Eric Blain

A student brought an action against her university alleging negligence, breach of contract, and deceit arising from alleged unfairness in grading and maladministration of two courses and her grade appeals.

The student sought recovery of course costs, punitive damages, deletion of grades, and injunctive relief for policy changes.

The university moved to strike the statement of claim on grounds that the court lacked jurisdiction over academic decision-making, the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, and the claims were statute-barred.

The court granted the motion and struck the claim without leave to amend, finding that the claims were simply indirect attempts to appeal academic decisions and failed to plead the necessary elements of the alleged torts or breach of contract.

The plaintiffs brought eight proposed class actions against various long-term care (LTC) home owners and operators in Ontario, alleging systemic negligence and gross negligence in their response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The court considered whether the claims met the certification criteria under section 5(1) of the Class Proceedings Act, 1992, particularly in light of the statutory immunity provided by the Supporting Ontario's Recovery Act (SORA).

The court certified six of the actions against the main corporate groups, finding that the pleadings disclosed a viable cause of action in gross negligence and that a class action was the preferable procedure.

However, the court dismissed the certification motions against independently owned homes and municipalities due to the lack of a collective enterprise and missing representative plaintiffs.

The plaintiff sought leave to amend his statement of claim to add allegations that the defendant insurer's underwriting policy constituted discrimination under the Human Rights Code, and to clarify facts and plead provisions of the Insurance Act.

The defendant opposed the Human Rights Code amendments, arguing lack of jurisdiction, untimeliness due to limitation period expiry, and prejudice.

The court found it had jurisdiction under Section 46.1 of the Code, as the Code claim was brought with an independent cause of action (breach of insurance contract).

It also determined that the limitation period for the Code amendments had not expired, as the plaintiff only discovered the relevant underwriting guidelines in March 2021, and in any event, declaratory relief sought under the Code has no limitation period.

The court found no uncompensable prejudice to the defendant.

Leave to amend was granted, and costs were awarded to the plaintiff.