Rarotonga, 2010

Simon's Megalomaniacal Legal Resources

(Ontario/Canada)

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW | SPPA / Fairness (Administrative)
SMALL CLAIMS / CIVIL LITIGATION / CIVIL APPEALS / JUDICIAL REVIEW / Practice Directives / Civil Portals

home / about / Democracy, Law and Duty / testimonials / Conditions of Use

Civil and Administrative
Litigation Opinions
for Self-Reppers


TOPICS


Education - Universities

. Filippova v. Whyte

In Filippova v. Whyte (Div Court, 2023) the Divisional Court considered a JR against an academic appeal body, the 'Senate Board for Student Appeals of McMaster University'.

Here the court considers the JR standard of review for academic decisions:
Standard of Review

[41] The standard of review in judicial review of discretionary decisions by academic institutions concerning academic matters is reasonableness: Ford v. University of Ottawa, 2022 ONSC 6828, at para. 52.

[42] For issues of procedural fairness, the standard is that of correctness: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24, [2014] 1 S.C.R. 502, at para. 79; Law Society of Saskatchewan v. Abrametz, 2022 SCC 29, 470 D.L.R. (4th) 328, at paras. 26-30. A tribunal is required to conduct its proceedings fairly. As outlined further below, the degree of procedural fairness required is determined by reference to all the circumstances of the case, including those set out in Baker v. Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 1999 CanLII 699 (SCC), [1999] 2 S.C.R. 817, at paras. 21-28.

[43] Courts are reluctant to interfere with the academic decisions of universities unless there has been “manifest unfairness” in the procedure adopted, or the decision is unreasonable: 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.
. Ford v. University of Ottawa

In Ford v. University of Ottawa (Div Court, 2022) the Divisional Court considered (and allowed!) a classic student dream, that of a judicial review of grades:
[52] The standard of review in a judicial review of discretionary decisions by academic institutions concerning academic matters is reasonableness: Kahsay v. Humber College Institute of Technology, 2012 ONSC 138 (Div. Ct.) at para. 4; Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v. Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 (CanLII), [2019] 4 SCR 653, at paras. 23-32.

[53] Where questions of procedural fairness are concerned, the process will either be fair or not. Standards of “reasonableness” or “correctness” do not apply to questions of procedural fairness: Bastien v. University of Toronto, 2021 ONSC 4854 at para. 44; AlGhaithy v. University of Ottawa, 2012 ONSC 142 (Div. Ct.) at para. 30, Vavilov at paras. 79-81, Mattar v. The National Dental Examining Board, 2020 ONSC 403 (Div. Ct.) at para. 47.



CC0

The author has waived all copyright and related or neighboring rights to this Isthatlegal.ca webpage.




Last modified: 05-02-24
By: admin