The University of Manitoba (the “University”) unsuccessfully brought a motion seeking summary dismissal of an action commenced by a former dentistry student (“Hozaima”) on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdiction or that the claim represented an abuse of process. The motion was dismissed.

23. September 2008 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Assessment of grades – Evaluation – Educational malpractice – Abuse of process – test – Jurisdiction Hozaima v. Perry, [2008] M.J. No. 268, Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, July 10, 2008, M.M. Monnin C.J.Q.B. Hozaima was a dentistry student at the University and was forced to resign from ...

The Court granted the defendant university association’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff university professor’s action against it on the ground that the matter fell into the exclusive jurisdiction of the Manitoba Labour Board. The plaintiff’s action alleged that the UWFA failed to fairly represent him when it agreed to mandatory retirement provisions in the relevant collective agreement. The Labour Relations Act provides a procedure for adjudicating the plaintiff’s complaint. In addition, the dispute involved the negotiation of the collective agreement, which falls within the ambit of the legislation regarding UWFA’s duty of fair representation. Therefore, the exclusive jurisdiction to hear this matter rested with the Board and not with the Court.

22. July 2008 0
Administrative law – Universities – Discrimination – Labour law – Collective agreements – Mandatory retirement Tomchuk v. University of Winnipeg Faculty Assn., [2008] M.J. No. 229. Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench, June 5, 2008, H.C. Beard J. The applicant was the defendant University of Winnipeg Faculty Association (the “UWFA”) in an action brought against it ...

The University applied for judicial review of an interim award of an arbitration panel which had found that a grievance brought by the Respondent, a medical resident, was arbitrable pursuant to the collective bargaining agreement. The University challenged the jurisdiction of the arbitration panel on the ground that the issue was academic in nature and thus not arbitrable. The application was dismissed.

27. May 2008 0
Administrative law – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Arbitration Board – Universities – Student discipline – Medical residents – Harassment – Judicial review – Labour law – Collective agreements – Arbitration – Jurisdiction of labour arbitrator to hear disciplinary grievances University of Saskatchewan v. Wilde, [2007] S.J. No. 736, Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench, October ...

A college is not required to refund tuition fees and interest paid on a student’s student loans if the student is expelled for cheating, if there is no evidence of an oblique motive on behalf of the College, if there is express forewarning of the consequences of cheating, and if the student fails to make written submissions within a reasonable amount of time after being invited to do so

27. November 2007 0
Administrative law – Universities – Student discipline – Expulsion – Judicial review – Bias – Natural justice – Procedural requirements and fairness Lisyikh v. Canadian Law Enforcement Training College, [2007] O.J. No. 3621, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, September 24, 2007, W. Low J. The Plaintiff enrolled in a ten-month course of the Defendant College ...

The application of the Association and Graduate Students’ Union (the “Association”) for relief in relation to the Governing Council’s decision to increase a compulsory student fee was dismissed where the Court found that the process involved in approving the fees reflected the hallmarks of a fair process

23. October 2007 0
Administrative law – Universities – Governance – Fees – Judicial review – Procedural requirements and fairness – Evidence Assn. of Part-Time Undergraduate Students of the University of Toronto v. University of Toronto, [2007] O.J. No. 3231, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, August 28, 2007, B.A. Allen J. At the University of Toronto, a process had ...

The University of British Columbia Faculty Association (the “Association”) brought a grievance on behalf of a faculty member after the President of the University of British Columbia (“UBC”) decided not to recommend the member for promotion. The President gave the small number of publications in peer-reviewed journals as the justification for the negative decision. The matter went to arbitration, where the President’s decision was found to be unreasonable. The arbitrator held that the President failed to consider the quality of the faculty member’s innovative professional work and how his work was regarded by his peers. Under the collective agreement (Article 13.07(c)) between Association and UBC, when such a decision is found to be unreasonable, the Board shall “reverse” the decision. The arbitrator interpreted the word “reverse” to mean “revoke” or “annul”, and declined to remit the matter back to the President for reconsideration. The arbitrator substituted a decision to recommend the faculty member for promotion for the President’s decision.

26. June 2007 0
Administrative law – Universities – Evaluation of professors – Labour law – Arbitration – Collective agreements – Jurisdiction – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Interpretation of legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness – Correctness – Charter of Rights and Freedoms – Freedom of expression University of British Columbia v. University of British Columbia Faculty ...

The University of Saskatchewan (the “University”) applied for judicial review of a decision of the Visitor of the University directing that the Respondent, Dr. Pearlman, be permitted to continue his residency at the College. The Court of Appeal allowed the application and remitted the matter back to the Visitor for further consideration. The Court held that the standard of review in this case was patent unreasonableness. Although the Court held that the Visitor had broad remedial powers to investigate the matter, the Court overturned its decision, as it did not comply with the Labour Standards Act.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Physicians and surgeons – Competence – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Universities – Evaluation of residents – Labour law – Working conditions – Judicial review – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Pearlman v. University of Saskatchewan, [2006] S.J. No. 618, Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, September 27, 2006, Cameron, Lane and ...

The Petitioner sought an order quashing a decision of the Respondent, the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal (“BCHRT”), dismissing her human rights complaint against the Respondent, the University of Victoria (the “University”). The Court held that the appropriate standard of review is patent unreasonableness. The Court concluded that the Petitioner failed to establish a basis for quashing the BCHRT decision, and dismissed the application.

28. November 2006 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Duty to accommodate – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Human Rights Tribunal – Human rights complaints – Discrimination – Disability – Judicial review – Limitations – Compliance with legislation – Standard of review – Patent unreasonableness Callaghan v. University of Victoria, [2006] B.C.J. No. 2668, British Columbia Supreme Court, October 11, ...

A University of British Columbia (“UBC”) student who had been assigned a failing grade for his Bachelor of Education practicum course (“Mohl”) was partly successful in appealing from a decision in Chambers that his action against UBC was an abuse of process because it raised claims that had already been decided against Mohl in an earlier judicial review proceeding

28. March 2006 0
Administrative law – Universities – Students – Assessment of grades – Estoppel and res judicata – Decisions of administrative tribunals – Abuse of process – Judicial review – Appeals Mohl v. University of British Columbia, [2006] B.C.J. No 335, British Columbia Court of Appeal, February 17, 2006, Low, Smith and Thackray JJ.A. Mohl was assigned a failing ...

The court dismissed a motion to quash an application for judicial review on the basis that the Applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a full hearing before a panel of the University Discipline Tribunal. The court allowed the Applicant’s cross-motion to stay the hearing of the Discipline Tribunal pending the resolution of the application for judicial review.

28. September 2004 0
Administrative law – Universities – Student discipline – Remedies – Alternative remedies – Judicial review application – Striking out – Bias – Jurisdiction – Stay of proceedings Freeman-Maloy v. York University, [2004] O.J. No. 3123, Ontario Superior Court of Justice, July 20, 2004, Epstein J. The Applicant was a student activist at York University who had engaged ...