|
JR - Academic. Tefera v. University of Ottawa
In Tefera v. University of Ottawa (Ont Div Ct, 2026) the Ontario Divisional Court considered an academic JR, with it's high 'deference' (the case is also illustrative of typical internal university administrative processes):[10] The court has historically been reluctant to intervene in academic decisions made by universities. This restraint takes on particular importance where the decision at issue relates to the academic standing of a doctoral candidate who is being evaluated by subject matter experts: Dawson v. University of Toronto, (2007)¸O.J. No. 591, at para. 18, aff’d 2007 ONCA 875; Sardar v. University of Ottawa, 2014 ONSC 3562, at paras. 20-23. The court’s deference to the university’s specialized expertise extends to the process employed by the university. In Sardar, at para. 20, this court said:Decisions of university bodies such as the SAC deserve a high degree of deference and should only be interfered with in cases of manifest unfairness, where there has been a flagrant violation of the rules of natural justice. . Ilic v. Canadore College
In Ilic v. Canadore College (Ont Div Ct, 2025) the Ontario Divisional Court dismissed a JR, here against a college's decision "refusing to allow Mr. Ilic to complete the College’s program in respiratory therapy".
Here the court addresses JR jurisdiction to hear challenged public education decisions:[53] The Divisional Court has jurisdiction under ss. 2 and 6(1) of the Judicial Review Procedure Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. J.1 (the “JRPA”) to hear an application for judicial review of academic decisions relating to students of public colleges and universities: Filippova v. Whyte, 2024 ONSC 497 (Div. Ct.), at para. 40; see also Dickson v. Canadore College (2007), 2007 CanLII 68563 (ON SCDC), 287 D.L.R. (4th) 570 (Ont. Div. Ct.); Kahsay v. Humber College Institute of Technology, 2012 ONSC 138, 289 O.A.C. 1 (Div. Ct.).
....
[57] Reviewing courts are reluctant to interfere with the academic decisions of public colleges and universities unless there has been “manifest unfairness” in the procedure adopted, or the decision is unreasonable: see AlGhaithy v. University of Ottawa, 2012 ONSC 142, 289 O.A.C. 382 (Div. Ct.), at para. 31, leave to appeal to C.A. and S.C.C. denied, [2012] S.C.C.A No. 504; Filippova, at para. 43.
....
[77] As the respondents emphasize in their submissions, reviewing courts are reluctant to interfere with the academic decisions of public colleges and universities with respect to their students unless has been “manifest unfairness” in the procedure adopted or the decision is unreasonable: AlGhaithy, at para. 31. The degree of deference is particularly notable in cases relating to aspiring health professionals (including the recent Divisional Court decision in Filippova), where patient safety is a relevant consideration as part of the College’s public interest obligations.
|
