Executive Summary: Key Legal and Evidentiary Issues

• Judicial review examined whether the University’s Hearing Board reasonably applied the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy in finding plagiarism and misrepresentation.
• The court found the Board failed to identify specific copied or false passages and did not tie its factual findings to the Policy definitions.
• Complaints of procedural unfairness (evidence exclusion, rebuttal, limits on evidence about the complainant) were rejected in light of the Board’s broad procedural discretion.
• Judicial review was confined largely to the certified record; much of the applicant’s affidavit was disregarded as improper supplementation.
• The decision was quashed for inadequate, non-transparent reasoning, not because the court re-weighed evidence.
• Costs were awarded to the successful applicant, to be taxed under Column 3, with no fixed amount stated.

Facts of the case

Dr. Cari McIlduff was a post-doctoral researcher in the University of Saskatchewan’s “Cultural Safety Lab,” associated with Morning Star Lodge and focused on Indigenous, community-based health research. In 2018–2019, her colleague, Dr. Danette Starblanket, led a funded project on how access to technology affected health and wellness for older Indigenous people with dementia, producing grant applications, abstracts, reports, a poster and a publication.

After joining the lab in 2020, Dr. McIlduff prepared a post-doctoral paper and a funding application. In early 2022, she shared a draft paper with Dr. Starblanket for feedback. The complainant later asserted that the paper and funding application reused significant parts of her 2018–2019 work—concepts, theory and methodology—with only modest changes in focus (e.g., urban versus rural, dementia-specific versus general health). On September 6, 2022, she filed a formal complaint under the University’s Responsible Conduct of Research Policy alleging plagiarism and misrepresentation in a funding application, supporting it with highlighted copies of both her documents and the respondent’s.

Policy framework

Under The University of Saskatchewan Act, 1995, the University Council approved the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy in 2021. Its purpose is to set research conduct standards and procedures for addressing alleged breaches.

Two defined breaches were central:
• Plagiarism: presenting and using another’s published or unpublished work (including theories, concepts, data and methodologies) as one’s own, without appropriate referencing and, where required, without permission.
• Misrepresentation in a funding application or related document: providing incomplete, inaccurate or false information in such applications or related documents.

Companion Procedures define an “Inquiry” (screening the allegation) and an “Investigation” (full hearing before a Hearing Board). The Hearing Board, a committee of University Council, examines the allegation, gathers and assesses evidence, decides whether a breach occurred (and its seriousness) and makes recommendations. It is not bound by strict rules of evidence but must act fairly: presuming innocence until a breach is proven on a balance of probabilities, giving notice of allegations and evidence and allowing a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The Procedures recommend that the Board’s written report set out the allegation, membership, each party’s position and evidence, the determination on breach, seriousness and any recommendations. They also provide a narrow appeal to an Appeal Board (on jurisdiction, bias, fundamental procedural error or new evidence), with the University Secretary screening appeals for validity.

The hearing and the Hearing Board’s findings

After the complaint passed the inquiry stage, it went to a Hearing Board. The chair advised the parties of procedures and deadlines for materials. A hearing was held on January 27, 2023; written reasons issued around March 8, 2023.

Dr. Starblanket described her role, her 2018–2019 dementia/technology project and the lab’s mentoring environment. She claimed that Dr. McIlduff’s paper and funding application copied or closely reworked her earlier text, concepts and methodology without sufficiently specific attribution. She provided highlighted documents as illustrations and recounted attempts to raise the issue by email and via a meeting with department head Dr. Anne Leis.

Dr. McIlduff acknowledged the lab’s collective work and expressed regret about any perceived lack of response, explaining she was on medical leave when contacted. She argued that both projects were part of a shared lab research program, that she cited earlier work (including the complainant’s) and that drafts were circulated for comment without objection. She stressed the lab’s distinctive, community-owned research culture. Supporting witnesses—Dr. Leis and Traditional Knowledge Keeper Karen LaRocque—described the research as a collective effort centered on Indigenous community partners.

The Hearing Board accepted that the lab had a collaborative ethos but emphasized that academic conventions still require proper attribution in publications and funding applications. It concluded that Dr. McIlduff had not exercised sufficient care in her paper and funding application to identify specific language, concepts or methodologies drawn from the complainant’s work. The Board found that she breached the Policy by plagiarism and misrepresentation, while also stating there was no intent to deceive and attributing the problem to blurred lines between collaborative practice and individual authorship norms.

The Board recommended:
• Requesting that Healthcare Management Forum publish a corrigendum clarifying which parts of the paper drew on the complainant’s work and recognizing other contributors.
• Developing, at Morning Star Lodge, a protocol on attribution and authorship for future dissemination.

Internal appeal

Dr. McIlduff sought an internal appeal, alleging reasonable apprehension of bias, fundamental procedural errors and new evidence that could not reasonably have been presented earlier and would likely have affected the result. Under the Procedures, the University Secretary reviewed the record and concluded none of the appeal grounds met the policy’s validity criteria, dismissing the appeal without referring it to an Appeal Board.

Judicial review: evidentiary limits and fairness

Dr. McIlduff applied to the King’s Bench for Saskatchewan for judicial review of both the Hearing Board’s decision and the Secretary’s screening dismissal. She alleged breaches of procedural fairness and unreasonableness.

She filed an affidavit with exhibits, partly duplicating the certified record and partly adding new material. The Court reaffirmed that judicial review is generally confined to the certified record, with narrow exceptions (background, unrecorded procedural defects, complete absence of evidence for a crucial finding or clarification of the record). Most of the affidavit, which effectively revisited the merits or added material that could have been presented earlier, was disregarded.

On procedural fairness, the Court applied the Baker factors. It grouped the complaints into: exclusion of some of the applicant’s evidence (support letters and potential community input), allowing the complainant rebuttal time and limits on evidence about the complainant, including post-hearing comments. Given the Board’s explicit authority under the Procedures to control what evidence it heard and how the hearing ran, and the modest probative value of the excluded support letters, the Court found no unfairness. There was no indication the Board relied on any new rebuttal evidence, and post-hearing comments by the complainant had no bearing on whether the hearing or appeal screening were fair. The Court held that procedural fairness was respected.

Judicial review: reasonableness of the decision

On substance, both sides agreed the standard of review was reasonableness under Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov. A reasonable decision must show a coherent, rational chain of analysis and be justified in light of the governing law and evidence.

The Responsible Conduct of Research Policy’s definitions made clear that plagiarism required showing that another’s work was used and presented as the respondent’s own, without proper referencing or required permission. Misrepresentation required identifying incomplete, inaccurate or false information in a funding application or related document. The Procedures also created an expectation that the Board’s report would state whether a breach occurred and, effectively, explain why.

The Court accepted that the Board had expertise and all relevant documents, but held this did not relieve it of the duty to explain its reasoning. The Board’s reasons did not identify specific passages or statements found plagiarized or misrepresented, did not analyze whether permission was required or implied in the lab’s collaborative setting and did not specify what, if anything, in the funding application was incomplete, inaccurate or false. Instead, it relied on broad statements about pervasive failures of attribution and insufficient care.

Because the reasons did not clearly connect particular evidence to the defined elements of plagiarism and misrepresentation, the Court held that they lacked the justification, transparency and intelligibility required by Vavilov. This was a central flaw in the reasoning, not a minor drafting defect, and rendered the decision unreasonable.

Outcome and monetary orders

The King’s Bench allowed the application for judicial review. It set aside the Hearing Board’s decision that Dr. Cari McIlduff had breached the Responsible Conduct of Research Policy by plagiarism and misrepresentation. The Court ordered that, if the University pursues the complaint further, any new hearing must be conducted by a differently constituted Hearing Board.

Dr. McIlduff was the successful party and was awarded her costs against the University, to be taxed under Column 3 of the Tariff of Costs. No damages were awarded, and the judgment did not specify a dollar figure for costs; because the exact amount depends on a later taxation process, the total monetary sum ordered in her favour cannot be determined from the decision itself.