Internal Process - Trial vs Judical Review
[[Category: [[Category:
| Caselaw.Ninja, Riverview Group Publishing 2021 © | |
|---|---|
| Date Retrieved: | 2024-11-23 |
| CLNP Page ID: | 2179 |
| Page Categories: | |
| Citation: | Internal Process - Trial vs Judical Review, CLNP 2179, <>, retrieved on 2024-11-23 |
| Editor: | MKent |
| Last Updated: | 2023/03/21 |
Need Legal Help?
Call (888) 655-1076
Join our ranks and become a Ninja Initiate today
Lam v. University of Western Ontario, 2019 ONCA 82 (CanLII)[1]
[29] In my view, the result in this case is controlled by this court's decisions in Gauthier and Jaffer. In both of those cases, which involved claims of breach of contract by students against universities, this court held that if a plaintiff alleges the constituent elements of a cause of action based in tort or breach of contract, while claiming damages, the court will have jurisdiction even if the dispute stems from the scholastic or academic activities of the university in question. The question to be addressed was therefore whether the factual issues the motion judge found to exist could, if resolved in the appellant's favour at trial, make out a cause of action for breach of contract. Because they could, the University's motion ought to have been dismissed.
(...)
[31] Although the motion judge referred to Gauthier and Jaffer, properly understood they do not support and in fact contradict [page595] his approach.[2][3] The following propositions from those cases demonstrate this:
- (a) The relationship between a student and a university has a contractual foundation, giving rise to duties in contract and tort: Jaffer,at para. 30. This is important here because one of the causes of action asserted by the appellant is breach of contract. The terms of the contract and the organizing principles of contract law are important to determine whether a breach of contract by the University (a legal cause of action) would be made out if the facts determined at trial favoured the appellant. The motion judge did not analyze this.
- (b) A student who enrolls at a university agrees to be subject to the institution's discretion in resolving academic matters, including the assessment of the quality of the student's work and the organization and implementation of university programs: Gauthier, at para. 47; and Jaffer, at para. 27. The motion judge referred to this, but not in the proper context. Given the contractual basis of the relationship between student and university, this proposition is best understood as an implied term of the contract between student and university. The implied term is relevant because it goes to whether what the appellant complains of is a breach of contract, that is, whether there is a viable cause of action because the impugned conduct falls outside the broad discretion of the University. As with any implied term, it must be considered in light of the contract's express terms and the legal obligations any contract entails. The motion judge failed to consider the matter this way.
- (c) It is not accurate to say the court is without jurisdiction to deal with a claim for breach of contract or tort because it arises out of a dispute of an academic nature. It is the remedy sought that is indicative of jurisdiction. Where the claim by the student is for damages for a breach of contract or tort, jurisdiction exists to deal with the claim "even if the dispute arises out of an academic matter" (emphasis added): Jaffer, at para. 26. This is in contradistinction to a claim to reverse an internal academic decision, which would be pursued by judicial review: Gauthier, atpara. 46; and Jaffer, at para. 26. The motion judge failed to approach the matter this way. He did not treat the remedy sought as indicative of the court's jurisdiction even though damages, not reversal of an academic decision, were sought. And without considering whether the facts that might be found at trial would show [page596] a breach of contract, he examined whether the dispute arose out of an academic matter and concluded the court could and should not deal with it.
- (d) A claim by a student against a university will fail if it is an indirect attempt to appeal an academic decision for which judicial review would be the remedy, or if insufficient detail is given in the pleadings to show that the university's actions go beyond the broad discretion it enjoys:/ Gauthier, at para. 50; and Jaffer, at para. 28. These points do not invite a court to decline to entertain a legal claim for damages for breach of contract in favour of an internal university complaint process. Rather, they flow from the points above. A claim that does not allege conduct outside of the university's broad discretion does not allege a breach of contract. It alleges conduct the university may engage in without breaching its contract, because it has been given a discretion by the agreement between the parties to act as it has. A claim that is an indirect appeal of an academic decision suffers the same fate. It is not really a claim that the university breached its agreement, but rather a claim that it should have exercised its discretion differently.
