Karen Jensen

The defendants brought a motion under Rules 21.01(3)(d) and 25.11 of the Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss an action brought by a physician and university faculty member challenging internal academic decisions concerning sexual harassment findings and denial of academic promotion.

The plaintiff sought declarations overturning internal university decisions and substantial damages based on various tort and Charter claims.

The court held that the action constituted an abuse of process because it attempted to re‑litigate matters that were properly the subject of university procedures and judicial review of academic decisions.

The court further found that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action, including because university officers were acting within their institutional roles, complainants in quasi‑judicial proceedings enjoy absolute privilege, and universities are generally not subject to Charter claims absent implementation of government policy.

The entire statement of claim was struck without leave to amend.

Following a successful motion dismissing a statement of claim as an abuse of process, the defendants sought substantial indemnity costs exceeding $177,000.

The plaintiffs argued that costs should be limited to $20,000 on a partial indemnity basis and contended that certain work related to alternate arguments on the motion should not be compensated.

The court held that substantial indemnity costs were appropriate due to unfounded allegations of serious misconduct against the defendants and the finding that the proceeding constituted an abuse of process.

While accepting the accuracy of the defendants’ bill of costs and the complexity and importance of the litigation, the court found the amount claimed excessive.

Costs were therefore fixed at a fair and reasonable level significantly below the amount requested.