Ontario Superior Court of Justice (Divisional Court)
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1602
BEFORE: HACKLAND R.S.J., FERRIER and BRYANT JJ.
BETWEEN:
BARRETT KARAM Applicant
- and -
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA Respondent
COUNSEL: Paull N. Leamen, for the Applicant Alain Roussy, for the Respondent
HEARD: April 4, 2011 (Ottawa)
ENDORSEMENT
1The applicant seeks judicial review of a decision of the Senate Appeals Committee of the University of Ottawa, which held that he was not entitled to be awarded the degree of Bachelor of Commerce with Specialization in Accounting.
2The applicable academic regulation required that a student, in order to graduate with the specialist designation in accounting, must have a grade point average of at least 5.0 in the six best specialized accounting courses at the 3000 and 4000 level of the program. The Senate Appeals Committee rejected the applicant’s argument that he was entitled to have included in the specialized courses for calculation purposes, the course ADM 4311 - Strategic Management and upheld the decision of the business school that this course was not to be included for the purpose of determining the minimum grade point average. The inclusion of this course would have given the applicant a sufficiently high grade point average to allow him to graduate with the accounting specialty designation.
3The Senate Appeals Committee is a committee of the Senate of the University of Ottawa. The University of Ottawa is incorporated pursuant to the University of Ottawa Act, 1965, S.O. 1965, c. 137. The parties are agreed that the appeals committee in dismissing the applicant’s appeal, did so in the exercise of a statutory power of decision within the meaning of s. 2 of the Judicial Review Procedure Act.
4The applicant submits that his entitlement to be awarded a degree with accounting specialization is substantially a contractual issue, thus attracting a correctness standard of review. We disagree. We accept the respondent’s argument that a substantive decision of a university body on an academic matter (in this case, entitlement to be awarded a degree), if it is open to review at all, is to be accorded very significant deference. The standard of review is reasonableness.
5In our opinion, the record before this Court amply demonstrates the reasonableness of the respondent’s decision that the applicable university regulations justify the original decision of the business school, upheld by the appeals committee, that the ADM 4311 course was not an accounting specialization course and was not eligible for inclusion in the minimum grade point average calculation. Even if the applicant was correct in his position that the degree requirements, or explanatory information on the university website, was unclear or contained an element of ambiguity on this issue, it was for the Appeals Committee to rule on the applicant’s entitlement to be awarded the specialized degree, provided that its decision was reasonable. As noted, we are of the view that the committee’s decision was reasonable.
6This application for judicial review is therefore dismissed. Costs are fixed in the sum of $7,500.00 inclusive of H.S.T. payable forthwith by the applicant to the respondent.
Hackland R.S.J.
Ferrier J.
Bryant J.
Released: April 6, 2011
CITATION: Karam v. University of Ottawa, 2011 ONSC 2139
DIVISIONAL COURT FILE NO.: 10-DV-1602
DATE: 20110406
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
DIVISIONAL COURT
HACKLAND R.S.J., FERRIER and BRYANT JJ.
BETWEEN:
BARRETT KARAM
and
UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA
ENDORSEMENT
Released: April 6, 2011