|
Education - Universities. The University of Waterloo v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al.
In The University of Waterloo v. Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario et al. (Ont Divisional Ct, 2025) the Divisional Court considered an intervention leave motion by the 'Council of Ontario Universities', and here describes it's general role:[3] The Council consists of 20 publicly-assisted member universities, including Algoma University, Brock University, Carleton University, University of Guelph, Lakehead University, Laurentian University, McMaster University, Nipissing University, OCAD University, Ontario Tech University, University of Ottawa, Queen’s University, Toronto Metropolitan University, University of Toronto, Trent University, University of Waterloo, University of Western Ontario, Wilfrid Laurier University, University of Windsor, and York University.
[4] The Council serves as a voice for Ontario’s universities, focusing on areas such as funding, accessibility, innovation, and their role in Ontario’s economic and social development. It engages in legal and public policy matters affecting Ontario’s universities, offering sector-wide perspectives on systemic challenges. To this end, the Council states that it has intervened in significant legal matters as a friend of the court: See Michalski v. McMaster University, 2022 ONSC 2625, (addressed public health measures, institutional autonomy, and human rights); University of Toronto (Governing Council) v. Doe et al., 2024 ONSC 3755 (addressed campus safety, free speech under the Charter, human rights, and operational challenges related to encampments). . 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.
|
