolled in a course that is offered by a Faculty/School (the “Course Faculty/School”) that is not the same as the Faculty/School in which the student is registered (the “Home Faculty/School”), Instructors and Faculties/Schools shall follow the procedures as defined in this section.

18.5.1 - Instructor Process when Student's Home Faculty/School differs from the Course Faculty/School

The investigation of a departure from academic integrity shall follow “Instructor Process: Sequence of Events” as described in Section 18.3 with the following three modifications.

1. When the instructor communicates with the Course Faculty/School AI Administrator (see Section 18.3.3.3), they must inform the Course Faculty/School AI Administrator of the student’s home faculty so that the Course Faculty/School AI Administrator can coordinate as necessary with the Home Faculty/School AI Administrator to confirm if the student has one or more prior findings of departures from academic integrity on file.

2. In situations where, per Section 18.3.4.3, the finding would be referred to an AI Lead for sanctioning, the instructor will provide the materials to the Course Faculty/School AI Administrator who will refer the finding to the student’s Home Faculty/School AI Lead for sanctioning.

3. In situations where the instructor determines that a reasonable sanction would prohibit the student from passing the course based on the student’s known grades at the time of the sanction, the instructor shall refer the finding to the Home Faculty/School AI Lead for sanctioning.

18.5.2 - Appeals

A finding of a departure from academic integrity and/or a sanction related to a course that is offered by a Faculty/School that is not the student’s home Faculty may be appealed to the student’s home Faculty, in accordance with Academic Regulation 18.4.3.