University of Toronto Plagiarism and AI Policy
Last verified October 24, 2026 · AI-assisted research and drafting · Maintained by Plagiarism Checker Online, operated by Markus Nick
The short answer: According to the published guidance checked October 24, 2026: UTM's academic-integrity guidance describes UofT's position as no generative-AI use in a course unless the instructor explicitly permits it. Permission can differ between courses and assessments, and additional citation or prompt/output documentation may be required. Check the actual syllabus and each assignment; this source is UTM student guidance, not a new university-wide AI statute.
Key facts, with sources
| Topic | What the school publishes | Source |
|---|---|---|
| School | Public university in Toronto; no US two/four-year classification assigned. | Source |
| Official policy | Academic integrity policy | Source |
| Plagiarism definition | The code defines plagiarism as passing off someone else's work or idea as one's own and says it is not confined to essays. Instructors should clarify what constitutes plagiarism within their discipline. | Source |
| Generative AI | Restricted by default. UTM's academic-integrity guidance describes UofT's position as no generative-AI use in a course unless the instructor explicitly permits it. Permission can differ between courses and assessments, and additional citation or prompt/output documentation may be required. Check the actual syllabus and each assignment; this source is UTM student guidance, not a new university-wide AI statute. | Source |
| Sanctions | Published options, not a mandatory sequence or an individual outcome; see the linked policy. | Source |
| Writing center | Writing at the University of Toronto | Source |
| Appeals | For an eligible appeal from a University Tribunal trial decision, a notice stating relief and grounds is filed with the Secretary. Conviction appeals are not on a question of fact alone; trial sanctions may also be appealed. The Senior Chair or delegate can extend time exceptionally. Do not apply this Tribunal route automatically to every divisional decision. Deadline stated: within21 calendar days after giving notice of the Tribunal decision, subject to exceptional extension. | Source |
| Policy effective | July 1, 2025 | Source |
| Earlier coursework | Academic work already submitted, or currently in submission elsewhere in the university or another institution, requires the receiving instructor's knowledge and approval before it is submitted again. | Source |
| Resolution routes | For an assignment worth15% or less of the final grade, the department chair may handle a matter where the student admits or is deemed to admit guilt and the penalty is no more than zero for the work. Otherwise, or at the chair's choice, it goes to the dean. This threshold does not mean a minor-weight assignment is exempt from academic-integrity rules. | Source |
| Summary scope | Independent AI-assisted summary of the Toronto code effective July1,2025, UTM's AI student guidance and the university writing portal, not affiliated with UofT. Divisional sanctions and Tribunal appeal rules are separated. Ontario's public-university listing supplies identity; no US IPEDS, enrollment or two/four-year classification invented. | Source |
Published outcomes and review levels
These are the published options or review limits below, not a predicted outcome or an automatic sequence. Follow the linked policy for the applicable process.
- Divisional sanctions for an admitted offense. Where the student admits an offense, the code permits a dean to impose one or more listed sanctions, including reprimands, work or course grade consequences, privilege restrictions and suspension within stated authority. Some resubmission options are limited to minor first offenses and require instructor permission. This is not a compulsory sequence or the Tribunal's complete sanction framework.
What students at University of Toronto should know
Toronto's current Code of Behaviour on Academic Matters took effect July 1, 2025. Its procedures distinguish divisional handling from a University Tribunal case, so the decision-maker and stage matter when reading a notice. For example, the department-chair route for an assignment worth fifteen percent or less has additional conditions about admission and the maximum penalty; the percentage is not an exemption from the code. The dean's listed divisional sanctions are also conditional options, not a required warning-first sequence. The Tribunal appeal provision uses twenty-one calendar days after notice of the Tribunal decision and allows exceptional extensions. It should not be presented as a deadline for every possible faculty or divisional process. Before reusing work, the code requires the knowledge and approval of the instructor receiving it, including work submitted or in submission at another institution. UTM's student AI guidance separately describes explicit instructor permission as necessary for course use. It warns that permissions may differ between an instructor's courses and between assessments in one course. Check the assignment as well as the syllabus, including any requirements for citations, prompts or outputs; a paraphrasing or AI-writing feature is not automatically outside the rule. This page labels that AI source as UTM guidance rather than pretending it is the full text of a separate central AI policy. For writing support, the university portal links to services organized by campus and program.
Frequently asked questions
The current code specifies twenty-one calendar days after notice of the Tribunal decision for an eligible appeal to the Discipline Appeals Board. The Senior Chair or delegate may extend time exceptionally. This is the Tribunal appeal provision, not a blanket deadline for all divisional processes.
No. The percentage appears in a conditional department-chair handling provision, which also requires admission or deemed admission and limits the penalty to at most zero for the work. If those conditions do not apply, or the chair chooses, the matter goes to the dean.
The code requires the knowledge and approval of the instructor receiving previously submitted work or work currently in submission elsewhere. That includes other institutions; being the original author does not establish permission to submit it again.
Every row links to its source. Independent summary, not affiliated with University of Toronto. Found a mistake? Report a correction.
To go further, continue with our guide to university AI policies.
Students often ask about this too, so we wrote what to do if you are accused of using AI.
Test your own text
A report can support your own review; it does not establish permission or decide academic misconduct. From $0.29 per page, minimum order $0.90.
Start AI check