By enrolling in a university, students become subject to the institution’s discretion in resolving academic matters. Courts will only interfere in the core academic functions of universities in cases of “manifest unfairness”. Based on these principles, the Court denied an application on judicial review to set aside a decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of the University of Alberta, which upheld the Residency Program Committee’s requirement that a postgraduate medical student in cardiac surgery enter a six-month remediation period prior to entering her fourth year of residency. Given that the resident’s right to continue her profession and employment was not at stake, she had no right to call or cross-examine witnesses in the academic proceedings.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Medical residents – Evaluation of residents – Physicians and Surgeons – Training requirements – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Bias – Witnesses Alsaigh v. University of Ottawa, [2012] O.J. No. 2027, 2012 ONSC 2313, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, ...

The Court of Appeal dismissed the University of Calgary’s appeal from a judicial review decision quashing disciplinary findings and sanctions against students found by the University to have conducted non-academic misconduct by posting comments about their professor on a Facebook wall. While the Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the Chambers judge’s decision to quash the Review Committee’s decision, the Court issued three separate concurring judgments, with the lead judgment revisiting the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1990 decision in McKinney v. University of Guelph, [1990] 3 SCR 229, and concluding that McKinney does not always preclude the application of the Charter to universities. In this circumstance, the lead judgment found that the Charter applied to university discipline and the students’ rights had been breached. The other two concurring judgments found it unnecessary to analyze the applicability of the Charter.

26. June 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Internet – Social media – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Correctness – Reasonableness ...

The decision of the Senate to suspend a university student for misconduct was set aside for lack of procedural fairness and an order was made to implement the Senate Committee’s recommendation allowing the student’s appeal

22. May 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Investigations – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Dunne v. Memorial University of Newfoundland, [2012] N.J. No. 89, Newfoundland and Labrador Supreme Court, March 8, 2012, A.E. Faour J. Dunne, a student at ...

The duty of fairness dictates that a decision maker cannot be involved in every level of an applicant’s proceedings. Such involvement creates a reasonable apprehension of bias. This can apply even if the ultimate issue becomes moot.

28. February 2012 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Judicial review – Bias – Mootness – Procedural requirements and fairness – Natural justice Said v. University of Ottawa, [2011] O.J. No. 6043, 2011 ONSC 6179, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Divisional Court, December 30, 2011, J.D. Cunningham ...

A professor’s application for judicial review of university’s decision to waive academic requirements for a disabled student was denied on the ground that the professor did not have public or private interest in the matter

27. September 2011 0
Administrataive law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Students – Duty to accommodate – Assessment of grades – review – Parties – Standing – Jurisdiction Lukacs v. Doering, 2011 MBQB 203, [2011] M.J. No. 264, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, August 25, 2011, D.J. McCawley J. The University of Manitoba ...

A medical student was unsuccesful in his application for the prerogative writ of certiorari as it is only available to a student who has been denied natural justice in the course of academic examinations

22. March 2011 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Rules and by-laws – Universities – Students – Assessment of grades – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Remedies – Certiorari Sahi v. University of Saskatchewan, [2011] S.J. No. 59, 2011 SKQB 49, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, January 28, ...

Two students successfully sought judicial review for a decision made by the University of Calgary’s General Faculties Council Review Committee (“Review Committee”) that placed the applicants, twin brothers and undergraduate students at the University of Calgary (the “University”), on probation for non-academic misconduct for posting negative comments on Facebook about a professor. The Court found that the applicants s. 2(b) Charter rights to free expression were infringed by the decision and not justified under s. 1 of the Charter. The Court further found that the Review Committee’s reasons were inadequate as they did not disclose the rational for its decision but simply stated a conclusion.

23. November 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – University Committees – Universities – Student discipline – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression – Internet – Social media – Judicial review – Failure to provide reasons Pridgen v. University of Calgary, [2010] A.J. No. 1181, 2010 ABQB 644, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, ...

The applicant suffers from a learning disability and alleged that Mount Saint Vincent University failed to provide her with adequate accommodations during an examination. The Human Rights Commission declined to refer the case to the Board of Inquiry and terminated the complaint. The application for judicial review was dismissed.

24. August 2010 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Commission – Human rights complaints – Disability – Duty to accommodate – Students with special educational needs – Universities – Students – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Failure to provide reasons Green v. Nova Scotia (Human Rights Commission), [2010] N.S.J. No. 350, ...

The Applicant University (the “University”) sought a judicial review of a human rights panel decision not to add the Canadian Union of Public Employees, Local 1870 (the “Union”) as a Respondent to certain complaint proceedings. The University’s application was granted and the human rights panel was directed to add the Union as a party.

24. March 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory retirement – Universities – Judicial review – Parties – Standard of review – Correctness – Practice and procedure – Adding parties – test University of Prince Edward Island v. Nilsson, [2009] ...

The appeal by the University of Saskatchewan (the “University”) from an interim arbitration award was allowed where the court found that the probation imposed on a medical resident by the College of Medicine following harassment complaints was academic in nature and not subject to the grievance procedure

24. February 2009 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – College of Medicine – Universities – Medical residents – Student discipline – Harassment – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Judicial review – Jurisdiction – Procedural requirements and fairness – Standard of review – Correctness University of Saskatchewan v. Wilde, [2008] S.J. No. 814, Saskatchewan ...