Scholastic offences at Western: the appeal where the Dean has to go first

The short answer

If you deny a scholastic offence at Western and appeal, the burden is not yours. It moves to the Dean, who must present first and must satisfy the appeal board that you did it. That is written into the Senate Review Board Academic Appeals policy, and it is the most useful thing a Western student can know about a contested allegation.

The other half of the picture: Western’s Scholastic Offences policy never mentions AI. The entire question has been pushed down to your course outline through a catch-all clause. So the rule that binds you is the one your instructor wrote, and the protection you have is procedural.

The onus reverses onto the Dean

Appeals against a scholastic-offence finding go to the Senate Review Board Academic Appeals (SRBA). Its policy sets a general rule and then, immediately, an exception that swallows it for contested offences. Verbatim from §7.0:

“1) The onus is on the student to satisfy SRBA that the ruling of the Dean was unreasonable on the evidence before the Dean or, with respect to a sanction imposed for a ‘scholastic offence’, that the penalty was unreasonable. In cases with new evidence, the reasonableness standard shall be applied to the Dean’s decision after the Dean has reviewed and considered the new evidence.”

“2) Notwithstanding 7.0(1) above, in cases where a Dean made a finding that a student’s conduct amounted to a ‘scholastic offence’, and where the student denies either that the acts were committed or that the acts amounted to a ‘scholastic offence’, the onus is on the Dean to satisfy SRBA that the student committed the alleged acts and that the acts amounted to a ‘scholastic offence’.”

Read the two paragraphs in order. Ordinarily an appellant has to show a decision was unreasonable — a high bar, and one you would be carrying. But the moment you deny the conduct, paragraph 2 displaces paragraph 1 and the Dean has to make the case.

Two more provisions make that real rather than notional.

You get a hearing:

“1) A student has the right to an oral hearing before SRBA if the appeal is against a finding that the student’s conduct amounted to a ‘scholastic offence’.”

And the other side goes first:

“9.2 Order of Proceedings – Scholastic Offence Appeals — Where the appeal concerns allegations of a scholastic offence that are contested by the Appellant, the order of proceedings shall be: […] In cases where the Appellant is challenging the finding of a scholastic offence, the Respondent is required to present its case first to ensure that SRBA has a full understanding of the nature and extent of the allegations against the Appellant prior to the Appellant presenting their case.”

And the consequence of failing to discharge it is spelled out:

“1) SRBA shall void the Dean’s decision if the Dean did not satisfy SRBA that the Appellant committed the alleged scholastic offence or that the act amounted to a scholastic offence.”

Why this matters if the evidence is a detector score. On a contested appeal, whatever the case rests on has to be presented by the Dean, first, in front of you, and it has to satisfy the board. You are not in the position of having to prove a negative about your own writing. That is a meaningfully better place to stand than the one most students imagine they are in.

It is worth saying plainly what that does and does not mean about detection tools. We have not measured any third-party detector and we do not assert that any of them is inaccurate. What we can say about our own: our published error rates are measured on English and German corpora, and no detector — ours included — produces proof. See how accurate AI detectors really are and, if you are in this situation now, what to do when you are accused.

If a detector score is what started this, our guide to an AI detector flagging your thesis sets out what that number does and does not establish on its own.

One deadline you cannot afford to miss. Appeals to SRBA must be made within six weeksof the date of the Dean’s decision, and “the decision of the Dean or their designate remains in full force and effect unless and until overturned or modified by SRBA”. The earlier step — a request for relief to the Dean — has its own four-week limit, described below.

A note on what we could and could not read

We owe you this before quoting anything else, because it affects how much weight to put on the absences further down.

Western’s University Secretariat publishes its academic policies as PDFs at uwo.ca/univsec/pdf/academic_policies/. From an off-campus address, that entire tree — including the directory index and the undergraduate scholastic-discipline PDF — returns HTTP 403. The error page is Western’s own:

“Error Type: 403 — You do not have access to this page. Please note, some pages are not accessible from Western Wireless or from off-campus IP ranges.”

Those documents are blocked, not absent. Western publishes them; we could not reach them from outside the network. If you are a Western student on campus, you can open them, and you should prefer the Secretariat copy to anything here.

Everything quoted on this page therefore comes from Western’s official Academic Calendar (westerncalendar.uwo.ca), category “Academic Rights and Responsibilities” — the Senate’s own publication of the same policies, and a legitimate primary source in its own right.

One consequence of using the Calendar: those policy pages carry no approval date and no named approving body on the page itself. The text refers throughout to “Senate regulations”, and the Calendar is the Senate’s publication, but we could not establish an approval date or amendment history for the Scholastic Offences policy as published there. We are not going to invent one.

What a scholastic offence is at Western

The policy is titled SCHOLASTIC OFFENCES. Its definitions section opens with the principle:

“Academic Integrity is the application of honesty, trustworthiness, fairness, respect and responsibility at all times to all academic pursuits. It applies to every member of the University Community.”

“Scholastic Offences are actions that violate academic integrity, prejudice academic standards, and/or undermine the development, delivery, assessment, and integrity of the academic pursuits of any member of the University Community. Scholastic Offences include, but are not limited to, the following:”

Two definitional details are worth pausing on. “Faculty”, for this policy, means Faculty, School or Affiliate University College — with the exception of the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies. If you are a graduate student, there is a separate Procedure for Graduate Scholastic Offences, and you should work from that one. And “Offence Record” is defined as the evidence collected during the investigation, correspondence with the student, and the decision letter — a defined object with its own confidentiality rules, covered below.

Plagiarism itself is defined by borrowing from a dictionary:

“1) Plagiarism, which may be defined as ‘The act or an instance of copying or stealing another’s words or ideas and attributing them as one’s own’. (Black’s Law Dictionary, West Group, 2024, 12th ed.)
This concept applies with equal force to all submitted work and milestones, including but not limited to drafts, proposals, assignments, laboratory work, projects, reports, diagrams, and computer projects.”

Note the second sentence: drafts and proposals count. This is not a rule that only bites on the final submission, which matters if you are working through a thesis or a long project in stages.

The remaining numbered offences cover cheating on examinations and falsifying material subject to evaluation; submitting false or fraudulent assignments, credentials, records or transcripts; false documentation including medical certificates; improperly obtaining or possessing an examination paper in advance; impersonating a candidate or availing yourself of an impersonation; intentionally interfering with anyone else’s scholastic work; resubmitting work for which credit was obtained or is being sought elsewhere without the instructor’s written approval; and — clause 9 — “aiding or abetting any such offence”.

The framing clause sets the tone, and includes a line worth reading:

“3.0 … Any form of academic dishonesty that undermines the evaluation process, also undermines the integrity of the University’s degrees. The University will take all appropriate measures to promote academic integrity and deal appropriately with scholastic offences. … In addition to any proceedings within the University, evidence of wrongdoing may result in criminal prosecution.”

And §3.1: “If a student is suspected of a scholastic offence, the University will investigate and if it is satisfied that the student has committed a scholastic offence it may impose penalties, up to and including expulsion from the University.”

Clause 10: where AI actually lives

Here is the finding that shapes everything else. The words “artificial intelligence”, “generative” and “AI” appear nowhere in the Scholastic Offences policy, and nowhere in the Academic Rights and Responsibilities category of the Calendar.

Unauthorised AI use is reached through one clause, the tenth:

“10) Any offence identified in writing in advance by Faculties or Departments, University Programs, or Affiliated University Colleges, including offences set forth in Course Outlines, as necessary to protect or promote academic integrity, or to curtail, manage, or prevent the breach of academic integrity (e.g., possession of technology during an examination).”

Western has pushed the entire AI question down to the course outline without amending the Senate definition. That has two practical consequences for you, and they point in opposite directions.

In your favour: clause 10 requires the offence to be “identified in writing in advance”. A rule invented after you submitted, or never written down anywhere, does not obviously fit. If an allegation is brought under clause 10, the first question to ask is which written document, issued before the assessment, identified this as an offence.

Against you: whatever your outline does say is a Senate offence, not a classroom preference. A sentence in a course outline banning generative AI is enforced through the same machinery as impersonating a candidate at an examination.

So: read the outline for each course, keep a copy of the version you were given, and if it is silent on AI, ask in writing before you rely on anything. If you are acknowledging a permitted use, our guide to AI disclosure statements covers what a good acknowledgement contains — but the outline’s form wins where it specifies one.

The model course-outline wording

Western’s Centre for Teaching and Learning runs a generative-AI resource hub for instructors, with pages on academic integrity and generative AI, AI-aware assessment strategies, and a model course-outline AI statement. This is guidance for staff; it carries no date and no approving body, and it is not Senate regulation. But it tells you what the sentences in your outline are likely to be drawn from. Verbatim, from the CTL’s model wording:

“GenAI tools may not be used in the completion of any work submitted for grades.”

“GenAI can be a great tool for learning but using it undiscerningly can reduce critical thinking or cause you to lose out on valuable learning experiences and the development of key skills.”

“Any use of GenAI tools in the preparation of assignments must be clearly acknowledged, including identification of the GenAI tool(s) used, an explanation of how they were used (e.g., brainstorming, outlining, drafting, editing, or summarization), and the extent to which GenAI-generated content appears in the final submission.”

“Students who are unable or unwilling to use such tools may request an alternative assignment which will allow students to meet the same learning outcomes.”

“Failure to follow the course policy regarding GenAI may constitute a breach of academic integrity and will be addressed in accordance with institutional academic misconduct policies.”

Those are alternatives offered to instructors, not a single rule — the first sentence and the third describe opposite regimes. Which one is in your outline is the question that matters.

The fourth quote deserves separate attention, and it is genuinely unusual. Western is the only institution in this series publishing a route out of mandated AI use: a student “unable or unwilling” to use the tools may request an alternative assignment meeting the same outcomes.

Be clear about what that is and is not. It is an opt-out from being required to use AI. It is not an opt-out from having your work checked — no such route is published anywhere at Western.

Note also what the third quote asks of you: the tool, how it was used, and the extent to which its output appears. That is a more demanding acknowledgement than most institutions ask for, and it is easier to write honestly if you kept notes at the time rather than reconstructing it afterwards.

Penalties and what reaches your transcript

From the Procedure for Undergraduate Scholastic Offences, §4, verbatim:

“1) A student found guilty of a scholastic offence may be subject to one or more penalties, examples of which are:
a) Reprimand.
b) Requirement that the student repeat and resubmit the assignment.
c) A failing grade in the assignment.
d) A failing grade in the course in which the offence was committed.
e) Prohibition of further registration in a course or courses.
f) Prohibition of further registration in a course or courses in the Department or Faculty in which the offence occurred.
g) Failure of the year (applies in certain professional programs).
h) Suspension from the University for up to, but not more than, three (3) academic years.
i) Expulsion from the University.
This is a non-exhaustive list.
In determining what penalties are warranted in a given case, previous offences within the Faculty, the gravity of the offence, and the need to ensure consistency in standards of discipline across a Faculty will be relevant considerations for a Dean. A Home Dean also will take into account an existing Offence Record.”

Suspension is capped at three academic years. Note that degree revocation is not among the listed penalties — though the list is expressly non-exhaustive, so we will not tell you it is impossible.

The transcript rule, verbatim:

“2) A notation of the scholastic offence (e.g., ‘Scholastic Offence recorded in...’) may be placed on a student’s internal, electronic record for the penalties (1)(d), (e), (f), and (g) at the discretion of the Dean of the Faculty imposing the penalty. Upon successful completion of the student’s program, the student may request that the notation be removed. The Dean, after consulting with the relevant Chair in the case of a departmentalized Faculty, will decide whether to grant the request. A notation on the official transcript* is recorded for penalties (1)(h) and (i).”

The asterisk is in the original and points to a footnote directing you to the Senate regulation on removal of suspension and expulsion notations, under the Academic Records and Student Transcripts policy.

So, in plain terms:

• Failing grades and registration prohibitions — penalties (d) through (g) — go on the internalelectronic record, at the Dean’s discretion, and you may ask for removal once you complete your programme.
• Suspension and expulsion — penalties (h) and (i) — are recorded on the official transcript.

There is also a division of authority worth knowing: penalty (1)(f) can be imposed only by the Dean of the Course Faculty, and penalties (1)(g), (h) and (i) only by the Dean of the Home Faculty. If a penalty was imposed by the wrong Dean, that is a procedural point.

The route: instructor, Chair, Dean, SRBA

Verbatim, from the Procedure for Undergraduate Scholastic Offences:

“In most cases, evidence of a possible scholastic offence in a course will have been discovered by, or brought to the attention of, the course instructor. In these situations, the instructor will meet with the student if practicable and appropriate. In all other cases the allegation will be reviewed by the appropriate University official.
The instructor (or other University official) will notify the Department Chair (‘Chair’) in Faculties with department structures, or, in Faculties without department structure, the Dean of the Faculty, if they decide that there is evidence of a scholastic offence.”

That first meeting is where most cases are actually decided, and it is where your own record of working is worth more than any argument about software. Drafts, dated version history, notes, the messy earlier paragraphs — see how to prove you wrote it yourself. If you write in English as a second language, it is also worth understanding why detectors and non-native writing interact badly, because that is a point you may need to make in your own words.

Then the Chair decides, and a clock starts:

“i. If the Chair decides that the student has committed a scholastic offence, they will determine the appropriate penalties in consultation with the instructor. [The decision letter] will advise the student of their right to file a request for relief from this decision to the Course Dean within four (4) weeks…”

“Requests for relief to a Dean must be submitted in writing within four (4) weeks of a decision being issued. … A student may request that the Chair’s finding that a scholastic offence occurred, and/or the penalties imposed, be set aside or adjusted.”

You can ask for the finding to be set aside, the penalties adjusted, or both. After the Dean’s decision, the six-week SRBA window opens — and that is where the onus reverses.

The offence record and who may see it

Western is unusually explicit about confidentiality here, and two clauses are worth knowing by heart if you are ever accused.

“6.0 OFFENCE RECORD — The offence record will be held in the Dean’s Office of the student’s Home Faculty and will be kept separate from the student’s academic advising file. If a student is subsequently found not to have committed the offence in question, the record of that charge will be destroyed in accordance with Western’s Records Retention and Disposal Schedules.
Apart from the student, no one outside the Dean’s Office shall have access to an offence record, except in the event of an appeal by the student to SRBA against the decision or the penalty (or penalties) imposed.”

“3.2 Student Release of Information Concerning Scholastic Offences — Any letters informing a student that they have been found to have committed a scholastic offence, and the penalty or penalties imposed, are confidential documents. Copies will be sent only to the student, Department Chair, and Dean or Vice-Provost.”

A cleared allegation is destroyed, not filed. And the circulation list for a finding is short and named. If you are worried about a supervisor, a future employer or a scholarship committee learning about an allegation, those two clauses are the published answer.

Western’s Official Student Record Information Privacy Policy, in the same Calendar category, confirms the boundary from the other side:

“Access to and disclosure of any information relating to a scholastic offence that is not recorded on a student’s transcript, such as a decision letter, is governed by Senate regulations and not this policy (see the policy on Scholastic Offences).”

That same privacy policy contains the only published framework that would cover a third-party text-matching vendor:

“(i) Agents of the University — The University may contract with external agents for the provision of goods or services… As part of the arrangements between the University and the agent, there may be a requirement to disclose certain student information to the agent. However, any such disclosure will be governed by a confidentiality agreement between the University and the agent that specifies the purpose(s) of the disclosure and the University’s expectations with respect to confidentiality.”

It is a confidentiality guarantee, not a location guarantee. No data-residency statement is published — nothing about where student work sent to an external service is stored or processed.

What Western does not publish

These are absences from the sources we could read. Given the 403 described above, treat them as “not found in the accessible record”, not as proof that nothing exists anywhere.

• Any named similarity or text-matching product.Not named in the Calendar. Searching the Academic Rights and Responsibilities category for “Turnitin”, “textual similarity”, “similarity” and “detection” returns nothing at all. Western’s once-standard course-outline sentence about “textual similarity review to the commercial plagiarism detection software under license to the University” is not present in the current Calendar text we retrieved. That is an absence from one document. We are not going to tell you it means Western stopped using such software; it means the Calendar does not say so.
• Whether an AI-writing detector is enabled anywhere. No published position, in the Calendar or on the Centre for Teaching and Learning’s generative-AI pages — none of which mentions detection tools.
• Any opt-out from detection. The AI-use opt-out in the model outline wording is a different thing, as set out above.
• Any data-residency statement. The “agents of the University” clause is the whole published framework.
• Any student self-check route. Not documented.
• An approval date or approving body for the Scholastic Offences policy as published in the Calendar.

One absence is different from the others, because Western has promised the thing and we simply could not get to it:

“7.1 Report to Senate — Each Faculty shall submit to the Vice-Provost (Academic Programs) an annual summary of scholastic offences committed by students registered in the Faculty. The summary will set out the nature of the offence and the penalties, with students’ names removed. The Vice-Provost (Academic Programs) will compile the information, by Faculty, and report annually to Senate for information.”

The duty to report is published; the counts are not reachable. Senate agenda papers live in exactly the Secretariat area that returns 403 from off campus. So we quote no Western case numbers on this page. From campus, or through the Secretariat, they may well be available to you.

Before you submit

• Find the AI sentence in your course outline and keep it. Clause 10 makes it a Senate offence, and it must have been identified in writing in advance.
• If the outline is silent, ask by email. Written permission is the whole defence under a clause that turns on what was written down.
• Keep drafts and dated version history for every stage. The plagiarism definition reaches drafts and proposals, so your record should too.
• Graduate students: use the graduate procedure. The Scholastic Offences definition of “Faculty” expressly excludes the School of Graduate and Postdoctoral Studies.
• Diarise the two deadlines.Four weeks to request relief from a Chair’s decision to the Dean; six weeks from the Dean’s decision to appeal to SRBA.
• If you deny it, say so clearly and in writing. The onus reversal in SRBA §7.0(2) is triggered by the student denying the acts or denying that they amounted to an offence.

If you want a read on your own text before you hand it in, our AI check is free up to 1,500 words, with no account and no name.

Sources

All Western policy quotations below are from the official Academic Calendar, category “Academic Rights and Responsibilities”. The University Secretariat’s PDF copies of the same policies were unreachable from off campus (HTTP 403) — blocked, not absent.

• Western University: Academic Calendar — Academic Rights and Responsibilities — contains SCHOLASTIC OFFENCES, the Procedure for Undergraduate Scholastic Offences, the Senate Review Board Academic Appeals policy and the Official Student Record Information Privacy Policy. No approval date or approving body is stated on the policy pages themselves.
• Western University Centre for Teaching and Learning: Generative AI resource hub — CTL guidance, not Senate regulation; no date or approving body on the pages.
• Western University Centre for Teaching and Learning: Course Outline AI Statement — the model wording quoted above.
• Western University Centre for Teaching and Learning: Academic Integrity and Generative AI.

This page is orientation, not legal advice. What binds you is your course outline and Western’s Senate policies on Scholastic Offences, together with the Procedure for Undergraduate or Graduate Scholastic Offences and the Senate Review Board Academic Appeals policy — and where the exact wording matters, the University Secretariat’s own copies.